A recent examination of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbook for Class VII has raised significant concerns about how India's foundational legal document is being introduced to young students. The chapter titled "The Constitution of India: An Introduction" in the social science book contains contradictions that could blur students' understanding of this critical subject.
Blurring Lines Between Law and Art
The chapter begins appropriately by describing the Constitution as a "rulebook for the country," outlining the framework of governance, citizen rights, and national aspirations. However, it soon introduces a confusing element by prominently featuring illustrations by artist Nandalal Bose and his team. These artworks, depicting scenes from Indian history from the Mohenjo-daro era to the freedom struggle, are presented under the heading "Some illustrations in the Constitution of India."
This presentation, using a capital 'C' and stating the illustrations are "in" the Constitution, risks creating the unfounded belief that these artistic works are part of the formal, legal document debated by the Constituent Assembly. The attribution to Bose appears three pages later, further stating that "the Indian Constitution is not just a legal document but also a work of art." This conflation of formal law with informal artistic expression, according to critics, destabilizes the foundational concept of the Constitution as a rulebook.
Contradictions with Constitutional History and Spirit
The inclusion of illustrations featuring deities presents a particular contradiction. It projects these deities as integral to the law of the land, which stands in direct opposition to a well-documented historical fact: the makers of the Constitution intentionally avoided any reference to God in the Preamble.
The Constituent Assembly, in a decisive act, voted against an amendment proposed by H V Kamath to add "in the name of God" at the beginning of the Preamble. Members like A Thanu Pillai, a self-proclaimed staunch believer, argued that such inclusion would affect the fundamental right to freedom of faith. Hridya Nath Kunzru contended that a reference to God would contradict the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship promised in the Preamble, imposing a collective view on a deeply personal matter.
Experts point out that this contradiction is exacerbated by the chapter's marked absence of any discussion on freedom of conscience and the cultural and educational rights of minorities.
Differential Treatment of Amendments and Core Concepts
Further confusion arises from the chapter's handling of constitutional amendments. It offers differential treatment to the insertions made through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, which added the terms "secular" and "socialist" to the Preamble and introduced Article 51A on Fundamental Duties.
Notably, the picture of the Preamble reproduced in the main text shows the pre-amended version. The addition of the two key terms is mentioned only in a footnote. This approach, critics argue, fails to give these foundational amendments the emphasis they deserve within the narrative of the Constitution's evolution.
The combined effect of conflating art with law and providing uneven treatment to amendments risks creating a blurred and potentially inaccurate perception of the Constitution among young, impressionable minds. This is particularly concerning as the Constitution forms the bedrock of India's collective existence as a democratic republic. The clarity and consistency with which it is taught are paramount for nurturing informed and responsible citizens.
