Guest post by T R Ramaswami
What exactly is the reason for the hullabaloo raised over the cartoon? It is nothing but symbolic hypocrisy like the one on the auction of Gandhi’s possessions. The more important question that no one has the courage to ask is this – If Ambedkar is the so-called “Father” and “Architect” of the Indian Constitution as many would want it to be claimed, did he do a good job? Then let them explain why he was such a poor visionary. We have had 100 amendments in less than 65 years. That‘s a far better strike rate than that of Gayle, Afridi or Sehwag. Contrast this with the less than 30 amendments in 230 years in the US Constitution. It is evident that Ambedkar’s name has been used as a vote gathering technique while his Constitution has been mauled and raped. The question is – when will the Dalits realize that they have been taken for a ride and that their poverty and consequent illiteracy has enabled this? The sucking up to vote bank politics of the Congress compelled that he be given the title of “Father of the Constitution” with a more than deserved share of the credit. If however the contrary is true, then is it not correct that the Congress governments, under whom most of the amendments were enacted, did so only for narrow political gains, thus destroying Ambedkar’s seminal work? It would be interesting to hear the responses of the Congress and the supporters of Dr. Ambedkar. If Ambedkar’s reputation has to be restored then let the Constitution be restored to its 1950 glory and let us run the country on that basis.
Since we have been correcting history/political science text books to suit various ethnic, social and political needs, there is one correction that needs to be made. History books tell us that Nehru, a leader of the Congress “fought” for independence. But there is no information on what dates and which places he did so – and what “fighting” he really did. Making provocative speeches (which every two-bit neta does today) and sending long memorandums to the Viceroy do not count. Could the text books please carry this information? Also if he was such a great freedom fighter, then why was he not sent to the Andamans where the real freedom fighters were sent? Why was he sent to jails with all comforts where he could letters that became books and on which royalty was earned later? I am told that the only fighting that Nehru only indulged in hand-to-hand ‘combat’ – with the Viceroy’s wife on the lawns of the present Rashtrapathi Bhavan. History books also tell us of the great crime Nathuram Godse committed in assassinating Mahatma Gandhi. But they do not tell us that he committed an even greater crime – he shot the wrong man. Who should he have shot – the Great Freedom “Fighter”. History books should also tell us why the Congress that claims to be a Gandhian party did not dissolve itself as desired by the Mahatma. Will the HRD Minister answer all these questions so that our censored knowledge of history is complete? Perhaps the above is the reason why many say ‘istri’ for history. They know that inconvenient facts have been istrified.
CONSTITUTIONAL ISTRIFICATION OF HISTORY
Guest post by T R Ramaswami
1 reply on “CONSTITUTIONAL ISTRIFICATION OF HISTORY”
158Personally I’m impressed by the qautily of this. Generally when I come across these sort of things I like to post them on Digg. This article probably won’t do well with that crowd. I’ll take a look around your site though and submit something else.