Controversial politician Sudheendra Kulkarni has started a new controversy by claiming that Jawaharlal Nehru contributed more to the drafting of the Indian Constitution, not Dr B R Ambedkar. The leftist news outlet ‘The Quint’ published a piece by Sudheendra Kulkarni, a former aide to Indian Prime Minister Bharat Ratna Atal Bihari Vajpayee, titled “Who Contributed More to the Constitution and Its Preamble? Nehru, Not Ambedkar” in which he tried to attribute the creation of the constitution to Indian’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru rather than Dr B. R. Amdedkar who is usually credited for its drafting.
Notably, advisor to former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and close associate of Rahul Gandhi, Satyanarayan Gangaram Pitroda, popularly known as Sam Pitroda, also endorsed the article in his social media post. However, he deleted it later.
In the article, Sudheendra Kulkarni expressed his displeasure with the manner in which it has permeated the national psyche to laud Dr Amdekar for the constitution. He bemoaned, “Dr Ambedkar is the Maker and Giver of the Constitution has now gained in the national consciousness of Indians the same degree of verité as ‘The sun rises in the east.’ Why? Because every leader of every political party says so. Prime Minister Narendra Modi says so. Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati, Nitish Kumar, M K Stalin and Arvind Kejriwal all of them say so. It is taught in school and college textbooks. Mass media outlets also mention it whenever there is a reference to the Constitution. So how can common citizens, who are not and who cannot be expected to be students of history, think otherwise?”
He claimed that historical facts paint a different picture. He stated that the majority of the information is derived from two of the most knowledgeable books on the topic, “Indian Constitution: Conflicts and Controversies” (2010) by former Lok Sabha Secretary General Subhash Kashyap and “The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation” (1966) by American historian Granville Austin, as well as a few facts are taken directly from the works of Dr Ambedkar.
Referring to the contribution of the first Law and Justice Minister of independent India as “secondary” and calling him an ardent adversary of both Congress and Pandit Nehru, he declared, “When any unbiased person examines these facts, they will find that (a) Dr Ambedkar’s contribution to the content of the Constitution was secondary, even though he made a seminal contribution to its final drafting, (b) the greatest contribution to the content and making of the Indian Constitution came from the Indian National Congress (of which Dr Ambedkar was a bitter opponent throughout his life) and, especially, its tallest leader after Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru.”
He further reiterated his displeasure with the Gandhi scion’s glorification of Dr. Ambedkar. “It is sad to see Rahul Gandhi and other ‘politically correct’ Congress leaders themselves wrongly eulogising Dr Ambedkar as the sole architect of the Constitution, thereby suppressing and denying Nehru’s central role in its evolution. Every other political party, again out of ignorance and/or ‘political correctness,’ has strengthened this narrative.”
Additionally, he targeted the Bharatiya Janata Party for their ‘villainization’ of Pandit Nehru and wrote, “Amplification of this narrative of course suits today’s BJP because its leaders have an un-hidden agenda to portray Nehru as a villain responsible for almost every problem facing the nation. Constant maligning of Nehru has become an essential part of the propaganda toolkit of the ruling party because that is the only way they can project Modi as the greatest among all the prime ministers of India.”
He further claimed, “Who moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly and elucidated its underlying principles on 13 December 1946? It was Nehru, a hero of the Freedom Struggle and one who spent more than nine years in jail. Whom did the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr Rajendra Prasad, ask to respond to the debates and complete the discussion before its adoption? Nehru. His two speeches on the Objectives Resolution are among the greatest speeches by any Indian leader, ranking next only to his ‘Tryst with Destiny’ oration.”
Sudheendra Kulkarni alleged, “The Congress Working Committee (CWC) had set up the Congress Experts Committee (CEC) in July 1946, with Nehru as its chairman. And it was CEC ‘that set India on the road to her present Constitution.’ (Austin) Indeed, his association with the Congress’s efforts to prepare a constitution for free India had begun at least two decades earlier. He had assisted his father Motilal Nehru in preparing (in 1928) what came to be known as the ‘Nehru Report.’ It enunciated Fundamental Rights and other provisions in the future constitution.”
He mentioned various excerpts from the aforementioned books in support of his argument after which he highlighted Dr. Ambedkar’s relatively minor contribution. He noted, “Dr Ambedkar did participate in the discussion on the Objectives Resolution but as an ordinary member, along with others, in the 308-member Constituent Assembly. But he was not its architect, nor did he make any material contribution to its contents. Indeed, he called it “very disappointing and replete with pedantry.”
He pointed out, “Furthermore, one key thought he suggested for inclusion in the Objectives Resolution was not only rejected, but it did not find a place even in the final text of the Constitution. What was that thought? Dr Ambedkar wanted the Objectives Resolution ‘to state in most explicit terms’ that India would implement ‘nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land’ in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country.”
He stated that Dr Ambedkar disagreed with the Constituent Assembly’s actual formation and quoted the latter’s presidential address at a meeting of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation on 6 May 1945I in which he proclaimed, “I must state that I am wholly opposed to the proposal of a Constituent Assembly. It is absolutely superfluous. I regard it as a most dangerous project, which may involve this country in a civil war.”
“People always keep on 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. Sir, 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,” Sukhir Kulkarni cited Dr Ambedkar’s address in the Rajya Sabha on 2nd September 1953.
Sudheendra Kulkarni asserted, “Anyone who reads the contents of this memorandum, which Dr Ambedkar wanted to be accepted as the Constitution of India, would ask one question: how could he have expected the Constituent Assembly to accept his patently impractical and basically divisive ideas? As a matter of fact, none of the provisions suggested by him were incorporated into the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949.”
He conveyed, “In 1932, Mahatma Gandhi went on an indefinite fast to protest against the British government’s move to extend the provision of ‘separate electorates’ (which had been granted to Muslims and other religious minorities) to the Depressed Classes. He contended that the Depressed Classes (who are commonly known as Dalits now) were an integral part of the Hindu society, and hence the British move was a ploy to divide the Hindu society. The fast-unto-death undertaken by Gandhiji, who was then locked up in Yerawada Jail in Poona, triggered nationwide concern as well as support, which forced Dr Ambedkar to give up his demand. Consequently, an agreement known as the ‘Poona Pact’ was reached between Gandhiji’s supporters and Dr Ambedkar. As a result of this pact, the move to grant ‘separate electorates’ to the Depressed Classes was dropped and, instead, at Gandhiji’s suggestion, a much larger number of reserved seats were created for them within the general category.”
He accused Dr Ambedkar of going back on his words and conveyed, “Even though Dr Ambedkar was a signatory to this agreement in 1932, he backtracked on it in 1947 and again raised the demand for ‘separate electorates’ for SCs in the memorandum he submitted to the Constituent Assembly. The Constituent Assembly flatly rejected this demand. Indeed, it ended ‘separate electorates’ for Muslims as well. Instead, as stipulated by Mahatma Gandhi in the Poona Pact, seats were reserved for SCs and STs in Parliament and in state legislatures.”
Furthermore, he presented additional instances to bolster his claims and added, “The essence of the Preamble and most other defining features of the rest of the Constitution came from the Congress mainly from Nehru, but also from Patel, Prasad, Azad, and other leaders,” before concluding with “Now ask yourselves: Kya yah Dr Babasaheb ka diya hua Samvidhan hai? Is Dr Ambedkar the Father of the Indian Constitution?”
