India that is not a Hindu Rashtra

In more ways than one, J. Sai Deepak takes the reader backwards in time as his book ‘India that is Bharat’ unfolds. Navigating through the three sections on Coloniality, Civilisation and Constitution, requires patience and indulgence as new theories and undefined concepts are introduced at frequent intervals. The book seeks to establish the foundational facts for recasting the Constitution of India from a new decolonial perspective and Deepak advances his case drawing upon selected views and cherry-picked theories to suit his narrative. While the book references various sources of literature, there has been no attempt to deal with alternative theories which have been scientifically and empirically established. When questions start to build up in a reader’s mind, Deepak suggests – rather helpfully – that this is ‘Book 1 of the Bharat Trilogy’. To commit to writing two more books that require significant historical research around the impact and influence of “European colonial consciousness” on India is commendable. But this cannot be done without dealing with the shortcomings of the present book in review. 

Overview of the Book

India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States 

The first Article of the Constitution of India instructs ‘we the people’ to pay attention to the composition and constitution of India, which is made up of several States and territories. In this book, Deepak has used the first four words of the Article without referring to the six that follow. In my opinion, the import of the Article is to establish the territorial jurisdiction of India. However, Deepak maneuvers, rather smartly, the Article to suit his narrative to distinguish “India”, which is influenced by European coloniality from “Bharat” which represents “Indic consciousness”. By using words from the first Article, the reader is also immediately drawn to compare the present book with another book written by eminent lawyer and jurist Nani Palkhiwala titled ‘We, the People’. But, the real intent of the title lies perhaps in the ‘civilisational imperative’ of the author to rewrite the Constitution of India from a decolonial perspective and the use of the four words is an ironic tribute to the present-day document which is vitiated by the influence of European / Christian influences. 

It is imminently apparent that Deepak’s strengths, obviously, lie in interpreting legal nuances surrounding the tension between The State and Temple through the conceptual lens of secularism. Deepak comes into his own in Chapter 4 of the book, where he takes the reader through various historical documents to strongly state the case against the present-day understanding of the word ‘secular’. Deepak argues what we currently believe to be ‘secular’ is actually ‘Christian secular’. He proceeds to set up a case that the values of religious toleration and secularism were built based on theological framework that was conceptually conceived of during Protestant reformation movement. At the close of this Chapter, the book expects the reader to wonder if liberalism and equality can be built on ‘non-Christian foundation’ and attempts to convince us that the Constitution should be the primary subject of decolonial scholarship. 

As the book sets the reader up to anticipate what a decolonized Constitutional text would look like, Deepak fails to shift gears and instead labours on Christian Colonial Consciousness. This leads to much meandering around the concepts of Indic Consciousness, some vague attempts to explain the role of proselytization in shaping Indian education systems and culminates in an incoherent attempt to showcase India (‘Bharat’) as a civilization state. In all, the Section on Civilization ends with a failed attempt to portray Bharat civilizational glory and instead ends up as little more than a futile initiative to advance an oft repeated and poorly substantiated myth that the caste system was a British Raj creation. 

In the final Section of the book on Constitutionalism, a significant portion deals with the events in the British Parliament leading up to the passage of the Government of India Act 1919, which served as a foundational document to the Government of India Act 1935 and ultimately the Constitution of India. Deepak rejects the notions of civilization prevalent during the British Raj for having been vitiated by having emanated from “Christian European coloniality”. It is here that Deepak lays down his most far-reaching premise: that the reforms undertaken under colonial rule are wrong and the reforms that need to be undertaken must be carried out with decoloniality being the basis. Deepak further suggests that “Bharat’s institutions, whether executive, legislative or judicial, too would wear decolonial hats each time they preside over Indic traditions, faith systems and institutions”. 

Critique of the Central Ideas

Deepak fails to provide a definition of Indic Consciousness, nor does he come close to describing the concepts that are central to his book. In today’s India, where there is a substantial intermixing of cultures, belief systems, ethnicities, and languages, how can there be a common consciousness? The central premise of the book – i.e., the existence of a common Indic Consciousness at pre-colonial time is also wholly unsubstantiated and relies wholly on Vedic beliefs. As such, Deepak has not considered and, much less, not dealt with various traditions including “Lokayata tradition, a materialist school of thought” which refutes Vedic theories of knowledge and conduct [Periyar, A study in political atheism by Karthick Ram Manoharan, Orient BlackSwan 2022]. Tamil literature, including Silapathikaram and Tirukural, going back to 5^th century CE provide rich historical context for the evolution of Tamil consciousness culminating in Tamil cultural assertion in the 19^th century. 

While Deepak draws strength from writers such as Anibal Quijano that concepts such as ‘modernity’ and ‘rationality’ were introduced by the colonizer for their own gain and were weaponized against the colonized. This view, in the Indian context and especially that of the development of the Dravidian Movement and the Self-Respect ideology, fails to appreciate the extent of influence of leading thinkers such as Socrates, Rousseau and Voltaire. Karthick Ram Manoharan, in his book, explains how Socrates emphasized that “the ability to reason was the key feature of humanity” and “helps us to be moral”. Building on these thinkers, Periyar “considered Pagutharivu, reason, to be the attribute that separated humankind from animals”. Periyar’s pagutharivu was “empiricism, the view that a concept is true only if it can be verified by experience or experiment, and historicism, the view that values suited for one age will not be suited for another” [Periyar, A study in political atheism by Karthick Ram Manoharan, Orient BlackSwan 2022].

India that is Bharat is engages selectively in scholarship and, consequently, is replete with citations from hand-picked authors who support the propositions laid out in the book. Given how the book is positioned as a seminal contribution to decolonial thinking, it does little assess and examine the entire length and breadth of literature. Even the references taken from leading works such as Castes of Mind by Nicholas B. Dirks or the pamphlet published by Lala Lajpat Rai are selectively interpreted so long as it suits the narrative advanced by the book. Any school of thought which may be considered inconvenient or undesirable to the cause of ‘decoloniality in action’ has been neglected or by-passed. 

Decoloniality just a pretext for creation of a Hindu State / Secular vs Christian Secular – Sabarimala review and HR&CE cases – ERP is for all religions

Conclusion of Critique

Manuraj Shunmugasundaram is an advocate practicing, predominantly, before the High Court of Madras. He is also a spokesperson for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

Link to the Article: https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/india-not-hindu-rashtra