RaGa, Priyanka and Modi: The Takeaways from Lok Sabha’s Constitution Debate

Undoubtedly, Indian parliament has a glorious history of debates and discussions. Engrossing debates were also seen in the ongoing ‘Constitution Debate’ on the occasion of completion of 75 years of the constitution. While the debate is in place in the Rajya Sabha, it concluded in Lok Sabha on Saturday (14th December) with PM Narendra Modi’s lengthy speech of around 2 hours.

As citizens we need to ponder what arguments the ‘people’s representatives’ in the parliament are proffering in regards of the rights and security of the people. It is also important to critically look at the ideas the leaders and the law makers have expressed during the debates as it encompasses all of us. The idea of India post independence is reflected in the constitution which enshrines a variety of rights for us at the same time binding everyone into certain laws.

The constitution underwent vigorous debates and before it came into being 75 years back after every Indian got to breath freely. The debates in present day context are an opportunity to review where we stand with respect to the visions of the constitution.

From Lok Sabha constitution debates this year, I want to highlight and discuss about three speeches, which were delivered by Rahul Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Priyanka Gandhi delivered her maiden parliamentary speech this time. The Wayanad MP was heard emphasizing on Unnao Rape case, Sambhal incident, Caste census and of course Adani. In her eloquent speech, Priyanka manifested an excellent oratory skill. Mrs. Gandhi audaciously spoke how the victim of Unnao derived the courage to fight for justice from the rights bestowed by the Constitution.

In a touching moment, Priyanka shared a story from Sambhal, recounting a meeting with the bereaved family of a tailor whose children were determined to fulfil their father's dream of education, despite his tragic death at the hands of police. Priyanka linked the hope of these children to the aspirations nurtured by the Constitution of India.

In totality, Priyanka appeared nuanced in presenting how the constitution ensures every citizen  to live with dignity, respect with rights of livelihoods and religious freedom. It is true that our constitution guarantees a dignified life to all of us and it is the duty of the government to deliver it. Priyanka skillfully could establish that in her speech with the examples she cited, where, according to her, the BJP government has grossly failed.

Coming to leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi’s speech, one thing can be said that he hit at the fundamentals while he brought Hindutva ideologue Sarvarkar into context. Rahul vociferously said Savarkar’s words about constitution—“The worst thing about the Constitution of India is that there is nothing Indian about it. Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshippable after Vedas for our Hindu nation and from which our ancient times have become the basis for our culture, customs, thought and practice. This book, for centuries, has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Today Manusmiriti is law.”

Rahul Gandhi said—“These are the words of Savarkar...Savarkar has clearly stated in his writings that there is nothing Indian about our Constitution. He has clearly stated that the book India is run by should be superseded by this book. This is what the fight is about.”

But do we, the ordinary citizens, at all need to know about Savarkar and what he said about the constitution? It is indeed important. Well, discussing in detail about Savarkar is beyond the scope of this article but one can surely search his works and his ideas.

What is important is to ponder about the context Rahul Gandhi mentioned Savarkar. Mr. Savarkar has been a cherished Hindutva ideologue and the Modi government often has highlighted his name on multiple occasions. Savarkar’s idea, as quoted by Rahul Gandhi that Indian constitution is devoid of any Indian element and Manusmriti is above it is something to think about. Manusmriti, the ancient scripture has been criticized to be a key structure of the caste system (four caste system) in India. The caste system in India is not only a divisionary system, but also a great source of exploitation of man by man.

The Indian constitution strongly disapproves casteism, rather it vows for social justice that ensures each and every citizen a life where he/she is free from any division and exploitation, be it social, religious  and economic.

Notably, Rahul Gandhi has been betting for a caste census in the country so as Priyanka. Rahul’s strategy to bring in Manusmriti and Savarkar is a tactic of an ideological attack on the government who is not agreeing to the caste census. Forget not, the general census due in 2021 is also pending yet.

However, PM Narendra Modi came out with an all out attack on Congress, while he hailed the constitution and its journey for 75 years. Modi said that India is the greatest democracy of the world and the world looks at us for our unique journey.

However, his stunning criticism of Congress was a redundant narrative, which is the first constitutional amendment in 1951 when Jawaharlal Nehru was the PM, even before the first general election was held in independent India.

Jawaharlal Nehru and First Amendment of Constitution

The first constitution amendment, as Modi has referred to on multiple occasions is the amendment to the provisions of ‘Freedom of Speech’ that the constitution had originally. The first amendment saw article 19 modified. The original provision was to ensure freedom of speech undeterred, which Nehru led government changed. The amended form provides freedom of speech in a restricted manner.

Article 19 (1) (a) could now not override any law in existence or legislated by Parliament to impose “reasonable” restrictions on the freedom of speech, if it disturbed public order, incited people to commit an offence, endangered the security of the State or jeopardised friendly relations with foreign States. Whether the restrictions imposed were indeed reasonable would be determined by the judiciary on a case-to-case basis.

In defence of the proposed changes, Nehru gave the example of Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with what may be called communal discord or the preaching of enmity between communities. Nehru argued that, if in the name of freedom of speech, there is preaching of communal hatred, then the amendment, if it is passed, can deal with it. Nehru opined that fundamental right should not bring grave threat to the state.

First Amendment and Supreme Court Verdicts:

The first amendment also has to be seen in the light of two Supreme Court verdicts. The Supreme Court of India came into existence in 1950 (26th January).

The first verdict is striking down the pre-censorship on the magazine ‘Organizer’, close to RSS. The pre-censorship was imposed under East Punjab Public Safety Act, 1949.

The second verdict was lifting the ban on another magazine named ‘Cross Roads’ printed and published by Romesh Thapar. Mr. Thapar was the brother of noted historian Romila Thapar and was a known leftist ideologue. The ban on Cross Roads was imposed under Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949.

After lifting the bans imposed by the Congress (interim) government, Nehru became conscious about restraining the freedom of speech, however, the amendments were supposed to be scrutinized by judiciary for its reasonability.

Modi’s Attack on Nehru is clearly a response to what the Congress has said repeatedly—that BJP has paralyzed freedom of expression in the country.  However, one question raises here. Why has Modi government not tried to change the first amendment? Indian constitution has seen amendments over 100 times in its 75 years of journey, so why was it difficult for Modi?

Modi has not reversed Nehru’s amendment rather there are instances of rampant curtailing of freedom of expression. One prominent is the internet ban that the country has seen during Modi’s tenure. Should we not question whether this act stands contradictory to fundamental rights of citizens?

Anuradha Bhasin Vs Union of India, 2020

In January 2020, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India, said that access to internet is fundamental right. The case is also interesting as it is related to Kashmir. The case was in connection with internet blockade in Jammu and Kashmir for several months in the view of revoking Article 370.

In August 2019, the Article 370 was abrogated that provided special status to Jammu and Kashmir and since then the entire region was under internet blockade till the Supreme Court judgement came in. The petitioners challenging the blockade include Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad along with Anuradha Bhasin of Kashmir Times newspaper. The petitioners argued that the blockade violated their fundamental right to speech and expression and right to move freely enshrined by Article 19 of the Indian constitution.

In response to the petitioners, solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the Apex court that the misuse of social media by Pakistani military and separatists as well as political leaders made it necessary to curb the internet.

In the hearing the Apex court, in its 130 page ruling said that freedom of speech and expression along with the freedom to carry on trade and profession through the internet is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.

The judgement also spelt that the reasons of blockading of internet access should be said with specifically mentioning the ‘unavoidable circumstances’ that need such an action. Extending, the ruling said that the reasons for the ban should be in accordance to Article 19(2) and 19(6) of the constitution. These articles empower states to impose restrictions on freedom of expression and speech. Such prohibitory orders are subject to judicial review as per the court ruling.

The clause 2 of Article 19 which empowers states to impose restrictions on freedom of speech that include the integrity and sovereignty of India, security of the state, incitement to an offence, public order etc. Notably, this was the amendment that Nehru’s government brought in, which Narendra Modi has criticized.

Worth mentioning that the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) also recommended that access to internet should be declared a fundamental right by all the countries in 2016.