Constitution and the Cartoon

A debate over the 1949 cartoon, by noted cartoonist Shankar in the NCERT textbook, is a classic case of looking at the half-filled half-empty glass from two diagonally opposite perspectives. Two arguments are being loudly proclaimed against inclusion of this specific Nehru-Ambedkar cartoon in the textbook. One, in a deeply caste-ridden society, it is important who the cartoonist was and who decided to include it in XI standard textbook. Two, it is alright to publish such cartoons in periodicals but their inclusion in the textbook will poison the young minds. The first argument openly says that only people of a particular community should comment and critique on leaders of that community. While saying so, unfortunately, great emancipators like Dr. Ambedkar are made to restrain as leader of a particular community and not as one of the leading-lights of the nation. An eminent Marathi poet Kusumagraj wrote a classic poem, wherein he depicted that great leaders’ philosophies are attacked twice; by their enemies during their lifetime and by their self-proclaimed followers after their death. The present anguish tells us how profound Kusumagraj was when he wrote those words many years ago.

The second argument about poisoning the pupils’ ideas deserves serious attention. In the past, CBSE and NCERT syllabuses as well as textbooks in many states have been made subject to imposition of ideals and beliefs of the Hindutva proponents. The most objectionable thing about those textbooks was presentation of non-scientific facts as eternal truth. Obviously, there was no space for introducing contending ideologies and inculcation of reasoning in those syllabuses. Is this the case with the textbook in contention over Nehru-Ambedkar cartoon? Unfortunately, no parliamentarian who spoke against it seems to have looked closely at the concerned chapter in the textbook, or deliberately decided to ignore it.          

  

The chapter titled ‘Indian Constitution: Why and How’ is meant to understand the democratic goals, political debates and socio-economic interests involved in the process of the Constitution drafting. Along with the Nehru-Ambedkar cartoon, there are many other cartoons that are featured in the chapter. Each of them is supported by very relevant thought-provoking questions. For example, an another cartoon by Shankar on page 7, shows Nehru with two faces, one turned towards a chorus of politicians singing Jana Gana Mana, and another turned in the direction of politicians reciting Vande Mataram. The text below comments “Here is Nehru trying to balance between different visions and ideologies,” and asks students to identify these contending forces and try and think about who would have “prevailed in this balancing act?” The concerned Nehru-Ambedkar cartoon appears on page 18. The accompanied write-up says: “Cartoonist’s impression of the ‘snail’s pace’ with which the Constitution was made. Making of the Constitution took almost three years. Is the cartoonist commenting on this fact? Why do you think, did the Constituent Assembly take so long to make the Constitution?” If the parliamentarians and the angered community leaders would have read the follow-up text relating to deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, it would have been clear to them that it is certainly not suggested to the students that Ambedkar was responsible for the slow pace of Constitution making and Nehru trying to whip him into going faster. Instead, the text actually spells out the different contending ideas and the painstaking and time-consuming debates, in a very positive light, as an exemplary democratic process. It says, “The voluminous debates in the Constituent Assembly, where each clause of the Constitution was subjected to scrutiny and debate, is a tribute to public reason at its best. These debates deserved to be memorialised as one of the most significant chapters in the history of constitution making, equal in importance to the French and American revolutions.” Thus, the textbook has not endorsed the criticism of the ‘snail’s pace’ of the Constitution. Rather it presents the cartoon as a contemporary comment, and then asks students to consider if the comment is justified? It asks “why did it take so long? Was the time for debate well spent? Isn’t it healthy for democracy to take a long time to work out a consensus through reasoned debates?”

In the context of year 1949, it could be said, the concerned cartoon speaks about the overwhelming expectations of people from the Constitution-making process and hence, a kind of frustration among commoners about lapsing time. It is worthy to note that Shankar has credited Dr. Ambedkar and Nehru for the fate of the Constitution amongst several luminaries decorating the Constituent Assembly. It is but obvious in the cartoon that nation was taking note of painstaking hard work of Dr. Ambedkar in drafting the great Constitution even before its promulgation.