Yet another foreign trip, yet another set of bizarre observations and yet another round of political humiliation. It is a standard script that the Gandhi scion follows every single time. This time around, he was speaking at the ‘India at 75’ event at Cambridge University.
To be fair, Rahul Gandhi wasn’t really grilled by the interviewer, Dr Shruti Kapila. It seemed that the Gandhi scion was in friendly territory at the Cambridge event and could have finally avoided any serious gaffes. Still, he managed to make not one but two embarrassing observations. Firstly, he spoke about China’s “idea of prosperity to the countries around it” at a time when his own nation is locked in a military standoff with the Chinese PLA. But a lot more problematic were his utterances about the concept of “nation” and the “Union of States”.
Rahul described the word “nation” as a Western concept. He also said, “Think of India like a Europe that is politically and economically united — that is what India achieved 70 years ago. The RSS see India as a geographical India. For us, India comes alive when India speaks and dies when India goes silent. What I see is going on is a systematic attack on the institutions that allow India to speak …”
To be precise, it isn’t the first time that Rahul Gandhi has disputed India’s national identity. Earlier, he had made similar remarks in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of India’s Parliament. The Congress leader had argued, “India is described in the Indian Constitution as a Union of states and not as a nation. One cannot rule over the people of a state in India. Different languages and cultures cannot be suppressed. It is a partnership, not a kingdom.”
Also Read: Congress’s Chintan Shivir Resembled a Reality TV Show. Its Effects Have Already Vanished
This is probably where Rahul Gandhi is coming from. He or someone in his team has perhaps read Article 1 of the Constitution of India that states, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” And from here follows the next argument- India is not a nation but only a “Union of States”.
To start with, the argument fails on account of logic and reason itself. Just because a legal provision states that India is a Union of States, it doesn’t mean that India’s identity as a nation gets disputed. However, politicians do have a habit of quoting the Constitution to construct baseless arguments. Remember, only a few years ago, a particular political leader had said that he won’t chant ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ because the Constitution doesn’t compel him to do so.
Now, it may be time to make one thing clear- a Constitution is an arrangement of governance to describe the structure and functions of different organs of the government, as well as the relationship of the citizens with the State. No Constitution would state what you should chant or what the status of your country is. In fact, the Constitution of a nation pre-supposes the existence of that nation.
There are however bigger fallacies with Rahul Gandhi’s denial of India’s nationhood. Rahul Gandhi or perhaps one of his advisors read Article 1 of the Constitution. However, if the Gandhi scion took a look at the first page of the Constitution, he would find the Preamble to the Constitution of India which, inter alia, speaks of assuring “the unity and integrity of the Nation.” Yes, the Constitution does talk about India as a “nation”.
In fact, if Rahul Gandhi made only a little more effort, he would end up at Article 51A (j) of the Constitution, that is, the Fundamental Duty of every citizen “to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation…” The Constitution of India, therefore, does use the expression “nation” at least two times. This should dispel much of the confusion about India’s nationhood.
Interestingly, both the references to the “nation” were actually added by the 42nd Amendment that was pushed through during the Emergency days of the Indira Gandhi government. Rahul Gandhi is therefore showing signs of ignorance on a subject closely associated with his grandmother’s political life.
This is however just the tip of the iceberg. Addressing the confusion around the expression “Union of States” would reveal even deeper fallacies in the attempts to deny India’s nationhood.
There was actually some confusion surrounding this expression even at the time of the making of India’s Constitution. However, at that time, it was being misperceived as an attempt to dilute Federalism and create a unitary bias.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, had then clarified, “The Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in a Federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. The Americans had to wage a civil war to establish that the States have no right of secession and that their Federation was indestructible. The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation or to dispute.”
So, the expression “Union of States” implies that India is a nation divided into States only for administrative convenience. It is established that India is a ‘holding together’ federation that divides its administrative authority between the States and the Centre, unlike the ‘coming together’ federations in which independent States come together to form a larger entity. The division of States on a linguistic basis too was a mere political compulsion and doesn’t represent any cardinal differences.
The sense of integration and nationhood in India is stronger than in countries like the US and Australia. To compare India with a politically and economically united Europe, therefore, smacks of sheer ignorance. After all, there can be no Brexits from India and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee himself had made it clear.
From a political perspective, ignorant remarks about India’s nationhood could lead to temporary and marginal gains by invoking sub-nationalistic impulses. However, Rahul Gandhi’s denial of India’s nationhood itself is delusional and evasive. It ignores well-established realities rooted in the country’s Constitution and political foundations.
Akshay Narang is a columnist who writes about international affairs and developments in the defence sector. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the stand of this publication.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment