RSS opposed Constitution, grandkids trying to uphold it: Tagore
The Indian Constitution, which is the foundation of the country’s democratic framework, has been a topic of discussion and debate in recent times. The Constitution, which was formulated and implemented in 1950, is a document that enshrines the principles of equality, justice, and liberty. However, it appears that not everyone has always been in agreement with the principles and values enshrined in the Constitution. In a recent statement, Congress MP Manickam Tagore criticized the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for their stance on the Constitution.
Tagore pointed out that the RSS had opposed the Constitution at the time of its formulation because it did not align with the Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu text that outlines the social and moral codes of conduct. The Manusmriti is a controversial text that has been criticized for its regressive and discriminatory views on women, Dalits, and other marginalized communities. By opposing the Constitution and advocating for the Manusmriti, the RSS was essentially promoting a vision of India that was based on a rigid and oppressive social hierarchy.
Tagore’s statement is significant because it highlights the contradictions and paradoxes of the RSS and the BJP’s current stance on the Constitution. On the one hand, the RSS and the BJP claim to be champions of Indian nationalism and patriotism, and they often invoke the Constitution and its values to justify their policies and actions. On the other hand, their history and ideology are rooted in a rejection of the Constitution and its principles. As Tagore pointed out, the grandchildren of the RSS are now trying to uphold the Constitution, which is a remarkable irony.
The RSS’s opposition to the Constitution is well-documented. In the 1950s, the RSS was critical of the Constitution because it did not reflect the organization’s vision of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu nation). The RSS believed that the Constitution was too secular and did not adequately reflect the cultural and religious values of Hinduism. The organization’s leaders, including its founder K.B. Hedgewar, were critical of the Constitution’s emphasis on equality, justice, and liberty, which they saw as Western values that were incompatible with Hindu tradition.
In contrast, the Constitution’s architects, including Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, and Mahatma Gandhi, were committed to creating a document that would enshrine the values of democracy, equality, and justice. They believed that the Constitution should reflect the diversity and pluralism of Indian society, and that it should provide a framework for governance that was based on the principles of secularism and socialism.
The RSS’s opposition to the Constitution is not just a matter of historical record; it also reflects the organization’s deeper ideology and values. The RSS is a Hindu nationalist organization that believes in the superiority of Hindu culture and the need to establish a Hindu Rashtra in India. This ideology is rooted in a rejection of the values of diversity, pluralism, and secularism, which are enshrined in the Constitution.
In recent years, the RSS and the BJP have attempted to rebrand themselves as champions of the Constitution and its values. However, this rebranding exercise is based on a flawed assumption that the organization’s history and ideology can be erased or rewritten. As Tagore pointed out, the RSS’s history stands as a testament to its opposition to the Constitution and its values.
The implications of the RSS’s opposition to the Constitution are far-reaching and profound. If the organization’s ideology is based on a rejection of the Constitution’s values, then it is difficult to see how it can claim to be a champion of Indian democracy and patriotism. The RSS’s attempts to rebrand itself as a champion of the Constitution are essentially a form of doublespeak, which is designed to deceive and manipulate public opinion.
In conclusion, Tagore’s statement highlights the contradictions and paradoxes of the RSS and the BJP’s stance on the Constitution. The organization’s history and ideology are rooted in a rejection of the Constitution and its values, and it is difficult to see how it can claim to be a champion of Indian democracy and patriotism. The RSS’s attempts to rebrand itself as a champion of the Constitution are essentially a form of doublespeak, which is designed to deceive and manipulate public opinion. As Tagore pointed out, the grandchildren of the RSS are now trying to uphold the Constitution, which is a remarkable irony that reflects the organization’s deep-seated contradictions and paradoxes.
About the Author
