From the Sublime Civilisational Genius Of Dr Ambedkar To The Ridiculous Rhetoric Of Rahul Gandhi

When Rahul Gandhi spoke in the Parliament regarding the nature of the unity of India, he crossed a Lakshman Rekha. He questioned the constitutional legitimacy of India as a nation.

This didn't seem as much out of ignorance as out of malice towards the nationhood of India. It was not an unintended mistake that Rahul Gandhi made on the floor of the house when he stated that the Constitutions does not define India as a nation but as a union of states.

All one needs to do is recollect how a major controversy was created in 1998 with the same group of politicians and sections of media. The Hindu and Outlook went to town with stories of 'saffronization of history' because the wordings in the original Memorandum of Association of ICHR's aims were changed from 'rational' to national. Arun Shourie, in his book on eminent historians, has brought out in detail how the entire controversy was fake.

Digging into the old files Shourie showed the following:

While the eminent historians, media and politicians were proved wrong factually and their falsehood exposed, they succeeded in their mission in the sense that they established in the public mind the thought that there exists an antagonistic relationship between the 'national' and the 'rational'. So, in effect, the national direction to the writing of history runs counter to the rational direction.

In 2022, Rahul Gandhi is playing the same game, but in a more dangerous manner.

Here, in effect, India is a nation only by mechanistic treaty. An artificial, antagonistic binary has been created between nation and union of states. Anyone addressing India as a nation and anyone addressing India as union of states will be viewed with mutual suspicion.

The fact is India has always been a nation and a union. It is unity in diversity and diversity rooted in unity. It is an organic conception of nation and as we will see, this unique conceiving of a nation goes back to the Vedas.

Mahatma Gandhi indeed made it clear in his Hind Swaraj and Jawaharlal Nehru did the same in his Discovery of India.

However, the thoughts of Babasaheb Ambedkar are the ones that are crucial for us in the context. This because of the assertion that 'the Constitution of India does not define India as a nation'.

Dr Ambedkar, the chief architect of Indian Constitution, had written most eloquently about the cultural basis of India's nationhood. In his 1916 Colombia University thesis he had written:

However, to him caste was creating divisions and relations of 'graded inequality' within this cultural unity.

It is in this context that Dr Ambedkar brought in his principle of fraternity. In his classic Thoughts on Pakistan, Dr Ambedkar hinted at this as the very spiritual essence of nationhood. He wrote:

This 'sense of kinship, in the feeling of being kindred' is the principle of fraternity.

In the triune principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, it is on fraternity that Dr Ambedkar focused much. He had pointed out that he derived this principle neither from political science nor from French Revolution but from religion, specifically Buddha.

Now let us turn to the document - the original document of the preamble of the Constitution of India. Here, we find that the word 'Nation' is tied to the principle of fraternity. Nation is capitalised in the original. The eighty one words long original 1950 Constitution Preamble reads:

While this preamble was based loosely on Nehru's 'Objective Resolution', its deeply meaningful aspects come from Dr Ambedkar. Particularly 'Fraternity.'

Dr Ambedkar had pointed out already that national unity has to be spiritual and this spiritual feeling is the principle of fraternity. And in the preamble he connected the principle of fraternity to the unity of Nation. Later, in his works on Buddhism, he considered the term' fraternity' as inadequate and opted for the term 'Maitri'.

While he connected Maitri to Buddha's teaching, one needs to ponder over the fact as to why he chose the Sanskrit Maitri over the more explicitly Buddhist Pali derivative Metta.

Maitri comes from Mitra, the Vedic Deity.

Many experts on ancient Indian religion have pointed out the continuity of Vedic Mitra, and the mitra-function with its later development in Buddhism. Famous Dutch Indologist Jan Gonda (1905-1991) explains:

One can see clearly how the qualities 'benevolence, active goodness and friendliness' along with Rta actually makes fraternity very well part of this realm of qualities.

He points out how of the two times the term ahimsa occurs in Vedas, one is in association with Mitra. He is a dear friend who practices 'ahimsana' (Rig V.64.3) and according to Satapatha Brahmana, 'Mitra injures (himsati) and is injured by no one, for Mitra is every one's friend' (V.3.2.7).

According to Dr Wiltshire, Varuna and Mitra 'epitomise the twin requirements of true ksatriya status: 'sovereignty' and 'conformity with reality or natural law' and points out that these are 'exactly the two principles which the Buddha as dharma-raja embodies.'

So the term fraternity, associated with the unity of the Nation in the preamble of the Constitution, is in turn, deeply and holistically connected with Maitri, which through Vedic Mitra is associated with Rashtra-Rajya conception of ancient India.

Maitri is the civilizational democratic impulse that correlates with fraternity. It also makes one marvel at the civilisational genius of Dr Ambedkar who associated fraternity with 'the Nation.'

This also gels with the national rejuvenation mission dear to Dr Ambedkar's heart. A fallen and fractured India, an India where the invaders and proselytisers trampled upon the culture of India and the rights of Indians, where Indians divided by castes could not unite as modern socio-political milieu necessitated them to do - that India needs to unite and religion based on the ancient Vedic-Buddhist values should become the vital force that should infuse life and energy into that new India.

The structures and vested interests arising out of social stagnation should be done away with - not through hatred and violence but through democracy and education.

Hence the preamble or the heart of Constitution harmonises the Nation and the union of states. On the other hand, Rahul Gandhi tries to create an artificial rift with a further flourish of deceit.

Deception, ignorance, sold with rhetoric flourish and melodramatic 'holier than thou' posturing that Rahul Gandhi displayed in the floor of the Parliament could be ignored. Perhaps he is still traumatised by the people of India rejecting his dynastic divine right to rule claim. But what cannot be excused is the blatant lie that the nation of India has no constitutional validity.