We gave ourselves a system of governance with the attendant ideals, philosophies, structure, rules and regulations on January 26, 1950. We will be upon the 62 anniversary celebrations in quick time.
That number 62, I argue, is meaningless. The more relevant number is 115. That is the number of amendments we have imposed on our so-called founding document. We are imposing, on average, 1.85 amendments to the constitution every year! To make it more stark, once every 196 days! I get the sniffles less frequently than that! A weak foundation document the Indian constitution has become.
By the way, if only the BJP had played ball with the UPA, we would have had the 116th amendment, Lokpal!
A comparison is in order, no matter how exceptionalist we are or we claim to be. The US constitution was adopted in 1789 (the US “government began operations”) and it is 223 years old. It has no more than 27 amendments, enacted over 223 years. Note too that the first ten amendments (1791) came out of a bargain at the time of proposing the constitution. And one merely repealed an earlier amendment. So, we may conclude that the US amended its constitution a total of 16 times over 221 years – once every thirteen years; once every 4,748 days! That rate, I believe, befits the conception of “supreme law of the land”.
That is, the rate of amendment of the Indian constitution is 24 times of the US’s! Isn’t that reason enough to blame our constitution for inflicting upon itself such a weakness? It is almost, dare I say it, self-contemptuous.
Well, I must set out some of the differences between the US and Indian constitutions that are germane to what I am discussing here. For the most part, the US constitution confines itself to majestic phrases or overarching clauses – freedom of speech, separation of church and state, cruel and unusual punishment, the commerce clause, the due process clause, the equal protection clause and so on. The details are to be filled in by the legislating arm of the government to subsequently undergo judicial review if need be.
In contrast, the Indian constitution appears to carry two identities. On the one hand it mentions in broad brush strokes what is desired, like the Directive Principles that does not strongly impose on the government (to be uncharitable about it – statements of pious intentions and no more) and on the other, go into the minutiae. It may be that the latter of the two identities is what has attracted most of the amendments, but I am not sure that position would be justified in a detailed analysis.
However, even if that were the case, why not have the statutes changed instead of amending the constitution? The constitution is a higher order law, it is more permanent, less amenable to political pressures, you say? 115 /62 belies any such assertions. The Indian constitution can be amended almost as though it is a regular law, the higher status visible only through the higher numbers required to pass. Such numbers can be agglomerated through back-room negotiations. And, we talk about transparency in democracy! Go figure.
Federalism, in the sense of co-opting the states in setting the course is decidedly absent. As I heard from a retired top-level bureaucrat recently, the Indian system is unitary with some (read, negligible) amount of federalist pretensions. Loosely put, only when an amendment pertains to things on the State List, concurrence from the states is demanded. Otherwise, concurrence of the states is assumed by the mere fact that nominally state-wise representation constitutes the Rajya Sabha.
I had to seriously chuckle within myself that the Congress was blaming the BJP for not allowing the constitution to be amended towards establishing a “strong” Lokpal bill (I hate that qualifier and hence within quotes). Is the constitution the concern of the people or any party or, in the lingo of Kyoto Protocol, Conference of Parties? Does it start, “We, the political parties of India …”? No, it starts, “We, the people …”, going much beyond Hazare and his minions. Do you know that the US constitution stands amended when the 38th state (75% of the states) ratifies the amendment? The US Congress has no say in it. The US President has no say in it. The US Supreme Court has no say in it. The people, through the machinery of ratification by the stipulated number of state legislatures, takes ownership (I hate this managementese but I will let it go this once) of the constitution.
In India, the people are not even aware that their supreme law is being amended, quite so frequently at that. Please tell me, be honest, did you know before reading this piece that the Indian constitution had been amended 115 times? I guess not.
If you, as a citizen of India has not been made aware that the supreme law that you own and you are expected to live by has been amended so many times without as much as “by your leave”, is that not contempt?
Contempt of whom? Not just you, the citizen, but contempt of the nation, even the idea of nationhood. It is, in simple terms, contempt of the constitution, manifested by 115 /62.
Raghuram Ekambaram
P.S I have said much the same thing in a letter to the editor (Times of India) nearly 20 years ago.
That number 62, I argue, is meaningless. The more relevant number is 115. That is the number of amendments we have imposed on our so-called founding document. We are imposing, on average, 1.85 amendments to the constitution every year! To make it more stark, once every 196 days! I get the sniffles less frequently than that! A weak foundation document the Indian constitution has become.
By the way, if only the BJP had played ball with the UPA, we would have had the 116th amendment, Lokpal!
A comparison is in order, no matter how exceptionalist we are or we claim to be. The US constitution was adopted in 1789 (the US “government began operations”) and it is 223 years old. It has no more than 27 amendments, enacted over 223 years. Note too that the first ten amendments (1791) came out of a bargain at the time of proposing the constitution. And one merely repealed an earlier amendment. So, we may conclude that the US amended its constitution a total of 16 times over 221 years – once every thirteen years; once every 4,748 days! That rate, I believe, befits the conception of “supreme law of the land”.
That is, the rate of amendment of the Indian constitution is 24 times of the US’s! Isn’t that reason enough to blame our constitution for inflicting upon itself such a weakness? It is almost, dare I say it, self-contemptuous.
Well, I must set out some of the differences between the US and Indian constitutions that are germane to what I am discussing here. For the most part, the US constitution confines itself to majestic phrases or overarching clauses – freedom of speech, separation of church and state, cruel and unusual punishment, the commerce clause, the due process clause, the equal protection clause and so on. The details are to be filled in by the legislating arm of the government to subsequently undergo judicial review if need be.
In contrast, the Indian constitution appears to carry two identities. On the one hand it mentions in broad brush strokes what is desired, like the Directive Principles that does not strongly impose on the government (to be uncharitable about it – statements of pious intentions and no more) and on the other, go into the minutiae. It may be that the latter of the two identities is what has attracted most of the amendments, but I am not sure that position would be justified in a detailed analysis.
However, even if that were the case, why not have the statutes changed instead of amending the constitution? The constitution is a higher order law, it is more permanent, less amenable to political pressures, you say? 115 /62 belies any such assertions. The Indian constitution can be amended almost as though it is a regular law, the higher status visible only through the higher numbers required to pass. Such numbers can be agglomerated through back-room negotiations. And, we talk about transparency in democracy! Go figure.
Federalism, in the sense of co-opting the states in setting the course is decidedly absent. As I heard from a retired top-level bureaucrat recently, the Indian system is unitary with some (read, negligible) amount of federalist pretensions. Loosely put, only when an amendment pertains to things on the State List, concurrence from the states is demanded. Otherwise, concurrence of the states is assumed by the mere fact that nominally state-wise representation constitutes the Rajya Sabha.
I had to seriously chuckle within myself that the Congress was blaming the BJP for not allowing the constitution to be amended towards establishing a “strong” Lokpal bill (I hate that qualifier and hence within quotes). Is the constitution the concern of the people or any party or, in the lingo of Kyoto Protocol, Conference of Parties? Does it start, “We, the political parties of India …”? No, it starts, “We, the people …”, going much beyond Hazare and his minions. Do you know that the US constitution stands amended when the 38th state (75% of the states) ratifies the amendment? The US Congress has no say in it. The US President has no say in it. The US Supreme Court has no say in it. The people, through the machinery of ratification by the stipulated number of state legislatures, takes ownership (I hate this managementese but I will let it go this once) of the constitution.
In India, the people are not even aware that their supreme law is being amended, quite so frequently at that. Please tell me, be honest, did you know before reading this piece that the Indian constitution had been amended 115 times? I guess not.
If you, as a citizen of India has not been made aware that the supreme law that you own and you are expected to live by has been amended so many times without as much as “by your leave”, is that not contempt?
Contempt of whom? Not just you, the citizen, but contempt of the nation, even the idea of nationhood. It is, in simple terms, contempt of the constitution, manifested by 115 /62.
Raghuram Ekambaram
P.S I have said much the same thing in a letter to the editor (Times of India) nearly 20 years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment