Friday, October 22, 2010

Ambedkar wanted to burn the constitution.. And he should have !

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 - 
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.


  1. 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!!

  2. Ambedkar 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".

    1. no1 did help to divide our ppl of India to britishers, cuz we wer already divided cuz of dat shitty manusmriti n our of d worst culture in d world...Its trueth n b matuar to face it...

  3. When 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.

    1. nowhere 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

  4. 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.........!!


Comments are welcome and are not moderated so as to allow free speech. 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.