The Indian Constitution is 57 years old today. That places it amongst the older constitutions of the world. Even though much of it is a copy of the Government of India Act of 1935""to which fundamental rights and directive principles were added""by and large, it has served the people of India well. In part because it was basically a document of imperial or central control, it has had to be amended 104 times (nearly twice every year). However, its basic structure, which guarantees the citizen certain freedoms, has been protected. There have also been attempts to recast it altogether. The NDA government had set up a committee to make suggestions in this regard, but thankfully nothing much came of it. As a wit put it at the time, if jugaad (improvisation) serves the purpose, why get a new one? The real reason was that there wasn't much political support for a new Constitution. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had set up the committee only to silence some elements in his own party. His ploy worked. | |
| The question is whether the Constitution will not face more fundamental challenges as time goes on. The Indian Republic, as it celebrates its 58th birthday, may well be at a point of inflection. Thanks to the Supreme Court's judgement about its power to review laws placed in the Ninth Schedule, the Tamil Nadu government has demanded that the Constitution be re-written. The Congress, Left parties and PMK have supported the idea. When Peter Alphonse, a Congress party member of the legislative assembly, is reported to have said that "his party would not be averse to rewriting the Constitution to protect the rights of people belonging to BC, MBC, SC and ST communities (political shorthand for all the deprived communities and minorities)", the Congress High Command did not issue a statement to the contrary. The JD(U) has also supported the demand. |
| |
| One way to view this is to dismiss it as grandstanding by the allies of the Karunanidhi government, the real target being his opponents and not the Constitution. Another is to be less dismissive and ask if the fierce competition amongst fragmented political parties may lead to widespread support for the idea of "re-writing" the Constitution. If the purpose, as it seems to be, is to amend the Constitution in such a way that the Supreme Court is prevented from reviewing laws, it is clearly a terrible idea that, moreover, requires the UPA chairperson and the Prime Minister to say what they think about it. As they must know, some bad and dangerous ideas acquire political momentum because political parties take a short-term view of such issues. Two recent amendments to the Constitution""in respect of the 'office of profit' issue and the reservation for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward castes in non-minority, unaided private educational institutions""are cases in point. The Congress initiated both. The BJP will have its own quota of bad ideas, driving towards majoritarianism. |
| |
| The real question, which politicians would prefer to ignore, is whether their tinkering abridges the rights and freedoms of some people in India. This is what the Supreme Court has always sought to prevent, and in the pursuit of which it enunciated the unique doctrine of 'basic structure'. What Indians need to ask the politicians now is whether they are opposed to this doctrine and all that it seeks to preserve. The national parties at least should be made to answer the question. |
| |
|
| |
