Parliament: Why the Opposition Should Continue Talking About the Constitution

Modi's government has displayed pathological hatred for the secular tenets of the constitution.

New Delhi: Congress MP Rahul Gandhi shows a copy of the Constitution of India as he takes oath as a member of the House during the first session of the 18th Lok Sabha, in New Delhi, Tuesday, June 25, 2024.

(Photo: PTI)

The furore that was raised over the future of the Indian Constitution in the run-up to the general elections refuses to die down even as the 18th Lok Sabha assembles to embark upon a tumultuous five-year journey.

The INDIA bloc leaders, holding copies of the Constitution in their hands, protested in front of the Gandhi statue in Parliament a day before its commencement. In a response that is rather characteristic of Narendra Modi’s political persona, the prime minister said that those who imposed the Emergency have no right to profess their love for the Constitution.

Why did Modi bring the Emergency into the contemporary political discourse? Of course, the fact that the nation was observing the 50th anniversary of its imposition came in handy. But, there are other reasons as well.

Modi Brings Up the Emergency

The 18th Lok Sabha is seeing a revival of the Congress party. The INDIA bloc led by the grand old party is now a formidable force within Parliament with the BJP having failed to attain majority on its own.

It may be recalled here that the Congress and the INDIA bloc made a significant dent into BJP’s strongholds including Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, using the fear of an alleged threat to the Constitutionally mandated reservations (if Modi was voted to power for a third time). Modi’s criticism that the Congress party and its alliance would transfer the benefits enjoyed by SCs, STs, and OBCs to Muslims failed to convince the electorate.

By bringing up the Emergency, Modi wants to keep the Congress, especially the Gandhis, in the dock over what the party did half a century ago, which the present generation has no direct connection to. He aims to divide the INDIA bloc and isolate the Congress.

After all, the Opposition parties are divided over their assessment of the Emergency. The erstwhile members of the Janata Parivar like the SP, the RJD etc, and the CPIM vehemently opposed the Emergency and cannot defend it even now, despite the current alliances. Instead, they can at best accuse Modi of being a bigger threat to the Constitution in the form of an alleged undeclared Emergency.

This Parliament will see more members of the Nehru-Gandhi family with Rahul taking over the mantle of the Leader of the Opposition. His political stature has substantially risen. In the key state of Uttar Pradesh, for instance, the CSDS-Lokniti post-poll study reveals a higher number of voters preferring Rahul over Modi as the prime ministerial candidate.

Thus, the prime minister feels that the Emergency attack is necessary. It is a reminder to the Opposition that the Modi juggernaut has not lost its force and vigour.

INDIA Bloc Responds With the Constitution

In a bid to preserve Opposition unity, the INDIA bloc, in response, chose to attack Modi as an affront to the Constitution, perhaps, as a clever ploy to consolidate its gains tasted during the elections. But, how far is the Opposition justified in calling the Modi regime a threat to the Constitution?

It is true that the Sangh Parivar has significant ideological aversions to several fundamental tenets of the Constitution, evident from the speeches and the writings of its ideologues. However, for practical purposes, the Sangh and its affiliates also owe their allegiance to the Constitution.

Still, the BJP's actions, especially those of the Modi-Shah duo, are at variance with the ideals and values of the Constitution. Though the Congress does not have any ideological hatred towards its principles like the saffron brigade, the actions of its previous governments, like the Emergency, do not bode well.

Modi's government, however, has displayed pathological hatred for the secular tenets of the constitution. It has openly advocated to drop the word secular from the Preamble knowing fully well that the Supreme Court, in its famous Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala verdict, ruled out the amendment of the basic structure of the Constitution, even by Parliament. The vice president of India has argued for tampering with the Preamble in the name of parliamentary sovereignty.

The pretext is that the word 'secular' was a later day addition, that too through the 42nd amendment, enacted during dark days of the Emergency. But, the apex court, in the historic SR Bommai verdict, has already clarified that the said amendment has only made explicit what was implicit till then.

The Hindutva philosophy is an antithesis to the secular republic. The BJP ideologically adheres to centralisation, thereby obliterating the diversity of India. The One Nation One Election, one tax, one religion, one language etc, are nothing but the ideological manifestations of BJP and its political mentors.

The autonomy of states has significantly eroded during the last decade of Modi's rule. Governors are let loose on Opposition-ruled states. The centre does even hesitate to encroach upon the legislative domain of states, as is evident from the enactment of the farm laws.

In an abject assault on the linguistic diversity of India, a person no less than the home minister called Hindi the soul of India. Such linguistic hegemony, coupled with a theocratic agenda, poses a serious challenge to the idea of India. The executive's accountability is compromised with bills passed without debate and choking of the Opposition space with the mass suspension of MPs. Dissent has been criminalised independent institutions throttled.

It is not that such attempts were not made in the past. But the present attack on the Constitution emanates from an ideological project and this should not make the secular partners of the NDA oblivious to this impending threat, notwithstanding whether or not the Congress party has a moral right to defend the Constitution with the historical baggage of imposing the Emergency.

(Prof K Nageshwar is a senior political analyst, faculty member of Osmania University, and a former MLC. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)