Indian Parliament File Photo Indian Parliament File Photo

The Parliament in this session ran on bluster and name-calling, so much so that it appeared that serious discussion and intellectual dialogue, perhaps for lack of room, had left the building.

There were a few exceptions, but Parliamentarians of all stripes came prepared, it seemed, to talk about anything but the Constitution as it is in 2024. This is a missed opportunity as there is interesting history about this that can inform us about our condition today but none of that was on the agenda. 

“You have brought immense glory to India and have inspired millions of young athletes to pursue their dreams,” Mandaviya was quoted as saying in a media release.

Our legislators seem content to view the Constitution as if it was a relic—some sacred object from a distant long forgotten age that we should all ritually bow to and accuse our opponents of disrespecting. Really, the Constitution was just an opening mantra, followed by an immediate diatribe launched on some other topic. 

MPs invoked V D Savarkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, B R Ambedkar, et al not because of any meaningful exchange of ideas but because they were easy escapes into a past that is of more interest to our legislators than the dire state of the present-day India. 

To be fair, the ongoing civil war in Manipur, attacks on free speech, reservations, and misuse of institutions are all important topics. It’s just that none of the speakers were able to make any real, thoughtful connections between the ongoing problems and the breakdown of constitutional rule in India.

Is the Union Government truly fulfilling its responsibility to the people of Manipur under Article 355 of the Constitution (protection from internal disturbance and external aggression)? What we are seeing in Manipur is not a breakdown of law-and-order, but a meltdown of constitutional rule. Is not Presidential rule necessary to restore constitutional rule in Manipur? All India Trinamool Congress MP, Sushmita Dev came closest to articulating this idea of there being a failure of constitutional rule in Manipur, though very briefly. 

Perhaps the framing of the debate—the “Glorious Journey of 75 years of the Indian Constitution” was the problem. Surely, I’m not the only one who found the wording too… North Korean? It would require an extremely one-eyed view of the last seventy-five years of constitutional history of India to describe it as “glorious”. Certainly, neither side of the debate thought it thus—they had their own definitions of glory for sure but all seventy-five years? Glorious? Banish the thought.

lego slotThe Indian Constitution In TheBattlefield Of Ideas

BY Outlook Web Desk

As someone who has spent the last few years regularly researching and writing about the drafting of the Constitution, the stark contrast in quality between the debates in Parliament on the Constitution and the debates in the Constituent Assembly was axiomatic. I’m not making the comparison in a trivial manner. There’s actually much in common between the Constituent Assembly debates and the recent debate in Parliament. 

The Constituent Assembly also functioned as a Parliament debating regular laws and was composed of politicians who had fought and won elections in a multi-party system. The members of the Constituent Assembly were as much politicians as the current lot—they were also political rivals who disagreed with each other on many matters. They were not immune to losing their temper and trolling each other on the floor of the Assembly. Witness Mahavir Tyagi telling Ambedkar that he should’ve at least had the experience of going to jail before drafting the civil liberties provisions of the Constitution. Or H V Kamath demanding Z H Lari answer on behalf of all Muslims why there was a demand for Pakistan. Many provisions of the Constitution were not unanimously adopted but put to vote with the Congress majority ensuring that the provisions as drafted or amended by Ambedkar were passed and inserted into the Constitution. 

The public was also not disconnected from the whole exercise. As Rohit De’s book The People’s Constitution points out, the drafting of the Indian Constitution was not an exercise carried out by the elites in closed chambers. The general public did not just passively find out about the debates but actively contributed to them. They sent letters, petitions, draft provisions and representations to the Assembly and its members. On such contentious matters as citizenship in Assam, various groups organised the sending of representations and petitions to the Assembly arguing for one position or the other. 

The Constituent Assembly was also doing its work when India faced much bigger crises than it presently does. The nation had been partitioned on religious lines; hungry and poor refugees filled cities; sectarian violence threatened to break out at any time; to say nothing of the economic problems related to food, shelter and clothing for a people impoverished by colonialism. Constituent Assembly members were keenly aware that the Constitution was not an academic exercise or a performance for the public. Every choice they made would have consequences for the survival of the republic.

So what explains the pathetic state of debate in the Parliament about an issue about which each side claims that they care very much?

‘Unparliamentary’ Concerns Weighing Heavy On The Proceedings Of Parliament 

BY Sudhirendar Sharma

I believe Ruchi Gupta, a political commentator, put it best on social media when she spoke of “[an] intellectual stasis in Indian politics and industry”. Though she may not have been responding to the debate in parliament specifically, this resonated with me. India seems to be in a Fukuyama-style end-of-history stage. There is widespread agreement across all the parties that the present political and economic arrangements are the best possible ones for India and there’s nothing much left to be improved. Look past the statements of leaders and at the actual policies put in place by the political parties when they are in office. The differences are only of degree, not quality. Any policy instrument trialled by one state government, if successful, is quickly adopted by the others until the Union Government “nationalises” it. This is irrespective of the party in power in the States and in the Centre. 

Why is this so bad?

After all, inter-party consensus and cooperation is necessary to make any constitutional form of government work. However, consensus and cooperation when extended too far becomes another c-word: cartel. This level of consensus and cooperation has ensured that there is no serious debate or discussion on reforming the brutal colonial state (best represented by a broken and dysfunctional police and judiciary) to make it modern and democratic. There is no serious debate on the neo-liberal structure of the economy—the winner takes all, and the losers get token compensation from the State. This last aspect has led to Rathin Roy describing India as the “compensatory state”: one which no longer attempts to fulfil aspirations of its citizens but is content with keeping their disenchantment to a tolerable level. 

 Needless to say, this consensus is a profound betrayal of the ideals of the Constitution. Parts III and IV of the Constitution are nothing less than a charter for individual liberty and socio-economic upliftment of India’s people. They are supposed to go hand in hand and the responsibility of the Government to fulfil whether or not they are enforceable in court. Unfortunately, over the years, this has been turned on its head to suggest only those rights which are enforceable are meaningful.   

The political consensus (at least among India’s political parties and elites) seems to be that the colonial and compensatory state is the best that the Indian citizen can hope for. The police lathiwill sometimes be aimed more at certain classes of people than others but the lathi will remain the abiding symbol of the state. That sometimes the State will hand out a little more compensation than at other times (international bond markets permitting) but real equality of opportunity or outcomes for citizens is not to be expected.

The Constitution was never meant to be a “closed” document—one which settled in 1950 all issues of government and economy for all time to come. The Constitution provides a basis for debate and discussion, but also normative and institutional guardrails to protect individuals and minorities. Even the basic structure doctrine has not hindered the amendment of the Constitution where needed. Yet, what is severely lacking in India today is a constitutional vision. One which understands the enormity of the experiment that began in 1950 and the promise that was made to future generations. 

By the evidence of the debate in the Houses of Parliament in the winter session of 2024k9win, one can say there is none to be found in India’s political parties. Perhaps the search must be made elsewhere. 

• The
• k9win
• Gloriously
• terrible
• State