BJP’s Sudhanshu Trivedi Critiques Rahul Gandhi's 'Thousand-Year-Old' Constitution Statement

Click to start listening
BJP’s Sudhanshu Trivedi Critiques Rahul Gandhi's 'Thousand-Year-Old' Constitution Statement

Synopsis

On April 8 in New Delhi, BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi criticized Rahul Gandhi's claim that the Constitution is 'thousands of years old'. Trivedi questioned Gandhi's understanding of the Constitution's origins and emphasized the importance of accurate historical knowledge.

Key Takeaways

  • Sudhanshu Trivedi challenges Rahul Gandhi's comments on the Constitution.
  • Constitution adopted on November 26, 1949.
  • Historical significance of the Constitution is emphasized.
  • Trivedi remarks on the Congress party's acknowledgment of India's ancient history.
  • Importance of understanding the Constitution's creation is highlighted.

New Delhi, April 8 (NationPress) During a recent event, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) claimed that the Constitution is "thousands of years old". In response, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi criticized Rahul Gandhi, questioning whether his statements were rooted in ignorance or a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution established by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

This debate was sparked by Gandhi's remarks on Monday at the Samvidhan Suraksha Sammelan in Patna.

In a rhetorical fashion, Rahul Gandhi asserted, "People often state that the Constitution was created in 1947. However, I contend that this Constitution embodies thoughts that are thousands of years old. It reflects the ideas of Ambedkar ji, Phule ji, Gandhi ji, Nehru ji, Guru Nanak ji, and Sant Kabir. The Constitution is a vessel of respect for those revered in India."

When interviewed by IANS, Sudhanshu Trivedi stated, "It appears there are those who perpetually keep the Constitution in their pockets. Rahul Gandhi's comments about the Constitution clearly indicate that he likely never takes out a copy to read it.

"He appears unaware that the Constitution was formally adopted on November 26, 1949 and became effective on January 26, 1950. He incorrectly claims it was drafted in 1947, when in reality, the drafting process was still underway. This is one reason why Prime Minister Narendra Modi chose to commemorate November 26, 1949 as Constitution Day."

Sudhanshu Trivedi further emphasized that this illustrates a lack of understanding regarding the Constitution and its historical significance.

"It is now evident. There are many misinformed young people, and perhaps Rahul Gandhi is one of them—someone who lacks knowledge of the Constitution and its historical context. Consequently, the Prime Minister has taken steps in this direction. Following his comments, he stated that the Constitution is thousands of years old. I am unsure whether this indicates his ignorance of the Constitution drafted by Baba Saheb Ambedkar or if he genuinely believes this. Is it merely ignorance regarding the Constitution, or is there a level of disdain for it?"

Sudhanshu Trivedi also acknowledged that the Congress party has finally admitted that India is indeed thousands of years old.

"What surprises me is that this party, which has historically argued that India did not exist prior to the Mughal era and only became a country during the British period, has now conceded that it is thousands of years old. I would like to remind them that India is, in fact, one of the oldest surviving civilizations in the world. We are the land where knowledge first emerged. The unfortunate reality is that the Congress party, which has consistently denied India’s ancient civilization, has now unwittingly acknowledged it," he asserted.

"I would like to note that when Prime Minister Modi declared this as Amrit Kaal, he established a 25-year agenda. He mentioned that these 25 years will serve as a foundation for India's future over the next millennium. We draw inspiration from our ancient history, create a vision for the upcoming 25 years, and plan for the next thousand years. In contrast, others remain unaware of even the basic facts—keeping the Constitution in their pockets without understanding when it was drafted or when it was enacted," he concluded.