Constitutional Faith or Constitutional Idolatry? Insights from recent mass protests in India

Arun K. Thiruvengadam

Azim Premji University

1. Introduction 

In his recent book, Brian Jones defines ‘constitutional idolatry’ as “drastically or persistently overselling the importance and effects of written constitutions.” Jones prefers ‘political constitutionalism’ (in which legal primacy rests in majoritarian decision-making institutions such as Parliaments) to ‘legal constitutionalism’ (where courts invariably become final arbiters of a written constitution and wield enormous, arguably undemocratic power). He argues that “even though in particular contexts constitutions have been influential in the delivery of freedoms and rights, these venerated documents are often the false gods of the legal and political realm.” Jones argues that constitutional idolatry “devalues politics and the political process”.   

In this post, I argue that constitutional faith, rather than ‘idolatry’, can at times counter the effects of populist, authoritarian forms of constitutionalism – especially variants fueled by religious beliefs that are now ascendant or dominant in every inhabited continent. In doing so, I seek to engage with the following questions posed in the editors’ introduction: “how much should we value [written] constitutions; what is their relationship with state identity and culture; and what should citizens know about these fundamental texts?”. In particular circumstances, as India’s recent mass protests illustrate, faith in simple ideas about constitutions and constitutional values, as well as literacy about the constitutional text, can play an important role in enabling groups to provide stiff resistance to populist regimes.   

2. The December 2019 CAA protests and Constitutional Faith 

Starting in mid-December 2019, India witnessed a flurry of public protests, where its storied Constitution was a central element. The immediate trigger for these events was an amendment to the Indian law on citizenship, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (“CAA”). Rushed through both Houses of Parliament by Prime Minister Modi’s ruling coalition government within a single week in early December 2019, the CAA was justified by its supporters as a humanitarian measure to protect persecuted minorities from three of India’s neighbouring states. Disputing this, several academics and civil rights groups noted that the CAA explicitly injected a religious dimension into issues of citizenship by excluding Muslims. Niraja Jayal argued that “as minorities are rendered second-class citizens by the insidious use of the law, India stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice where not only its constitutional values but also its moral compass are at grave risk.” The constitutional value most at risk was ‘secularism’, which is enshrined in the Preamble to India’s Constitution.   

The passage of the CAA cemented the impression that Prime Minister Modi’s BJP government – which came to power in 2014 and was re-elected in 2019 – was attempting to rewrite the constitutional compact in India by aggressively pursuing a Hindu Right agenda. Elected on the plank of delivering ‘development’, the Modi government failed to deliver on the economic front thanks to disastrous policies such as demonetization and the introduction of a General Sales Tax (GST).  It then pivoted to jingoism and nationalism to win re-election in May 2019.  

The Modi government had started pushing back against secularism as a constitutional value early in its first term, but those attempts were tepid compared to what followed in 2019. In July 2019, claiming to be acting in favor of the interests of Muslim women, the Modi government enacted a law criminalising Triple Talaq. This was not just superfluous, but was also counter-productive to the interests of Muslim women. Moreover, in August 2019, through a constitutionally dubious procedure, Article 370 of the Constitution was abrogated. This measure effectively downgraded Kashmir (India’s only Muslim-majority state) from a state to a security zone. Additionally, the push back against secularism seemed to be coming from the judiciary as well. In November 2019, the Indian Supreme Court, under the stewardship of a tainted Chief Justice, fast-tracked a case relating to a long-pending religious dispute between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Ayodhya. In its judgement, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in favour of the Hindu majority, which was widely seen as problematic. In this context, the passing of the CAA in December 2019 was seen as part of a larger trend undermining secularism and fueling discrimination against Muslims in particular.    

In the aftermath of the enactment of the CAA, protests against it emerged quickly, often spontaneously. India’s Muslims first turned out in large numbers and gathered at public places across major cities. On December 15, 2019, the police forcefully entered Jamia Millia University in Delhi where students were protesting, and detained many of them.  As a reaction, on the very next day, Muslim women began a vigil in Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, which lasted for several months. In solidarity with the Jamia students, student groups all across the nation began meeting in public places. Over time, these meetings consisted of artists, civil rights activists, film-makers, important civic personalities and academics, as well as ordinary citizens of all denominations who voiced their unease with the injection of religion into matters of state. As videos show (see here and here) the numbers were staggering: nearly every major Indian city across nearly all 28 States witnessed protests involving several thousand people. BJP governments responded with extreme force against peaceful protestors across several states, drawing international condemnation from the foreign press, and semi-official as well as official bodies.   

At protest sites, people brandished copies of the text of the Constitution.  The portion of the Constitution that was often read in unison by crowds of thousands was also its shortest and clearest component: its Preamble. As videos reveal, the Preamble received enthusiastic endorsement from large crowds. Very often, the reading of the Preamble was followed by the singing of the national anthem and the waving of the Indian flag. The protesters sought to combat majoritarianism by invoking symbols of constitutional patriotism.    

One year on, it is clear that the CAA protests had a discernible effect. The citizen protests galvanized opposition parties, and legislatures of several opposition-ruled states passed resolutions disapproving of the CAA. Although of little legal consequence, the political symbolism is significant. Perhaps, all this may at least partly explain why the Modi government has not enforced the CAA so far.   

I now turn to efforts at imparting constitutional literacy in India, which I argue form the backdrop of the seemingly sudden emergence of the Constitution at protest sites.   

3. A brief primer on Constitutional Literacy efforts in India 

For a long time, the Constitution was not taught in Indian schools in any significant way, and remained the preserve of lawyers, political scientists and groups like civil servants. However, things changed especially since the Emergency (1975-1977) when independent Indians experienced authoritarianism on a national scale under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. That event galvanized civil society groups and India saw the emergence of mass-based, civil rights and public interest groups in a big way. A number of these NGOs began to focus on the task of legal, political and constitutional literacy and also began thinking of improving school text books.   

What follows is a survey of a few creative initiatives. The Alternative Law Forum, a legal NGO formed in 2000 in Bangalore, has an extensive print and digital campaign for creating awareness about legal and political issues. Its most recent effort, inspired directly by the CAA protests, is this booklet on the Preamble to the Indian Constitution which traces the importance of peaceful, non-violent struggle for Indians. Similarly, The Centre for Law and Policy Research, founded in 2009,  curates this excellent website on the making of the Indian Constitution and also conducts a popular annual Constitution Quiz, drawing participation from colleges across the nation. Starting sometime in 2015, the Forum for Popularising the Constitution in the state of Karnataka began hosting public events in multiple languages on specific constitutional issues (see this and this). History for Peace organizes events around important themes in history and politics and has recently focused on Ideas of the Constitution (see here and here) for its primary audience of school teachers across the nation. The Constitutional Conduct Group, comprising 170-odd retired civil servants with a varied mix of governmental experience at the highest levels, regularly issues ‘open letters’ to constitutional functionaries. These letters typically set out the basic issues at stake in clear and precise language, explaining the dilemmas and challenges involved in a non-partisan fashion, and perform a vital pedagogical function on the most pressing issues of the day. These ‘open letters’ are being translated in multiple languages and are publicized through local media, both print and digital. Academics like Tarunabh Khaitan have curated online videos about constitutional issues in Hindi, and others are adopting similar strategies in India’s multiple languages to reach beyond English-speaking Indians.   

Many citizens’ groups and organisations draw upon documentaries such as ‘Samvidhaan’ directed by the noted filmmaker, Shyam Benegal, in their workshops and teaching programmes.  This documentary, funded by State monies, is regularly shown in schools and colleges across the country and is now available for free viewing on YouTube (where it has been watched by 14 million people at last count).  Although these efforts are not without problems (see this persuasive critique of Samvidhaan), they do generate a wider interest in the Constitution also by highlighting efforts of the lesser known among the nearly 300 individuals who framed India’s constitution, emphasizing its all-India character.   

Two decades ago, leading political scientists collaborated with the government to create new text books for explaining the Constitution to school going children. This is one example, notable for a non-paternalistic and jargon-free approach to legal literacy. While it is hard to assess the collective effect of these efforts, many of the protesting youth gave interviews which suggest that such efforts at constitutional literacy are slowly having an impact on the ground.   

4. Conclusion 

In many nations, populist, authoritarian figures have swept to power by manipulating political processes, and by relying on majoritarian sentiment to exploit longstanding cultural grievances. At such times, as Brian Jones correctly describes, institutions such as the judiciary tend to cave into pressures from populist regimes, as indeed has happened in India.   

The CAA protests are a reminder, however, that people do have emotive attachments to constitutional texts, which may lead them to act on these very real and tangible sentiments. I would argue that the greatest threat to “politics and the political process” in our times is from populism. One answer to populism may well then lie in words, written into a text that has a canonical status in some nations. In the Indian context, its Constitution does enjoy that status among a critical mass of people, extending across the political spectrum. ‘Secularism’ may be a complex legal term, but in these protests, it was understood, at a basic level, as mandating fair treatment of all citizens.   

The CAA protests indicate that for a significant number of Indians, the text and core values of their Constitution represent an important attribute of their identities. One could argue that this constitutes a simplistic identity because that text, like all constitutions, contains contradictions galore. But the identity politics that populists play is crude, ahistorical, and based on myths and misinformation. Thus, even though it could very well be based in simplistic ideas, constitutional faith, may in fact provide some measure of a counterweight to populist politics.   

One year on, starting from September 2020, India is again wracked by large protests, in the middle of the pandemic. At present, it is Indian farmers who are amassed in the thousands around Delhi, demanding a repeal of three farm laws bulldozed through Parliament by the Modi government. This time, the constitution is invoked, not explicitly, but implicitly by emphasising the importance of ‘people power’ and the rights of individual farmers as citizens. While there are important differences between the two events, the Modi government is once again facing flak, both domestically and internationally, and will have to reassess its options. Therein lies hope that the populist behemoth can indeed be made to pause, and to conform to some basic tenets of human decency and constitutional democracy.   

Arun K. Thiruvengadam, Professor of Law at the School of Policy and Governance, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India  

Suggested Citation: Arun K. Thiruvengadam, ‘Constitutional Faith or Constitutional Idolatry? Insights from recent mass protests in India’ IACL-AIDC Blog (26 January 2021) https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/cili/2021/1/28/constitutional-faith-or-constitutional-idolatry-insights-from-recent-mass-protests-in-india.