Owaisi accuses BJP, RSS of opposing Constitution

Asaduddin Owaisi, the leader of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, has launched a scathing verbal assault on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its political arm, the Bharatiya Janata Party, accusing them of harboring a profound disdain for the foundational document of modern India. In a series of emphatic statements that have ignited a fresh wave of political controversy, Owaisi alleged that the ruling alliance opposes the framework established by Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution. He claimed that instead of adheremce to the secular and democratic principles enshrined in 1949, these organizations ly yearn for a return to the Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text that has long been criticized for its hierarchical and discriminatory view of society..

This accusation strikes at the heart of the current ideological battle in Indian politics, pitting proponents of a cultural nationalist vision against those who defend the pluralistic and egalitarian structure of the country’s founding charter.The central thrust of Owaisi’s argument relies on the historical interpretation of who truly upheld the spirit of unity and constitutional morality during the struggle for independence. He highlighted the significant, yet often overshadowed, contributions of Muslim freedom fighters who participated in the resistance against British colonial rule. By drawing attention to this historical narrative, Owaisi seeks to counter the dominant political discourse that often marginalizes the role of minorities in the freedom movement..

He argued that the current opposition to constitutional values by certain right-wing Hindu nationalist groups is not merely a political disagreement but a fundamental rejection of the inclusive ideology that was supposedly the bedrock of the nation’s formation. This perspective challenges the widely accepted narrative of a unified anti-colonial front, suggesting instead that there were distinct ideological diverg even within the freedom struggle itself.Central to this debate is the contrasting legacy of key historical figures, particularly Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, whose influence on the RSS remains undeniable despite the organization’s official distance from his extreme views. Owaisi pointed to specific historical records, including letters written by Savarkar while he was imprisoned by the British, to illustrate what he described as a willing collaboration or at least a lack of principled resistance against the colonial powers..

These letters, which have been cited by critics to question Savarkar’s nationalist credentials, serve as evidence in Owaisi’s broader argument that the ideological roots of the RSS are tainted by compromises with imperialism. This historical critique is designed to undermine the moral authority of the BJP-RSS combine, portraying them not as inheritors of the freedom struggle, but as descendants of those who sought to negotiate with the colonizer rather than liberate the masses through unified resistance.The mention of the Manusmriti in this context is particularly incendiary, given the text’s historical association with the caste system and the subjugation of lower castes and religious minorities. By linking the RSS and BJP to this ancient code, Owaisi accuses them of wanting to impose a medieval social order on a modern democracy..

Critics have long argued that certain interpretations of Hindu nationalism rely on a homogenized view of Hindu identity that effectively erases the diversity and plurality of Indian society. Owaisi’s assertion that these parties want to replace the Constitution with the Manusmriti suggests a fear that the current political trajectory aims to dismantle the protections afforded to marginalized communities. This claim resonates deeply with sections of society that have witnessed rising tension along communal and caste lines, fostering a sense of anxiety about the future of India’s secular fabric.Dr Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s role as the principal architect of the Constitution is elevated in this discourse to that of a guardian of social justice and equality..

Owaisi’s reference to Ambedkar is strategic, aiming to align his party’s stance with the broader struggle for rights and dignity. By positioning the Constitution as a progressive document that actively works against the regressive tenets of the Manusmriti, Owaisi frames the current political conflict as a battle between enlightenment and obscurantism. This framing is crucial for mobilizing support among Dalit, Bahujan, and minority communities who view the Constitution as their primary shield against discrimination..

The invocation of Ambedkar’s legacy serves to legitimize the criticism of the ruling party, suggesting that any deviation from constitutional values is a betrayal of the nation’s founding fathers.The ongoing discourse regarding the relevance of the Manusmriti and constitutional principles is growing more fervent by the day, reflecting deeper societal anxieties about identity and belonging. Political analysts note that such rhetoric is not merely about historical accuracy but is a vital tool in contemporary electoral politics. In a landscape where identity politics plays a dominant role, defining oneself in opposition to a perceived threat to constitutional values can galvanize a significant portion of the electorate..

Owaisi’s statements are thus part of a larger strategy to position his party as the defender of secularism and minority rights against a majoritarian agenda that he believes is increasingly authoritarian. This strategic positioning is essential for maintaining the political relevance of the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen in states where communal polarization is high.However, the BJP and its ideological supporters have swiftly rejected these allegations, describing them as politically motivated distortions of history. The ruling party maintains that it is fully committed to the Constitution and that its ideology of Integral Humanism is compatible with democratic values..

They argue that the RSS and BJP work towards national integration and social harmony, countering the narrative of division and appeasement often attributed to them by opposition parties. This counter-narrative emphasizes the developmental achievements of the current government and its efforts to uplift marginalized sections through welfare schemes. The clash of narratives highlights the deep ideological chasm that exists between the two major political blocs in India, a divide that is unlikely to bridge in the near future.The historical debate over Savarkar’s letters and his relationship with the British remains a contentious issue among scholars and historians..

While some view him as a complex figure who sought to secure the release of his brother and others through negotiation, others see these actions as a betrayal of the nationalist cause. The RSS has historically maintained that while Savarkar was an inspiration for Hindu cultural revival, they do not endorse all his political actions or writings. This nuance is often lost in political discourse, where historical figures are simplified into symbols of either heroism or villainy..

Owaisi’s exploitation of this historical ambiguity serves to weaken the ideological sovereignty of the right-wing, forcing them to defend a legacy that is fraught with controversy and conflicting interpretations.Furthermore, the accusation that the BJP opposes Ambedkar’s Constitution undermines the party’s efforts to claim the support of Dalit voters. The BJP has made significant strides in consolidating support among lower castes, arguing that.