Finance Minister Calls Out Congress for Historical Amendments During Constitution Anniversary Debate
In a heated and historic debate marking the 75th anniversary of India’s Constitution, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman delivered a pointed critique of the Congress party, accusing it of attempting to erode constitutional values through a series of amendments. The debate, held in the Rajya Sabha, saw Sitharaman highlighting various instances from history, specifically targeting past Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru for initiating changes that stifled free speech.
Sitharaman’s remarks come at a time when the integrity of democratic institutions in India is under scrutiny, reflecting widespread concerns about governance, free speech, and the evolution of constitutional amendments. Her statements resonate amid ongoing discussions about the role of past governments in shaping the present political landscape and are particularly timely as the country seeks to reaffirm its democratic values.
The Finance Minister’s comments specifically referenced the first Constitutional amendment made in 1951, which she claimed aimed to suppress freedom of speech. By referencing historical events and public figures, she painted a picture of a Congress party reluctant to tolerate dissent and critical voices. Sitharaman’s assertions regarding the legacy of Nehru and subsequent Congress-led governments indicate a significant challenge to the party’s historical narrative.
The History of Constitutional Amendments: A Tool for Power?
During her address, Sitharaman illustrated her arguments with poignant examples. She highlighted the case of renowned poet-lyricist Majrooh Sultanpuri and actor Balraj Sahni, who were imprisoned for expressing dissent against Nehru’s leadership in 1949. “Majrooh Sultanpuri recited a poem against Nehru, leading to his arrest,” she said. “This exemplifies the intolerance towards free speech during that era.” Her anecdotes not only served to criticize Congress but also underscored an ongoing theme of fear surrounding freedom of expression in India.
In a historical context, Sitharaman pointed to various instances of censorship and suppression of dissent under Congress rule, including the banning of significant works such as Michael Edwardes’ *Nehru: A Political Biography* and the 1975 film *Kissa Kursi Ka*, both of which are perceived as critiques of the then-government. Furthermore, she noted the banning of Salman Rushdie’s *The Satanic Verses* in 1988. “This trend of restricting freedom of expression predates 1949 and has persisted through the years,” she emphasized.
Moreover, Sitharaman discussed the amendments enacted during the Emergency period and subsequent years that were designed to protect powerful interests rather than enhance democratic values. “The amendments were not aimed at strengthening democracy but rather at shielding those in power,” she stated emphatically. As per the report by[The Hindu](https://www.thehindu.com), her speech has reignited discussions around the delicate balance of power and the rule of law in India.
The Finance Minister did not shy away from discussing controversial amendments, including the 39th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 that specifically targeted the electoral processes. This amendment allowed the elections of key offices, including the President and the Prime Minister, to be shielded from judicial scrutiny. “For the sake of maintaining power, significant constitutional changes were enacted even before judicial outcomes,” Sitharaman noted.
Responses from the Opposition
In response to Sitharaman’s remarks, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge defended the history and actions of the Congress party, highlighting the need for acknowledgment of the Party’s contributions to India’s independence and democratic evolution. He criticized the current government’s actions, stating that “the BJP has never truly respected the Constitution,” warning of dangers posed to democratic values under their leadership.
Kharge’s remarks included references to historical events that showcased India’s strength on the international stage, such as the pivotal role played by Indira Gandhi in the Liberation of Bangladesh. He urged the BJP to reflect on such moments of pride in India’s history and implied that their criticism of Nehru is unfounded given the historical context.
Furthermore, Kharge’s comments hinted at an emerging narrative of the BJP’s management of current socio-political issues, drawing attention to unrest in neighboring nations like Bangladesh. “The situation there calls for introspection,” he remarked, suggesting that the focus should be on protecting human rights and minorities rather than criticizing the past.
A Reflection on India’s Democratic Principles
As India commemorates the 75th anniversary of its Constitution, the interplay between past and current governance remains a critical point of discussion. The ongoing debate serves not only as a reflection of past grievances between parties but also as a moment to assess the future trajectory of India’s democracy. The exchange between Sitharaman and Kharge emphasizes the continued relevance of constitutional values in shaping national identity.
The discourse surrounding the Constitution is indicative of broader concerns about free speech, governance, and the accountability of political leaders. With the rising tensions and the call for civil liberties, these discussions reiterate the necessity for political parties to engage meaningfully with democratic principles.
In this politically charged atmosphere, it is evident that the anniversary of the Constitution is not merely a reflective event but a catalyst for ongoing dialogue about the future of democracy in India. The interplay of criticism and defense among political leaders highlights the importance of preserving constitutional integrity while aspiring to foster a more inclusive political environment.