It should be evident to anyone following politics that our constitution, although well-intentioned, severely lacked in prudence and an even more severely lacked foresight. If the parliamentarians today lack any concern for propriety or sense of justice then our founding fathers and those who framed the constitution are equally to blame for it. Starting with Nehru right down to Rajiv Gandhi our constitution has been manipulated very frequently. Over 100 amendments in about 60 years. In contrast the US Constitution in over 200 years has undergone around 27 amendments.
In the episode from a Rajya Sabha discussion of 1953 it is clear Ambedkar wanted more powers to Governors. If he were alive today he would have burnt those "words" as well as the constitution of which he is supposedly the architect.
I am quoting below some excerpts from an article by Arun Shourie (The Manu of our times -
http://shourie.bharatvani.org/articles/ambedkar.htm)
-----------------------
From Rajya Sabha September 2, 1953
"Now, Sir," the member said, "we have inherited a tradition. People always keep saying to me : 'Oh, you are the maker of the Constitution.' "My answer is I was a hack. What I was asked to do, I did much against my will."
He ridiculed the "notions of democracy" the country had acquired because of its hatred of the British, like the notion that to leave any discretionary powers with the Governor is undemocratic. "We have inherited the idea that the Governor must have no power at all, that he must be a rubber-stamp," the member explained. "If a minister, however scoundrelly he may be, if he puts up a proposal before the Governor, he has to ditto it. That is the kind of conception about democracy which we have developed in this country," he continued.
"But you defended it," interjected a member from Rajasthan.
"We lawyers defend many things....," said the member. Several members were on their feet protesting.
He proceeded to ask the Home Minister : were our Constitution to give discretionary powers to Governors on the lines of the Canadian Constitution, how would it become undemocratic ? The Home Minister said his answer was that the member had been responsible for drafting the Constitution. The member shot back, "You want to accuse me of your blemishes?"
He returned to the point a little later in his speech : "Sir," he said, "my friends tell me that I have made the Constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody...."
The member ? B.R. Ambedkar, of course!
----------------------
If the conduct of H.R. Bharadwaj in the recent Karnataka assembly incidents and many such governors is any indication Ambedkar would have had to eat his words all over again. I am convinced Ambedkar would have indeed burnt this present constitution of ours and sought a complete rewrite all over again.
Friday, October 22, 2010
11 comments :
Comments are welcome and are now being moderated due to excessive spam on older posts. Genuine comments by readers will not be blocked. However, comments that are off topic, abusive, defamatory or slanderous may be deleted. Comments disclosing personal information of individuals/entities will be deleted.Comments appearing here do not imply endorsement by author of this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Quite obviously, the Indian constitution was written by vested interests in the congress party, including Nehru, who created enough loopholes in the so-called democracy and election process that they could stay in power without any threat. It is just a copy of the colonial empire of the British. The laws are from 18th and 19th century, all drafted by the British for a slave country and the constitution itself is based on westminster principles and has no relevance to the Indian culture and society. Everything is seen through the glass and prism of the west. Its like we Indians looking at our own culture and values from the prism of the west. Is this fair? Is this constitution suitable for India? Well, the congress party thought it best as it gave them an opportunity to rule India for ever!!
ReplyDeleteAmbedkar was deperate to burn the constitution. It enlightens me of the fact that i must respect and follow my constitution, as historical fact reveal that he was not an Indian at heart, rather one from the army that helped bitishers to "divide and rule".
ReplyDeleteno1 did help to divide our ppl of India to britishers, cuz we wer already divided cuz of dat shitty manusmriti n our culture....one of d worst culture in d world...Its trueth n b matuar to face it...
DeleteWhen the cultural system itself is a futile, When the cultural system itself is a futile, worthless and superstitious system, there is nothing wrong in adopting western laws which is built on justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. According to the Indian (Hindutva) culture, prescribed in the laws of Manu Smirthi, every Indians are slaves to the Brahminism. Moreover, the culture described in Manu Smirthi and others, so called Hindu scriptures, are pro-life and barbaric cultures. India’s growing interest on new amendments and altering the constitution clearly reflects the fascistic (Hindutva) approach.
ReplyDeletenowhere in manusmriti is written abt slavery to brahminism. Yes it is written not to kill brahmins n that killing a brahmin is paap... coz as per brahma... brahmins were supp to be teachers... guru... n one learns from a guru. Killing him/her would mean killing education. Why do people read from todays perspective... If you reading a book... read it as per those times... when it was made... when it had a diff kinda society. Manu smriti is a good book which outlines norms for each n every person! the good part about hindu culture is it doesnt shy away from evolving... we reform ... we make changes... and we develop as per modern times... in contrast to other cultures which have a fixed notion from times immemorial
Delete@Anonymous - Before blaming Manusmriti and Brahminism, you have to understand that, in the past i.e. during the time of Manusmriti, caste was not decided only based on one's birth, but based on the deeds. That's the reason people like Valmiki and Vedavyas became Brahmin rishis by their knowledge and deeds inspite of being born in low caste and Ravana though born as Brahmin became Asura later on y his deeds. So, your knowledge on Brahminism is very little.
DeleteOver the period of time some corrupt people in the society twisted Manusmriti's principles to their advantage. They removed the deed factor and added birth factor to the Four varnas defined by Manu. This was the biggest scam done by our ancestors. It could have been done by Kshatriyas or Brahmins or both of them jointly to make sure their future generations are secured in terms of societal status. If you are sensible enough and have even a little logical reasoning, you can easily understand that without the help of kings nothing would have been possible during those times. So, I blame kshatriyas to all the social inequality and chaos we are seeing today. No matter how great our kings were starting from Chandragupta Maurya till the ones ruled in 19th century, they all failed to remove this birth based caste system and destabilized our social system.
What is Brahmanism? You know only one book in Hinduism, i.e. Manusmriti and on that basis you base your outlandish argument? Really some ignorants are sometime really funny.........!!
ReplyDeleteThe answer Dr Ambedkar gave (in his own words) to why he said he would rather like to burn the Constitution is given below WITH REFERENCES. ..
ReplyDeleteOn 19 March 1955, when the Fourth Amendment Bill was being discussed in the Rajya Sabha, Dr Anup Singh, a Rajya Sabha member from Punjab, asked Dr Ambedkar,
“Last time when you spoke, you said that you would burn the Constitution.”
DR AMBEDKAR'S REPLY IS WORTH REMEMBERING
He said,
"Do you want a reply to that?
I would give it to you right here. My friend says that the last time when I spoke, I said that I wanted to burn the Constitution."
" Well, in a hurry I did not explain the reason. Now that my friend has given me the opportunity, I think I shall give the reason."
"THE REASON IS THIS...:
We built a temple for god to come in and reside, but before the god could be installed, if the devil had taken possession of it, what else could we do except destroy the temple?
We did not intend that it should be occupied by the Asuras. We intended it to be occupied by the Devas. That’s the reason why I said I would rather like to burn it"
===========================
MY QUESTION:
Why isn't the above answer, given by Dr Ambedkar himself, quoted by his critics ?
What Babasaheb Ambedker meant (& also said) was that it is irrelevant how good or bad the constitution is drafted if the people in charge are of low moral standards (implying that the current people in government are not fit to run the country or protect it's constitution).
Most of us have been fooled into believing that Dr Ambedkar really wanted to burn the Constitution. The brainwashers distort reality by not giving the full facts.
can someone provide any valid link to verify the speech of B. R. Ambedkar where he said he'll be the first person to burn it ?
ReplyDeleteI visited a lot of website but I think this one has got something extra in it , Elia & Ponto
ReplyDeleteAmazing this hit it at the dot we will post to Bebo and also Fb was great https://www.gpwlaw-mi.com/
ReplyDelete