Back to the basics

The Constitution has confused dharma or righteousness8217; with religion. It provides for equal treatment to all religions. Religions are indeed equal but in saying so we also imply that they are irreconcilable. Only because of their such differences they have to be treated equally. This precludes the possibility of arriving at onedefinition of dharma.

The Muslims and Hindus differ on the question of polygamy. If polygamy indeed leads to better life then Hindus should accept the same. If it does not then Muslims should abandon it. The Constitution does not leave space for such dialogue. It establishes the idea that differences between them are irreconcilable.

The Constitution lays the responsibility of securing material welfare of the people on the government. The government will impose tax on the society; and then spend the money to secure good of the poor. In the process it has killed all social institutions providing relief to the poor. The langar run by the Gurudwara has been replaced by the Public Distribution System. The politicians and bureaucrats make money in running these schemes while the poor remain where they were.

According to the Constitution, the king8217; or the prime minister is paid a salary8217;. The king is not the state. As a result, the good of the king is not the same as the good of the state or the people. Aprime minister may bleed the country for his personal gains.

The difference is similar to that between a Sethji and the public sector CMD. Sethji will run the company to as to maximise its profits and then bleed the company. But the CMD will bleed while killing the company. So also the prime minister.

The Constitution relies on the judiciary, executive and the Rajya Sabha to check the excesses of the Council of Ministers. It fails to appreciate that the servant cannot control the master. The judiciary and the executive, having been themselves appointed by the legislative, can hardly restrain their masters.

The Rajya Sabha too is largely constituted on party basis. It can possibly check the excesses of one party against another. But it cannot check the excesses in which the parties join together to bleed the country. Nowadays departments such as the PWD do not have funds to undertake repair of the roads. The executive engineers offer cuts to MPs to release funds from their quotas. The MPs of the RajyaSabha are beneficiaries of such a system and they cannot restrain the Lok Sabha.

Territorially elected MPs are not accountable to anyone. None can question them because the MP is expected to look after the interests of all the people. The result is that he looks after the interest of none but his own. In a conflict between, say, the farmers and the traders, he can take either a pro-farmer or a pro-trader position depending upon his own personal interests.

The Constitution provides that all shall be equal before law. Unlike the defence forces, the bureaucracy is entitled to the same protection as the people it is supposed to protect. That makes the bureaucracy the protector of its own rights and those of the people.8217; If there were to arise a question of precedence, obviously the bureaucracy would protect its own rights and sacrifice those of the people. Thus the government servants use their rights such as that to strike to suppress the rights of the people rather then protecting them.

Let the PrimeMinister first state what, according to him, are the flaws of the Constitution. Then let us debate whether they are flaws or strengths.