The Constitution has its sanctity no doubt, but that does not preclude any discussion on it
Santosh Thammaiah
Krishna Iyer, a Constitution expert par-exellance and one of the top legal luminaries, addressing members of the Parliament once said, “There is an end for everything. Many clauses in the Constitution seem timeless today. But they have to change. The Constitution is not a sacred sacrament to say that it should never change. It is only an accessory for governance in a democracy but not a tool to decide on the society.”
Members of Parliament present there nodded their heads in agreement. We don’t know if those who were present there understood the purport of Iyer’s statement or remained silent. But we know for sure that no discussion happened over his statement then.
Chidambaram Subramanium, statesman and a politician of Indira Gandhi’s era, had too harshly commented that “Constitution had to be framed in the light of our heritage. It has to be subjected to refinement. Today’s Constitution is equipped only to turn clever people into politicians and politicians into slaves.”
Even then there was no discussion on his statement. It was because the number of people who could perceive the meaning of his statement was very low. But those who were intelligent enough to understand it, found honour in being lackeys of influential politicians!
Much before these two gentlemen, German thinker Theodore Shay in his work titled ‘Legacy of Lokamanya’ had written, “There is nothing Indian in the Indian Constitution at all. It is a work created by knitting together bits and pieces of constitutions of various countries.” Strangely, even then no one battled an eyelid.
However, when a Union Minister recently in an off the cuff remark said that we would amend the Constitution, a barrage of critical comments, one competing over the other, targeting him came from all quarters. Each one of them extrapolated his statement of amending the Constitution as an affront to Dr Ambedkar himself, as a conspiracy of the fascist and ‘manuvadi’ forces and as even an RSS agenda.
Adapting with Times
Do they mean that the Constitution is above debate? Shouldn’t anyone talk about it? Is it a religious book? Was it authored by a prophet? The irony of this episode is that Dr Ambedkar himself while accepting the Constitution had said, “Till now we could have blamed the Britishers for our grievance and lacunae. But now we are responsible for
ourselves. Even the constitution can be reviewed.” This means that even Dr Ambedkar himself neither viewed the Constitution as a divine text nor perceived himself as a prophet. When Ananth kumar Hedge makes a statement to the same effect, a controversy is created around it.
Moreover, what was it in his statement that was so wrong? Our Constitution had 395 articles when it was adopted in 1950. Among these, 250 articles were borrowed from previous legislations, especially from the Government of India acts of 1919 and 1935. Fundamental Rights mentioned in Part 3 were inspired by the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. The rules of engagement for business in the Parliament were inspired by Britain’s ‘Westminister system’. The Directive Principles in Part 4 were inspired by similar principles contained in the Irish Constitution. This indicates that there are many directives in the Indian Constitution that are not indigenous and may not be suitable for us. The exigent conditions under which the Constitution was framed forced the makers to adopt from other constitutions. Babasaheb Ambedkar too was aware that the rules framed in the Constitution were not meant to be applicable for long. More time was consumed in debating over the Constitution than the time ordained for writing it.
Few debates went for so long that Ambedkar himself walked away in protest saying that it was a delaying tactic. Our Constitution was adopted after many such altercations. However, the same Constitution which was adopted with ambition and high aspirations was attacked and besieged repeatedly. Directive Principles and fundamental rights which were given utmost importance in the Constitution became victims of politics of convenience by the Congress. Uniform Civil Code under Directive Principles was termed as communal. The Constitution was amended to appease few religions. The Congress while in power has displayed utter disregard for the constitution. But every other party that came to power followed the trend of brushing inconvenient truths under the carpet. Those who opposed Hegde’s statement blindly are politicking for convenience.
Ever since the demise of Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Constitution became an immutable holy book. Any debate over the constitution was depicted as an act of war by few self serving individuals. They started to portray the Constitution as being beyond any kind of reasoning and any kind of scrutiny. Any debate over it was treated as an act of dishonour to Dr Ambedkar himself, just as it is being done now. Showcasing any shortcoming in the constitution was chastised and hypothesised as disrespect towards the Dalits themselves. Subjected to incessant praise, constitution became a mystical, unreachable entity which was beyond reasoning. People who affected this change of status for the constitution did not have any noble intentions. Many saw it as a means for nefarious goals.
The Constitution became a sacred tool for those who did not want to adapt to the changing times but used it for their own selfish purposes. The Congress on the other hand
continued to use it as it felt convenient for the prevailing
situation. Where was the respect for Dr Ambedkar when the constitution was forcefully amended in 1976 during the Emergency and the words ‘Secular, Socialist’ were inserted into the Preamble? The Constitution envisages the goals for civil rights, equality, brotherhood, transparency, education, etc. Which among these have been fulfilled till date?
(The writer is a political commentator)
Comments