Constitution in focus
Relevance: GS Paper II
Why in News?
The Author discusses the dynamic relationship between democracy, electoral outcomes, and the scope of constitutional evolution within the country's political landscape.
More About The News:
- Faizabad, along with its twin-city Ayodhya, holds significant symbolic value for the nation's ruling ideological faction.
- Before the recent Lok Sabha elections, the local Member of Parliament, who had won consecutive terms, made a provocative statement: “The government can be formed with 272 MPs in the Lok Sabha, but to amend the Constitution or create a new one, we need more than a two-thirds majority.”
Shift in Political Landscape:
According to the author, the ruling party has lost the election, and the implications of his defeat were notable. This shift in the political landscape brought new, sobering messages for the victorious coalition.
- Consequently, the Constitution became a central concern for the opposition, with their MPs brandishing copies in protest.
- The government countered by highlighting the 50th anniversary of the Emergency to emphasize their commitment to the Constitution. These competitive accusations of compromising the constitutional spirit have thrust the Constitution into the national spotlight.
- The MP’s statement on the need for a supermajority to amend the Constitution underscores the strategic calculations behind political rhetoric.
- The concern lies in differentiating between amendments and fundamental changes that could alter the constitutional spirit.
The Idea of India:
This development bodes well for the foundational 'Idea of India,' regardless of which party is in power.
- According to the author, all political parties profess to defend the Constitution's sanctity, although it is an open secret that changes could serve divergent partisan interests more effectively.
- However, achieving such changes is no longer a straightforward task. Beyond morality, the Constitution is intertwined with today's identity politics, especially among followers of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who view any alterations as an attack on their identity, likely provoking electoral backlash.
Simplistic Majoritarianism:
The results of the 18th Lok Sabha exposed the limitations of simplistic majoritarianism, as the idea of a unitary religion proved untenable due to inherent divisions within religious groups.
- This fragmentation helps protect the overall constitutional spirit.
- It is crucial to differentiate between an "amendment" and fundamentally "changing" the Constitution, as the intent behind these actions varies.
- The complexity and elaborate checks in Article 368 were designed to prevent arbitrary use of parliamentary power.
- The framers of the Constituent Assembly did not intend for the Constitution to be inflexible, as rigidity would hinder progressive changes.
- However, Dr. Ambedkar warned that future parliaments acting as a Constituent Assembly might pursue amendments to facilitate party measures blocked by certain constitutional articles.
- He emphasized that while the Constituent Assembly had no partisan agenda, future parliaments might.
Amendments:
While the Constitution has been amended 106 times, with 80 amendments by the leading opposition party when it ruled, the intent behind these amendments is crucial.
- According to the author, Amendments like the 10th (Incorporation of Dadar and Nagar Haveli as a Union Territory), 11th (Election of Vice President by electoral college), and 21st (inclusion of Sindhi as a national language) did not alter the Constitution's spirit.
- Even the inclusion of "secularism" in the preamble via the 42nd amendment did not diminish the Constitution's spirit, unlike the imposition of the Emergency, which involved controlling, illiberal, and intolerant intent.
Desire to change Constitution:
According to the author, The desire to change the Constitution is an old issue, with all political parties harboring some intent. During the current ruling party's first term, rumors of attempts to change the Constitution surfaced.
- At that time, India had a constitutionalist President, KR Narayanan, who spoke his mind within the constitutional framework.
- Narayanan, bound to support a constitutional review by the government, creatively expressed his concern by questioning whether the Constitution had failed us or we had failed the Constitution.
- This loaded expression of dissent aimed at introspection was understood by the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leading to the demise of the matter. This episode required two statesmen to overcome partisan pressures.
Conclusion:
Today, neither the ruling party nor the opposition can claim moral superiority in personifying the Constitutional spirit. However, political circumstances have made the Constitution the central reference point for claiming one-upmanship, which is beneficial for India. The urgency to defend the Constitution, although possibly insincere, is welcome for what it prevents.
