Walking with the Constitution: BARTI's Sanvidhan Dindi brings Ambedkar's vision to the Wari

As the spiritual fervour of the Pandharpur Wari sweeps through Maharashtra, one distinct procession quietly but powerfully walks alongside BARTI's Sanvidhan Dindi, a march that carries the spirit of the Constitution.
Organised by the Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Research and Training Institute (BARTI), the Sanvidhan Dindi has now become a tradition for nearly a decade. What started as a small initiative to remind people of the ideals of the Indian Constitution, liberty, equality, and fraternity, has grown into a powerful movement within the Wari.
'We are trying to promote liberty, equality, and fraternity, because that was the real reason behind the Wari itself,' says Sheetal Bandgar, Project Officer at BARTI. 'This was the same vision that both Tukaram Maharaj and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar had of an equal, inclusive, and awakened society.'
Each year, 10 to 12 BARTI staff members walk the full stretch from Alandi to Pandharpur, but the impact is far greater. Thousands of Warkaris inspired by the Dindi's message join the group, read from the Constitution, and participate in awareness activities held along the way.
Banners bearing excerpts from the Preamble, quotes by Dr Ambedkar, and discussions on fundamental rights and duties are all part of the Dindi's unique setup. Booklets are distributed, street plays are performed, and readings of the Constitution are done under makeshift tents, right on the dusty paths of the Wari.
One such inspired participant is Rutuja Jagtap, a 19-year-old Warkari from Nashik, who joined the Dindi with her grandmother.
'This is one of the most meaningful things I've seen in the entire Wari,' she says. 'I came here for devotion, but I found awareness. It's a perfect blend of bhakti and samajik jagrukta (social consciousness).'
For the youth walking in the Wari, the Sanvidhan Dindi becomes an unexpected classroom, one where the Constitution meets the collective consciousness, and faith walks hand in hand with responsibility.
As lakhs of pilgrims make their way to Pandharpur in search of spiritual fulfillment, the Sanvidhan Dindi reminds them that social justice and equality are just as sacred.
It's not just a walk for God, it's a walk for a better, more just India.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Print

2 hours ago

• The Print

Minister Sivankutty alleges Raj Bhavan behind ABVP protests; BJP accuses CPI(M) of ‘violence'

He warned that if the Left government uses force to suppress protests, it will face retaliation in the same manner. Hitting back at the CPI(M), BJP state president Rajeev Chandrasekhar accused the Left party of trying to suppress protests by resorting to violence against the protestors. Thiruvananthapuram, Jun 22 (PTI) Kerala General Education Minister V Sivankutty on Sunday claimed that the protests by the BJP's youth and student groups against him, over the 'Bharat Mata' controversy, were aimed at causing riots in the state and were allegedly held on instructions of the Raj Bhavan. Earlier in the day, Sivankutty told reporters that he has been attacked and his travels obstructed during the last couple of days after he walked out of a programme at the Raj Bhavan where a portrait of 'Bharat Mata' — as seen in RSS events — was displayed. He said that as a minister, MLA and a citizen, he has the right to protest against the actions of the Governor at the Raj Bhavan and that is what he did. 'The Governor has said that he will continue with it (the portrait) and we have not responded to that,' he added. Subsequently, the BJP youth wing Yuva Morcha and student organisation — Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) — attacked him and obstructed his vehicle at various places in the state during the last two day, the minister claimed. Meanwhile, Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar, in an interview given to BJP mouthpiece Janmabhumi, said that the concept of 'Bharat Mata' became more clear to him when he was jailed during the emergency period in the country. He said that during that time he saw the concept of Bharat Mata as being above ideology and politics. 'I got a strong urge to work more for Bharat Mata. The inspiration to become a 'sangh pracharak' also became stronger during that time,' he said in the interview. Sivankutty, during his press conference in the morning, also alleged that at one such protest, ABVP activists tore apart the national flag, a claim reportedly denied by the student organisation. The minister also alleged that the protests and attacks against him were being carried out on the instructions of the Raj Bhavan, 'but they were unable to gather enough youth for the same'. He said that the protests against him by the two organisations were carried out by a handful of youngsters who acted as 'suicide squads' and jumped in front of his moving vehicle. ABVP and Yuva Morcha activists had waved black flags at the minister's vehicle in Kozhikode on Saturday and also burned his effigy in protest against his walkout from the Raj Bhavan event. Sivankutty said that ABVP and Yuva Morcha should realise that showing support to the Governor, who is allegedly acting contrary to the Constitution, will turn people against them. He also claimed that two hardcore RSS activists in the Raj Bhavan were advising the Governor to act in this manner. The minister said that he will not name them, but everyone knows them very well. The Congress too spoke out against the Governor's recent actions and said the Raj Bhavan should not be turned into a venue for political activities. Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief Sunny Joseph also said that protests against the Governor's actions need not be taken to the streets. Later in the day, Chandrasekhar, in a statement, claimed that it was the CPI(M) which was behind the violence against the ABVP and Yuva Morcha protestors because the BJP exposed the Left party's 'anti-nationalism' and 'appeasement politics'. He also accused the Left parties of being 'intolerant' towards protests against them. The BJP leader said that protests against the Governor by the Students Federation of India and the Democratic Youth Federation of India — the student and youth wings of the CPI(M), respectively — were acceptable, but agitations against a Left minister were not. This is an 'authoritarian style' of communist parties, he claimed. He warned that if attacks on BJP and related organisations' workers are not stopped, the Left parties and their leaders will have to pay a heavy price. 'If the CPI(M) is trying to suppress the protesters by taking the law into its own hands, and if the police decide to help them by standing by, then the national movements, including the BJP, will take to the streets,' the BJP leader said. He also said that criticising and insulting the 'Bharat Mata', a sentimental concept for the country, was not acceptable and whosoever dares to do so will face a strong protest in a democratic manner. Chandrasekhar further warned that if the Left government's decision was to suppress the protests by force, there were those on the other side who were capable of retaliating in the same manner. The southern state has been witnessing a tussle between Arlekar and the Marxist party-led LDF government over the display of 'Bharat Mata portrait' during official events at the Raj Bhavan here. PTI HMP HMP ROH This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

The Print

2 hours ago

• The Print

Emergency was ‘ominous' for country: K N Govindacharya

'The Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement, kept it going and a ban was also imposed on it and finally there was a change of power,' he told PTI Videos in an interview. The former BJP functionary asserted that the Sangh Parivar gave stability to that movement. New Delhi, Jun 22 (PTI) The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) played an important role in public awakening during the 'ominous' Emergency period with 65,000 people associated with it going to jail, former Sangh pracharak and political thinker N Govindacharya has said. Responding to a question about the role of the RSS in the 'Sampoorna Kranti' movement ahead of the Emergency, Govindacharya said the Sangh had a very big role in that movement. 'Just like Kurma had played a role in maintaining balance during the 'samudra manthan' with Basuki Nag and Mandara Parvat, the RSS had a similar role. In such a situation, Sangh played an important role in public awakening,' he said. According to mythology, Kurma, the tortoise avatar of Lord Vishnu, played an important role during the 'samudra manthan' (churning of ocean) to obtain the nectar of immortality. He said the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on June 25, 1975 was an outcome of her 'lust for power'. 'The Constitution was violated, fundamental rights and freedom of expression were crushed, forced sterilisation took place, censorship was imposed, human freedom and system were attacked. The Emergency was completely ominous and could have been avoided. But such a situation arose due to lust for power,' he said. In response to a question about the circumstances leading to the Sampoorna Kranti movement, Govindacharya said such a situation arose due to issues like inflation, unemployment, bad governance, corruption, poor education. 'It started with the Bihar movement and at that time the students demanded arrangements for better studies, hostel facilities etc. But the then Education Minister of Bihar lathi-charged the students, chased them away and neglected them due to vote bank,' he recalled. Govindacharya said with the arrival of Jayaprakash Narayan, the movement got leadership, gained stature and its credibility was established. Asked about the reasons for imposing Emergency, Govindacharya said Indira Gandhi's insecurity within her party, the atmosphere created by some close people spreading wrong information and her objective of remaining in power by hook or by crook must have been the main reasons and for that morality was set aside. Attacking the then Indira Gandhi led government, he said there was a stagnation in the system. The entire public was against insensitivity, irresponsibility and lack of accountability in the system and this was expressed during the students' movement. In response to a question about his experience during the Emergency, he said he was in jail for two months during the Bihar movement (students' movement) and at the end of the Emergency he also had to go to jail. The former Sangh Pracharak said during the movement, people associated with the Sangh Parivar used to go among the people with different names so that they could avoid arrest. The Sampoorna Kranti movement against the Emergency was an unusual act of ordinary people, he stated. When asked whether the objectives of the Emergency were achieved, Govindacharya said, 'The opposite happened. There was a change of power but the prohibitions were not followed.' Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan gave the call for Sampooran Kranti in 1974. The demand for resignation of the then Ghafoor ministry in Bihar ultimately turned into a larger demand for the dismissal of the Indira Gandhi government. PTI DR DIV DV DV This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Business Standard

4 hours ago

• Business Standard

Explained: Can Trump go to war in Iran without approval from US Congress?

With US President Donald Trump ordering air strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—debate has intensified over the limits of presidential war powers. The strikes, the boldest US intervention yet in the Iran-Israel conflict, have not been accompanied by a formal declaration of war—prompting legal and political scrutiny in Washington. Could Trump be impeached for bypassing Congress? And what role does the War Powers Resolution of 1973 play in curbing presidential overreach? Why War Powers Resolution was introduced in 1973 The War Powers Resolution (WPR), also known as the War Powers Act, was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of the Vietnam War—a prolonged conflict that saw major US involvement without a formal declaration of war. The resolution was designed to prevent the President from unilaterally engaging American forces in hostilities without Congressional oversight. It sought to restore the balance of power by: Requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops Mandating the withdrawal of troops within 60 days unless Congress approves their continued presence Allowing a 30-day grace period for safe withdrawal What US Constitution says about declaring war The US Constitution clearly assigns Congress the sole authority to declare war (Article I, Section 8), while naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2). This division was meant to ensure that decisions to enter large-scale military conflicts reflect democratic consensus. In practice, however, modern Presidents have increasingly relied on executive authority to conduct military operations without formal war declarations. Presidential precedents and Trump's Iran strike The US has not declared war since World War II, but has engaged in several major conflicts—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan—without Congressional war declarations. Trump's own administration has previously carried out strikes in Syria (2017 and 2018) without Congressional approval. In the case of Iran, Trump has framed the air strikes as necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. US officials say the attacks were 'limited, targeted, and in coordination with Israel'—and not indicative of a wider war effort. Could Trump be impeached over war in Iran? In theory, yes. If Congress believes the President has violated the Constitution or laws such as the War Powers Resolution, it can initiate impeachment proceedings. However, such action would depend heavily on political will. Past presidents—including Barack Obama, George W Bush and Ronald Reagan—have conducted military operations without Congressional declarations of war, and none faced impeachment for it. Legal scholars remain divided over whether violation of the WPR alone constitutes a 'high crime or misdemeanour' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. If Trump were to escalate the Iran conflict into a prolonged war without Congressional authorisation, and if it provokes significant domestic or international fallout, political calls for impeachment could grow louder. However, removal would still require a majority in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate—a high bar. Amid mounting tensions with Iran, US lawmakers—both Democrats and some Republicans—have sought to pass resolutions limiting Trump's ability to wage war. These efforts, while symbolically important, face procedural delays and are unlikely to override a presidential veto. The constitutional ambiguity persists: while Congress alone can declare war, the President can, and often does, launch military action unilaterally—especially if framed as a defensive or time-sensitive measure. What happens next? As of now, Trump has insisted the US does not seek regime change in Iran and has framed the strikes as a 'historic moment' to halt nuclear escalation. Iran, meanwhile, has vowed retaliation and hinted at broader regional consequences. If the US becomes drawn into a longer, bloodier conflict, pressure may mount on Congress to act—whether through legislation, funding restrictions, or impeachment. Until then, the line between presidential authority and Congressional war power remains blurred.