By Abhishek Kumar
India has been surpassing or probably under-passing the vast public upsurge and constitutional multi-interpretations these days.
Our preamble of the constitution says “we the people of India adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution” and at the same time it’s also said that “the parliament is supreme”. Now the crisis arises, who is supreme? “We the people” or “the parliament (which is elected by we the people)”?
But again, another question arises, who constitutes “we the people”. I? you? They?, who??
Did the crowd of people gathered in Ramlila grounds few days back, or the crowds in various other cities of the country, or the total of them combined, qualify to be called themselves as “we the people”?
May be “yes” may be “no”.
But let’s think again, who was supposed to be “we the people” during the time when this constitution was enacted in India? It will be quite indigestible to accept that the millions of illiterate, poor and starving population, who constituted almost 90 percent of Indian population during the time of enactment of this constitution, were aware of the literatures inside it. The constitution had the sanctity of “we the people” not on it’s technical provisions, but on its moral grounds, of it being designed and compiled by “our government” and not “the British”. Moral beliefs, that this constitution being made by “our” parliamentarians is “ours” and hence will work for our upliftment and empowerment; that this constitution will never defy our rights of living a happy life as the British did.
An extraordinary interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court of India said, “The basic structure” of the constitution can not be changed. So a new group of words “basic structure”! What is it? Basic structure refers not to the technical grounds of the write-ups in our constitution, but to the moral grounds of it; and the moral grounds of our constitution refers to the same degree of belief that “we the people” had during the time of its enactment.
The Anna hazare blow, which spread like a jungle fire in India, a few days back, made it very much clear that there is a widespread trust deficit regarding the holiness of our parliamentarians. The declination of the politician’s status has not been sudden, rather episodic. It has not only been the recent exposure of scams that fuelled the masses but also the irregularities prevailing in the government offices since the time our government took over from British.
They called it “the second fight for independence”. Was it?
This mass eruption of public anguish was, in a way, designed and planned by our constitution; after all it was not indigenous, it is a blend of copies of the constitution prevailing in western world, largely USA and UK. Not doubting of the great work of Baba Bhimrao Ambedkar, because it was the only option available with us after the British sucked off the majority of our physical and intellectual resources to the level of starvation. The constitution we adopted was no doubtably a good base for us to start with, but we missed “Indianizing” it sufficiently.
Even though we added directive principles of states policy in our constitution, we have been sluggish in implementing it. Didn’t we miss the level of accountability and cross-interaction of people with governance as it was during The great emperor Ashoka’s reign? Didn’t we miss out the mechanisms to judge the morality, holiness and capabilities of a “mantri”(minister) before assigning him the seat as was mentioned in kautilya’s Arthashashtra? Didn’t we miss the mechanisms adopted by The great Guptas, who almost proved their reign to be in comparison with the reign of The great Lord Ram?
India’s glorious history has not been only gold and diamonds, but much more than it, we told the world how to administer such a large area of land with the highest degree of happiness, faith and trust; and it’s a strange irony today that we ourselves have lost a grip on it.
The British with about 200 years of colonial exploitation tried to flush out all our glorious legacies including gold and diamonds, and embedded a new terminology in our dictionary called “British legacy”. I call it a “British interference”. It’s the result of the same “British interference” which made us loose our links with our glorious legacy of administration.
In my school exam, I once copied an answer from my neighbor’s sheet, the teacher while checking the papers asked me to stand up, gave me my answer sheet and told me to explain the meaning of that answer. Reluctantly i tried to explain it in my words, but was constantly looking here and there in panic and was praying for no cross questions. I am sure I was neither able to understand nor explain completely what I had written.
Is the situation same here? Here in the parliament?
Justice Saumitra sen, being in the middle of the way of his removal through the parliamentary procedures, offers his resignation, leading again to a debate whether to his removal proceedings should still be processed or it should be suspended out? Who knows the answers?
We the people? The parliamentarians? Or the mentors of the original constitution?
Or if no one knows, let’s give it to the Supreme Court to think about what our basic structure of constitution says.
There are laws prevailing in our country which still insist on payment of penalties of some 10 rupees for certain crimes. Who will give an explanation to it? The Supreme Court? I am afraid it may not.
Is it high time we make a substantial change in our constitutional books and encrypt the basic structure of governance as it was in our legacy?
India is not merely a head count of 1.2 billion people, neither it’s only some thick books of history, nor is it only the 7th largest landscape in the world. India is in blood of its people, and that blood runs from the great lord ram to Guptas, Marathas, cholas, chalukyas and Mauryas; and Indians will not accept any other form of governance except what they have been offered in the ancient past. The recent mass Indian upsurge with its active interference in parliamentary affairs has yet been an example for it.
Calling it the second war of independence?
It is said, defeating “your enemies” will give you physical independence but defeating the “enemies in you” gives you total independence. So calling it the first war of independence, too holds a strong justification.
But the question still persists, was this rise for a war of independence, or rather a yet another stronger demonstration of the episodic resentment? Will the “British interference” still cast its shadows on our constitutional provisions? Or the gestation period “Indianization” is over?
India will surely and compulsively modify its long hailed constitution to offer the basic structures of it in genuine reality. The time seems close. But may not be close too.