Akbar Responsible For Cultural Invasion Of India: Rakesh Dwivedi Says Differing With Justice Rohinton Nariman Will Be Violation Of 'Basic Structure'
Senior Advocate Dwivedi criticised Justice Nariman's attempt to glorify Mughal emperor Akbar and his endorsement of the Basic Structure doctrine.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi has sharply criticised the recent comments of former Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman, glorifying Mughal emperor Akbar. Rakesh Dwivedi also strongly attacked the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution, which Justice Nariman has always endorsed, warning how its interpretations and applications could be dangerous.
After explaining how the concept of Secularism is being interpreted by some and considered a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, Rakesh Dwivedi said, "So if you depart from what Nariman ji is saying, it will be a violation of the Basic Structure".
Justice Nariman had recently said that the portrayal of Akbar in school textbooks as a tyrant is a distortion. He had said that Akbar had made enormous contributions to our “composite culture” and that it was our duty “to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture”, which, if violated by “distortion of history”, citizens can approach the Courts.
Rakesh Dwivedi responded to this while speaking on the topic, the 'Doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution', organised by the Supreme Court unit of the Adhivatka Parishad.
He said in his speech in Hindi, "There is a lot of talk about Akbar these days. Former Judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman has said that there is secularism, basic structure and composite culture in our Constitution, but Akbar is being called a terrorist and tyrant in the changed educational syllabus".
He continued, "Those who attacked and invaded us, whether Mughal or British, we highlight their good deeds, glorify them. It is a strange practice. They are invaders. Akbar conducted a cultural invasion of India. He made Persian the official language. Is that a virtue? He imposed Jiziya(tax on non-Muslims) for half his term, then removed it. He carried out religious conversions. Killed many of our people in battles across the country. Are these virtues?"
Dwivedi said, "He brought Din-i Ilahi. It is the source of secularism and composite culture. How many of you have read about Din-i Ilahi? In the committee that Akbar made for Din-i Ilahi, out of 31 people, 30 were Muslims. Not those who converted to Islam, but Muslims who came from Persia with him, and one Birbal. Where was Din-i Ilahi implemented in India?"
Dealing with what is highlighted by those who glorify Akbar, he said, "Every ruler, after committing atrocities and exploitation, when he wants to run the administration, he (accommodates) some people. Then you say some marriages happened... This is absolutely frivolous. Is this what will determine? That he made some people (non-Muslims) his Generals? Thousands of Temples were destroyed, and then he gave donations to a few Temples!"
Coming back to the Basic Structure doctrine, he said, "Therefore, I say if Secularism is made part of the Basic Structure, which Secularism? If you consider Secularism of the Constitution, then you will see in Articles 25 and 26, the State should be neutral, should not support any religion. That is the principle of equality".
He then explained that the Secular aspects of religion can be regulated as per the Constitution. "Secularism is not that you give a higher status to followers of any one religion. Secular aspects of the religion of others will be regulated, but not theirs. That is not Secularism", he said.
“If we understand Mr. Nariman’s point, then it is necessary to praise Akbar. Without that, there is no Secularism. How far will we go? Now make it a basic structure", he said, addressing a packed audience earlier this week at the Auditorium in the Prime Minister's Museum & Library, New Delhi.
Responding to the statement of the former judge that the Supreme Court should form a committee of experts to look into the alleged distortion of history, Dwivedi said, "If we speak against Akbar, his (Justice Nariman's) suggestion is that the Supreme Court should make a committee of experts. Now, which experts will be part of it? Those who consider Akbar to be great, place him alongside Samrat Ashok, will be in the expert committee".
Coming back to Basic Structure doctrine, he said, "These are the basic structures which are tied around the neck of the Parliament so that the Parliament cannot amend the Constitution".
The critique expanded to broader questions of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), “If the Parliament wants to implement the Uniform Civil Code, it is not the Uniform Religion Code, it is a Uniform Civil Code. The principles of divorce will be the same for everyone. Don't Muslim women deserve equal protection of the law? How is it possible without the Uniform Civil Code? Uniform Civil Code is a principle of equality flowing from Article 14. Even though it is mentioned in the Directive Principles, it is implicit in Article 14. ”
"So if you depart from what Nariman ji is saying, it will be a violation of the Basic Structure. If you change the name of Akbar Road to Samrat Shivaji Road, then it will be a violation of the basic structure!", he said.
The audience applauded when he suggested that the name of the Lodi Garden should be changed to Subhash Chandra Bose Garden, while retaining the tomb of Lodi there. He said that would be secularism.
He said that people may call his speech "fundamentalist". He said that it is fundamentalist, because he believes that "it is fundamental that all that is good in our civilisation should be revived and restored".
After speaking about the destruction of Temples by invaders, Rakesh Dwivedi warned that secularism cannot mean that there cannot be restorative justice and that a challenge to the Places of Worship Act could be blocked by invoking the basic structure doctrine.
His comments culminated in a forceful denunciation of the judiciary's interpretation of Article 124, which governs the appointment of Supreme Court judges: “The biggest conspiracy, and the biggest damage caused by the Basic Structure doctrine was when Article 124 was turned on its head.”
He said that Lawyers should start thinking and not necessarily even agree with him. "Dont agree with me, but think about it. Our Vedas say- dare to think, dare to question and dare to answer. Dont accept anything only because I say it, Justice Rohinton Nariman says it or the Supreme Court says it," he said and explained how the Supreme Court has turned Article 124 on its head through its interpretations.
He concluded by appealing for a national, democratic debate on the validity and limits of the doctrine, “It is time to test Kesavananda Bharathi (judgment) and it should be discussed… Whether the Supreme Court agrees or not, it should be discussed at the national level”.
In a follow-up speech, Senior Advocate and the President of the Supreme Court unit of the Adhivakta Parishad, Vinay Navare, said, “Why do Courts not have faith in the people of India? ....The people of India saved this democracy in 1977, not the Supreme Court.”
Referring again to Justice Nariman and Justice Vishwanathan’s support of the Basic Structure doctrine, he said, “I remember… Justice Vishwanathan said it’s not flawless, but there’s no alternative… That cannot be the logic. It must be tested – not just in Courts, but in the forum of the people of India.”
He said that India suffered in past due to an unhealthy practice of permitting only one community (Brahmins) to interpret the Vedas. "Now this group of some 31 people will tell what it (Basic Structure) means, and people's representatives will have no power. Let us not commit the same mistake that the Indian society has suffered for a few centuries. The wisdom of some unelected people who occupy office in a manner... we have a lot of things to say about it, but that is not the topic; it is such people who are occupying the offices of the Supreme Court of India who are going to decide what the basic structure of the Constitution is. This is problematic", the Senior Advocate said.
In April this year, the then Vice President of India, Jagdeep Dhankhar, had come down heavily on Justice Rohinton Nariman for his remark that Jallianwala Bagh like massacre will become a distinct possibility if the Basic Structure Doctrine is done away with.
