Recipe for inaction

The Constitution was drafted by the Constituent Assembly which comprised 389 members, a majority of whom were elected by the people. They were all personsof eminence and represented every sectional interest in the country and they deliberated on it for nearly three years. They sat for a total of 165 days to debate its various provisions before each of them put his/her signature on it. Since a Constituent Assembly cannot be formed except once, the founding fathers of the Constitution had in their abundant wisdom left the right to amend the Constitution to Parliament, which because of its representative character can alone fulfill the role of such an assembly.

Small wonder that since the inception of the Constitution in 1950 it has undergone nearly 80 major and minor amendments. That is how the nation has been adapting the Constitution to its changing requirements.

There is not a single instance where a welfare programme or policy initiated by the government was blocked by the Constitution. Whether it is the famous bank nationalisation case or abolition of privy purses during Indira Gandhi8217;s time, the ultimate winner was the government despite the obstaclesit initially faced in the Supreme Court. In fact, there is no other Constitution as flexible as India8217;s. Yet, it has always been a whipping boy for political parties and vested interests.

It would, of course, be argued that the commission8217;s recommendations would not be binding on the government? In that case, why appoint a commission when it is known that a commission appointed by the BJP will produce a report different from, say, the one produced by a Samajwadi Party-appointed commission? It may also be conveniently argued that the purpose is only to initiate a debate. Anybody is free to initiate a debate but why should the government waste its resources on it? In any case, don8217;t we spend a lot of money debating confidence and no-confidence motions as frequently as the Sitaram Kesris feel to be necessary in the House? Should we be known as a nation of endless debaters? After all do we not still debate whether the decrepit structure at Ayodhya was a temple or a mosque or whether Lord Ram was born exactly atthe spot where it stood till five years ago, or elsewhere?

All that the Constitution insists on for an amendment is that the move should have two-thirds support in Parliament. The BJP and its allies do not have this kind of majority. Besides, many of the BJP8217;s allies would not agree to any tampering with the Constitution. So any plan to drastically amend the Constitution will have to be kept in abeyance. It is in recognition of this stark fact that the party has not included its own agenda, as contained in its election manifesto, of doing away with Article 370 and introducing a uniform civil code in the NAG. The proposed commission will help the party to explain away its inability to honour its electoral promises by pointing out that all such issues have been referred to it.

Take the case of the much-maligned Article 370 of the Constitution which confers certain special rights on Kashmir, the only Muslim-majority state in the country. But did the existence of the Article prevent the Central Governmentfrom dismissing popularly-elected governments there and imposing President8217;s rule as often as it wanted? See how easily Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah fell in line and his National Conference abstained from the crucial vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha last month. While insisting on the removal of Article 370, why is it that the BJP does not say anything about Article 371, which also confers certain special rights on states as varied as Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh in the Northeast and Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in the plains? If a well-to-do Delhiite BJP supporter cannot buy land in Jamp;K because of a special law there, he can8217;t do that in Himachal Pradesh either, despite the fact that his own party is in power there.

The BJP has always been arguing that its demand for a uniform civil code has the sanctity of the directive principles of the Constitution. Among the many such lofty ideas that find a mention in the directive principles is prohibition. So much for its commitment to the directiveprinciples that the first thing the HVP-BJP government in Haryana did after the recent Lok Sabha elections was to withdraw prohibition in the State. The directive principles also enjoin upon the government to cultivate a scientific bent of mind in the people. But did that prevent the Prime Minister from choosing an auspicious8217; time to be sworn in? Perhaps, only the astrologer concerned can say whether the time he chose for the swearing in was auspicious for him or for the people of the country.

In the celebrated Kesavanada Bharati case, the apex court decreed that the basic structure of the Constitution is inviolable. Whether secularism, which is now mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution, forms a part of the basic structure or not is open to debate. But the secular character of the state does not prevent the defence ministry from performing elaborate puja every time a new naval vessel is commissioned. It did not even prevent the hordes of kar sevaks from pulling down a historic shrine under theglare of publicity and in the full knowledge of both the Central and state governments. All that the secular state could do was to put Kalyan Singh behind bars for a day 8212; not for his non-secular conduct but for not honouring his commitment to the Supreme Court. It is such a document that the BJP threatens to rewrite and some politicians even burn in public.

Little do they realise that these are attempts to cover up their own inability to perform. It is the bad worker who blames his tools.