what-s-wrong-in-reviewing-the-constitution

Like religious puritans spread across the globe, we, these days in India, have “Constitutional puritan pandits”, practicing the sacred art of “Constitutional untouchability”. Even a mention of reviewing the Constitution is damned as blasphemy and “grave disrespect” to Dr Bhim Rao Ambedkar.

 

Given the sensitivity of a large section of people about Baba Saheb’s name, those seeking to “protect and defend” the Constitution, exploit the phrase “Baba Saheb’s Constitution”, as if he was the sole writer of the statute book or it was “revealed” to him like some religious text.

 

He, in fact, was one among the equals and Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. There were 22 committees of the Constituent Assembly and Drafting Committee was one of these.

 

This is not to suggest in any way that Baba Saheb had any less role in drafting of the Constitution or to belittle his contribution. At the same time, it is also not fair to exaggerate his role and downplay that of other eminent luminaries who were among the brilliant minds of their time. Notably, there were 299 members in the Constituent Assembly.

 

Our Constitution took about three years to be completed. The first official meeting of the Constituent Assembly was held on December 9, 1946. The formal process by the Drafting Committee started on August 29, 1947, 14 days after India declared its independence.

 

Among the 299 members of the Constituent Assembly was Dr Rajendra Prasad, who became first President of India. There were seven members of the Drafting Committee. While Dr Ambedkar was the chairman of the committee, other six members included Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar, N. Gopalaswami, K.M. Munshi, Mohammad Saadulla, B.L. Mitter, and D.P. Khaitan.

 

The question is whether the Constituent Assembly was “truly representative” in nature? No, it was not. The members of the Constituent Assembly were mostly elected by the Provincial Assemblies indirectly, while some were nominated by the princely states. Obviously, it was an indirect election through the Provincial Assemblies, which in turn were not true representatives either. At that time there was no “universal franchise”, as very few people had voting rights. The Provincial Assemblies were elected in polls held under the British rule in early 1946.

 

Whatever the 299 members of the ‘Constituent Assembly’ decided, it was simply imposed on the people of India, who had no real say in drafting of the Constitution. If they wanted to reject it, there was no such option. The Constitution of the Constituent Assembly was flawed. Why did the government of independent India not wait and elect the members of the Constituent Assembly directly? What was the need to carry forward the “indirectly elected” members of the Constituent Assembly beyond August 15, 1947, when India had already achieved freedom? What was the tearing hurry to rush through the Constitution, adopt it and impose it on the country?

 

Also read: Kunwar Vijay Pratap: AAP shows door to one time poster boy

 

It seems the drafting of the Constitution was not for Independent India, but British India. The Constituent Assembly was “ordered to be constituted” under the Cabinet Mission plan of the British government, when they had no idea or intention to leave the country.

 

India has moved forward by three quarters of a century since the Constitution was adopted. The country’s needs have transformed. There definitely is a need for “reviewing” the Constitution and may be “rewriting” it afresh, once again. The Constituent Assembly must be directly elected through universal franchise. People of the country are obviously more educated and informed today than they were 80 years ago, when the Constituent Assembly was set up.

 

When the current Constitution was drafted, India was ruled by a single party with a most dominating leadership, which could hardly be questioned or contradicted by anyone. It will be naïve to assume and believe that there must have been liberal and independent debates and discussions in the Constituent Assembly meetings. A section of the leadership within the Constituent Assembly was obviously too dominating to be questioned, challenged or contradicted.

 

Given the vibrant democracy that India has emerged to be, with an independent Parliament, there is a strong case for reviewing the Constitution. India can go for a referendum, seeking public opinion whether the Constitution should be reviewed or not. This can be followed with electing the members of the Constituent Assembly, with specific and special qualifications. Their role should end after drafting of the Constitution.

 

Just damning any idea or suggestion of bringing changes to the Constitution must not be rejected at face value, by just saying that the “Constitution is under threat”. Why should the members of the Congress alone decide whether the Constitution needs to be reviewed or not, when they do not have any mandate for that. The Congress, with its limited presence, cannot impose on the country what it thinks is right. The best solution and the only way out is go to the people with a specific question — whether they want the Constitution to be reviewed or not.

 

The answer should be sought in a simple “yes” or “no”. Just trying to exploit the sentiments of a particular section of people by crying hoarse that “Baba Saheb’s Constitution” was under threat will not serve any purpose. After all, there is a provision for amending the Constitution if and when required. Why should there be no scope for reviewing the Constitution after a certain period of time? And that time has arrived. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had initiated a move and set up a “Constitution Review Committee”, but that did not go very far. The idea is still relevant, rather more relevant today than ever before.