Spirited debate on perceived threats to Constitution

A spirited debate unfolded on the resilience of India’s Constitution and the perceived threats it faces in contemporary politics at Legally Speaking: 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogu, event organised by iTV Network.
D. Raja, Member of Rajya Sabha from the Communist Party of India (CPI), and Rakesh Sinha, former Member of Rajya Sabha from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), presented opposing views on the Constitution’s current state, political influence, and the challenges it endures.
D. Raja opened his argument by asserting that the Constitution is indeed under threat, drawing attention to the tone of discussions during the Lok Sabha elections. He warned that certain political leaders were fostering the idea that the Constitution could be replaced, which he viewed as a direct challenge to India’s democracy. Raja cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s prescient words from January 26, 1950, the day India became a democracy, where Ambedkar had cautioned that India’s democracy was fragile and could easily be undermined.
Raja stressed that Ambedkar had firmly opposed the idea of transforming India into a theocratic state, stating, “If India becomes a Hindurashtra, it will be the biggest calamity for the country.” Raja emphasized the importance of safeguarding the Constitution to preserve democracy, warning that any shift away from its foundational principles could lead to instability.
In response, Rakesh Sinha argued that the concept of a “Hindurashtra” had never been discussed in the constituent assembly, pointing out that the Constitution had been built on a foundation of secularism and democracy. Sinha accused the Communist Party (CPI) of undermining the Constitution through its actions and historical alliances with the Congress Party. He criticized the CPI for trying to weaken the Constitution’s moral foundation, particularly with proposals like “one nation, one election,” which he argued would dilute the Constitution’s core values.
Sinha also cited instances of constitutional violations during the Emergency and under Congress rule, including the curbing of press freedom. He noted that the inclusion of terms like “socialism” and “secularism” in the Constitution was contentious, with Ambedkar opposing them because they could compromise its original spirit.
A significant portion of the debate was dedicated to comparing India with other countries. D. Raja rejected comparisons between India and China, emphasizing that India’s democratic ideals and diverse population make it unique. He contended that India’s democratic structure could not be equated with China’s authoritarian regime.
Sinha, however, defended India’s secular identity, explaining that Hinduism, despite being the majority religion, had faced oppression in many parts of the world. He argued that India’s secularism was rooted in its majority Hindu population, contrasting it with the theocratic states of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Sinha also addressed concerns about press freedom, noting that statements from the Home Minister about using force to silence dissent mirrored the press curbs seen during the Emergency. He cautioned against the manipulation of secularism for political gain and emphasized the importance of understanding India’s historical context.
D. Raja raised concerns about the rights of Dalits, tribal communities, and women, questioning whether the current government was genuinely committed to upholding equality as promised by the Constitution. He also criticized the Congress’s relationship with billionaire George Soros, linking it to the persistence of untouchability in Indian politics.
The debate between D. Raja and Rakesh Sinha highlighted the contrasting perspectives on the Constitution’s state in India today. While Raja expressed deep concerns about the erosion of democratic values and secularism, Sinha defended the Constitution as a robust mechanism for governance, constantly challenged by forces that seek to undermine its core principles.

The discussion underscored the ongoing relevance of the Constitution and the need for a continuous dialogue to protect its integrity amid shifting political pressures.