Discovery and Bharat- Christian Constitution in a Hindu Nation

Email

Whatsapp

Facebook

Pinterest

Twitter

Copy link

The modern European nation-state emerged out of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, whose purpose was to end a decades-long war within Europe. A key principle was the Christian-inspired central control by a government. This has also been the basis for colonial rule around the world with the purported goal of civilizing the natives to become fit to rule themselves in accordance with this Westphalian standard. The League of Nations (1919) implicitly assumed this Western concept as the criteria for a people to become ready for independence. Therefore, former colonies tend to be poor replicas of their masters.

The problem of universalizing this is that nation-states in Europe were invariably the result of wars based on religion and ethnicity, whereas the Bharatiya idea of rashtra was not the result of military conflicts, nor a top-down imposition of homogeneity and central control.

The Christian Churches were the nexuses around which modern European nation-states emerged, whereas in the dharma system, the Brahmins were disallowed from becoming Kshatriyas, hence the clear separation of the spiritual-ritual domain from that of governance. The raja had his choice of ishta-devata, but this was never imposed upon society as the exclusive ishta-devata for everyone to follow by force. Nor were the wars among kings motivated by the ambition to spread a particular ishta-devata over others. This diversity of faiths stems from the separation of Kshatriyas and Brahmins into separate domains of authority, a subject of vibrant debate in the Mahabharata. And the much-maligned Manu-Smriti was never imposed by a king as the "law of the land" in the sense the Bible was imposed in European society.

The Indian freedom fighters failed to implement these seminal points of difference in the Constitution. Instead, the British-documented, "The Government of India Act 1935," became the basis for the Constitution of India. In fact, by some estimates, approximately 80 percent of the Indian constitution mirrors that colonial document intended to rule India in accordance with the British agendas for governance. The present volume rightly points out that India's Constitution was largely a copy-paste from American, French and British systems of governance.

What this approach sacrificed was the dharmic principle of decentralized power that should start bottom-up from the villages-the true foundation of swaraj. Bharat's ancient tradition has espoused pluralism of jatis/communities rather than individualism as in the West. The British colonial state was replaced by an Indian substitute, white people by brown sahibs, but this was not true swaraj. Though Gandhi was worshipped as the father of the nation, his ideals were sidelined by the mostly Anglicized Indian leaders craving to mimic a Western nation-state.

As an example of this lack of grounding in indigenous systems, Sanskrit was sidelined. Traditional knowledge systems were not revived in the education systems whose thrust continues to be like the British agenda of training mediocre workers. Western social sciences continue to be taught in Indian schools and universities rather than reviving the liberal arts of places like Nalanda.

Western social sciences and humanities are what I call a synthetic unity, i.e., with divergent roots for various disciplines, and at times in mutual conflict, thereby requiring "inter-disciplinary" approaches to force them to work together. On the other hand, the entire spectrum of Indian disciplines has a common DNA of Sanatana Dharma, and hence all fields are integrally unified. This distinction between synthetic and integral unities reflects the respective metaphysics of the two systems-the Vedic idea of an integrally unified cosmology is a signature quality.

The traditional emphasis on responsibilities was replaced by the West's focus on individual rights. Progressing out of poverty was seen as being dependent on Westernization at all levels. These are the birth defects of the Indian nation-state based on its Constitution. The very notion of "minorities" enshrined in the Constitution is itself flawed when seen in the context of Indian social thought.

breaking news" flashed on the television set at my friend's house. As we sur surfed channels, it was apparent that almost all of them were ready to break the very same news. From the synchronous behaviour of the media, it was obvious that the news to follow was very important.

This went on for almost half an hour, and the tension was indeed palpable. And pray why not? The news in question was the impending judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the contentious Sabarimala case. It may be recalled that a group of women petitioners had approached the apex court to enforce their constitutional rights to enter the Sabarimala temple. For the uninitiated, from time immemorial, the temple would not allow fecund women to enter the hill where the temple is situated, much less the sanctum sanctorum. Naturally, this was a defining moment in the history of the modern liberal democratic republic of India. Put pithily, the question was: Do such women have a constitutional right to enter the temple notwithstanding the age-old custom? Or does the historical practice of prohibiting them from worshiping at the shrine override the constitution? Ultimately, the news was aired. By a 4:1 verdict, the Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the views of the women petitioners and saw merit in their argument. The constitution prevailed over age-old traditions.

The "breaking news" broke me internally. Being an ardent devotee of the temple, I always rationalised that my visits to the temple were mandated by the divine. Strangers, acquaintances, family members or friends would somehow conjure ways and means of ensuring my visit to the shrine, at least once a year. As millions of devotees made their way on their pilgrimage to the temple, which is atop a hill in a forest with scarce infrastructure, one could not but admire the extraordinary belief of the devotees in disregarding the challenging terrain. If faith could move mountains, this was it. Equally, the restraint of fecund women devotees was admirable. Several of them simultaneously started a "ready to wait" movement, which was demonstrative of their beliefs. To me, these age-old civilisational beliefs of devotees of both sexes were sacrosanct and inviolable. I believed India's Independence and subsequently the Constitution guaranteed all this. Despite being a student of law and a keen observer of Indian politics, I realised at that moment that it was naiveté on my part to have assumed so. Naturally, I was incensed with the judiciary for disregarding the individual and collective beliefs of these devotees. As I read the judgement in full, I realised the intensity of the Constitutional carnage on this civilisation in the name of law, morality and Constitution. Subsequently, as I analysed the judgement with a calmer mind, my initial anger at the judiciary turned against the Constitution, which I believe compelled the judges to act as they did. As I read the relevant parts of the Constitution, my anger at the Constitution instantly evaporated and shifted toward the founding fathers of the Constitution. I held the framers of our Constitution as the villain of the piece. Finally, as I read the Constitutional Assembly debates, I realised that the fault lay elsewhere. I decided that this required a serious exposition on the subject. It was here that the idea of this work germinated.

Doctrine of Discovery

But why "christen" this work as "Discovery"? Like many ideas that dominate our thinking, "discovery" is a religious concept that is alien to this ancient land. The origin of this doctrine can be traced to Christendom, wherein it has been used for centuries to justify Christian colonial conquests, more particularly since the medieval times. The doctrine advanced the fundamental idea that European people, their culture, and their religion were superior to all others. One of the earliest usages of this doctrine in a legal document can be traced to a treaty between Spain and Portugal in 1494. The Treaty of Tordesillas, named after the city in Spain where it was entered into, originally divided the "New World" of the Americas between these two powers.