Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remarks during a recent Rajya Sabha debate on the Constitution marked a sharp and calculated response to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's frequent references to the document, particularly in the context of the Opposition’s accusations about the BJP's approach to constitutional amendments. Shah’s remarks were especially pointed in calling out Rahul Gandhi for labeling himself a "yuva" (youth) leader at the age of 54, a comment that seemed designed to undermine the Congress leader's attempts at presenting himself as a figure of youthful change, in contrast to the BJP's vision.
Shah’s words were not merely a direct swipe at Gandhi’s self-image but also a response to the ongoing discourse surrounding the BJP’s stance on potential constitutional changes. Addressing the Rajya Sabha, Shah said, “Now, there are some leaders, who at 54, call themselves 'yuva' leaders. And they keep going about (BJP will) 'change Constitution'. I want to explain to them that the provision to change the Constitution has been mentioned under Article 368 of the Constitution itself.” This statement was aimed at pointing out that the power to amend the Constitution already exists within the document itself, and it is not a radical proposal exclusive to the BJP.
This remark was likely meant to serve as a rebuttal to the allegations made by the Opposition, which suggested that the BJP was attempting to change the Constitution in a manner that could undermine its fundamental principles. Shah’s assertion was that constitutional amendments were part of the legal framework and that both the Congress and the BJP had historically used this provision, implying that such amendments were not an unprecedented or controversial aspect of governance.
Shah's comments were particularly relevant in the context of Rahul Gandhi’s symbolic actions surrounding the Constitution, which had been a point of contention between the two political parties. Since before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Gandhi had been prominently displaying a copy of the Constitution during rallies and public appearances. This display was meant to signal his commitment to safeguarding democratic values and the Constitution. However, this act also led to a political skirmish, with the BJP alleging that the copy Gandhi had been holding was a "blank copy." This accusation was part of a broader narrative wherein the BJP attempted to discredit the Congress leader’s actions as disingenuous or theatrical.
In his rebuttal, Amit Shah sought to highlight the flexibility of the Constitution, emphasizing that it was not meant to be a rigid or unchanging document. According to Shah, the Constitution itself envisions amendments, recognizing that a nation and society must evolve and adapt to the changing times. "Our Constitution has not assumed itself unchangeable anywhere. With time, a nation should change, as should society, and as should its laws,” Shah remarked. This statement underscored his belief that the Constitution should be viewed as a living document capable of adapting to new challenges, rather than as a set of immutable rules. Shah further elaborated that the process of amending the Constitution, as outlined in Article 368, is a built-in mechanism that ensures the Constitution remains relevant and effective over time.
In expanding on the history of constitutional amendments, Shah took the opportunity to contrast the approaches of the Congress and the BJP when it came to utilizing this power. He noted that during Congress’s 55 years of governance, the Constitution had undergone 77 amendments, whereas the BJP, in its 16 years of rule, had only made 22 amendments. This comparison was framed not as a criticism of Congress for making numerous changes but rather to highlight the fact that both parties had made amendments to address the evolving needs of the country, thus validating the practice of constitutional amendments as a norm for both political parties.
One of the more powerful elements of Shah’s speech was his invocation of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of India’s Constitution, whose views on the adaptability of the Constitution were central to Shah’s argument. Quoting Ambedkar, Shah said, “However good a Constitution may be, if those who are implementing it are not good, it will prove to be bad. However bad a Constitution may be, if those implementing it are good, it will prove to be good.” This quote served as a reminder that the success of the Constitution depends not just on its legal provisions but on the character and competence of those who implement it. By referencing Ambedkar, Shah reinforced his point that the Constitution itself could be a robust and progressive framework, but its effectiveness is contingent upon the leadership in power.
Shah’s use of this quote also served to emphasize the BJP's claim that its governance model, despite criticisms from the Opposition, is built on the principles of strong and competent leadership. The reference to Ambedkar aimed to invoke a sense of historical legitimacy, reminding both the Rajya Sabha and the public that India’s Constitution was designed to be adaptable and that those in power have a responsibility to implement it effectively in changing times.
Shah’s speech was not just about defending the BJP’s stance on constitutional amendments but also about framing the debate in a broader context of leadership, adaptability, and the evolving nature of governance. His words were carefully chosen to highlight the BJP’s position as defenders of the Constitution while subtly critiquing the Opposition, especially Rahul Gandhi, for their political theatrics and perceived inconsistencies. Moreover, Shah’s comments about Gandhi’s age and self-designation as a “yuva” leader added a layer of political drama, likely intended to mock Gandhi’s attempts to appeal to younger voters while also serving as a critique of his leadership.
Ultimately, Shah’s remarks during the Rajya Sabha debate underscored his belief in the dynamic nature of India’s Constitution and the need for continuous adaptation to meet the demands of a changing society. Whether one agrees with the BJP’s approach to constitutional amendments or not, Shah’s statement provided a robust defense of the BJP’s stance, while at the same time challenging the Opposition’s critiques and offering a direct, political rebuttal to Rahul Gandhi’s leadership.
