
The special debate in both houses of parliament on the occasion of 75 yrs of glorious journey of India’s constitution sadly ended with fracas on Parliament premises. Both NDA and Opposition’s INDIA bloc took out separate protest marches at the entry gate of Parliament. Unprecedented scenes of unruliness unfolded during a protest outside Parliament over alleged insult to the architect of the Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar. Preserving the dignity of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was dragged on to the streets. Both NDA and Congress filed police complaints against each other. Charges of misbehaviour, attempt to murder, physical assault and incitement” were levied on the leader of opposition. The opposition is going on protests in different parts of the country demanding resignation of the union home minister and protect the constitution. The protection of any institution or a system depends on its need for the people and the benefit it provides to the people.
What is the purpose of the Constitution?
The Constitution is a set of basic rules designed to maintain the relationship between the state and the citizens, and amongst the citizens. It is aimed to achieve a cohesion in society. The Constitution is a means of ensuring the political stability of a state [the country]. It determines the issues like who has the power to make decisions in society, who forms the government and also how it is formed. It exhibits a certain control over the authority of the Government. It can impose certain restrictions on the government while it makes rules and regulations for the citizens. It guarantees certain fundamental rights and certain liberties for the citizens. It also imposes certain restrictions on citizens to follow constitutional rules and perform his duties. It promotes the participation of citizens in the social movement and provides stability in society. It is the general opinion of people that constitution ensures state accountability to take care of the welfare of people and protect them from violence.
Historically the state came into existence in order to maintain the supremacy of one class over different classes in the society. The state was established by the most powerful class or a group of classes of that time. Hence, the state means an organised structure to serve the interests of the ruling class. It maintains its supremacy and levies oppression on rest of the classes while protecting its rights through laws, regulations and enforcing mechanisms [ that is the Constitution]. “The political power is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another”. The Constitution is the frame work of this political power and economic interests of the dominant class. In short, to put it bluntly, the Constitution is an implement of the ruling class in a society to maintain its authority over the people. It is a code of conduct set up to serve interests of ruling class, but is portrayed as the saviour of the interest of all the people in a given society.
Since the modern system of administration is called democracy, defined as” the rule of the people by the people and for the people”. It is necessary for rulers to show that they are the people and the government is by the people. It is people who gave them power. In order to gain power and to continue their authority, the rulers buy the people by granting certain rights and certain freedom to people along with some welfare measures. When their authority is opposed or questioned, the liberties granted are withdrawn and the authority of the ruling class is consolidated. This process is presented as the Constitution.
Then who is the ruling class in our country? In whose hands is the power? Who claim to be the representatives of the people and took over the reins of the administration? What is the purpose of their government? At the end of direct British colonial rule, to whose hands the power was bestowed? How has the Indian constitutional system come in to existence? These are the fundamental issues to be looked into.
How did the constitution originate?
The big bourgeoisie and feudal class played the lead role in India’s freedom struggle and led the national movement within certain limitations and limited objectives.The movement for independence rather than expanding into a wide national democratic revolution, was narrowed down to suit their own class interests. They assumed power in negotiation, compromise and collusion with the British rulers. Hence, the post-independence rulers in India had no character of anti-imperialism or anti feudal nature. Neither is there a tendency to liberate society from the clutches of landlordism and feudal relations and maintain it as a modern democratic system. Such a step will be a suicidal note for themselves. The Constitution of India is one framed with these limitations. It acquired the characteristics of the British colonial state and the domination of the princely states. But under the influence and pressure of the Indian people’s movements against exploitation and social discrimination, the ruling classes were compelled to incorporate certain democratic features into their constitution. Except for those few exceptions and assurances the nature of the Constitution was to protect the interests of the exploiting class, and the basic principles of the British raj had not changed much in Swaraj.
The Constitution of the Union of India [ a union of British India and the Princely States] was drafted by a Constituent Assembly, which was also constituted by the British Government and not by the rulers of independent India. Representatives of the [then Provincial] state Assemblies established by the British Government and elected by limited voters and the princely state representatives formed the constituent assembly. In terms of class, they were the representatives of the big bourgeoisie and feudal class, and most of them were royal loyalists. Neither the national revolutionaries nor the leftists who truly represent the aspirations of the people, had a place in the Constituent Assembly. Hence there is a question mark on the correctness of the very first sentence of the constitution “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST, SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC…do here by adopt enact and give to ourselves this constitution.”
The first meeting of the constituent assembly of 389 members was held on August 9, 1946, with Babu Rajendra Prasad as its president. Soon a separate body was formed for Pakistan in June 1947. This reduced the strength on Indian side to 299 members. The Constituent Assembly adopted a resolution to steer the country forward by integrating its aspirations, governance principles, and cultural traditions. The task was organized through 13 committees, with a 7-member drafting committee chaired by .Dr.B.R. Ambedkar. They worked for 141 days and prepared the Draft constitution. “Remarkably, it was shared with the public for comments, an extraordinary act of democratic engagement rare among nations.” They boast of. It consists of 295 articles, 22 parts, and 12 schedules, embodying liberal human values unmatched by any other. This Constitution is rooted in such profound democratic traditions They express immense pride in the Constitution and state that it commands the utmost respect and reverence from every Indian. The new Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949. It came into effect from January 26, 1950. We will explore the the democratic nature of the constitution below in detail.
The Constituent Assembly adopted the laws enacted by the British imperialists as their laws. Mainly from the Government of India Act of 1935, the ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity were derived from Buddhist literature and French constitutions, the system of judicial laws from Japan, the Rajya Sabha election system from South Africa, and free trade from Australia. The parliamentary system was derived from the conduct of the Buddhist communities, including England, and from Canada the concept of a strong central government of a federal nature and from Soviet Russia the concepts of providing social, economic and political justice to the citizens and the basic duties of the citizens.
Undermining this history Mr. Amit shah union home minister remarked in a special debate on 14th Dec in Rajya sabha that viewing the Constitution through a foreign lens prevents one from truly appreciating its inherent ‘Indianness’. He firmly rejected the notion that India’s Constitution is a copy of others He acknowledges that it incorporates valuable elements from global constitutions but boasts “This aligns with the Rigvedic principle of embracing goodness and auspicious thoughts from all corners of the world with an open mind”
He criticized those who have reduced the Constitution to mere words by omitting its symbolic illustrations, seen in the pages of handwritten manuscript. He. called it a betrayal of the spirit of constitution. He chose to highlight the depictions of Lord Ram, Buddha, Mahavir, and Guru Gobind Singh, the illustrations of Lord Ram, Sita, and Laxman and said, they represent our fundamental rights, while the inclusion of the Bhagavad Gita, Shivaji Maharaj, and Rani Lakshmi bai conveys powerful lessons in patriotism. He explained that Nalanda University symbolizes India’s ancient education system, the Gurukul system provides insights into the ideal structure of education. While the image of Nataraja embodies the principle of balance in life. He stressed that these depictions are profound proclamations of India’s civilizational ethos spanning thousands of years. Thus. he tried to establish the “Mera Bharat Mahan” theory. Is it not a deliberate attempt from him to divert attention from the modern values and drive the country slowly towards ancient scripts like Manusmrithi. If he was so particular about images, why did he not mention the images of Akbar and Tippu sultan which were there in manuscript. In the name Indianculture he chose to create an idea that Hindu religious images were pushed out of constitution.
It is true that the original manuscript of the constitution of India has certain images. It was handwritten by Prem Behari Narain Raizada (Saxena) of Delhi in a flowing italic style calligraphic tradition. Each page had a frame.At the beginning of each part of the Constitution, great painter Nandalal Bose from Santiniketan depicted some scene representing different phases of Indian history and culture [22pictures]. Even the borders were decorated in the Santiniketan style. The original version was then signed by all the members of the Constituent Assembly in January 1950. No signatory objected for those pictures. Photolithographed copies of it were then kept at the office of the Survey of India in Dehra Dun. This artwork is not considered as an integral part of the constitution but is treated as decorative calligraphy only. There is no chronological order of the pictures or any relation between the picture and text below. The original constitution of India means 395 articles, 8 schedules and preamble only for many. The intention of Mr. Shah in reminding these images in detail now is not without a purpose.
The Parliament was given the opportunity to make amendments to constitution and it was used several times. But when people agitate for their just aspirations, those demands or movements are dubbed as unconstitutional. But the ruling classes make amendments to the Constitution whenever they need it. Such amendments have been made 106 times so far. The parties who do not concur with them either revert them by another amendment in parliament or challenge them in court. For example, in 1976, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution included the words ‘socialist’ [socialism] and ‘secular’ [secularism] in the Preamble of the Constitution. These additions have been made with retrospective effect- as if they were existing from the date the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution.
It may be recalled that this amendment was made when the country was under an imposed state of emergency since June 1975 and pushed the people into a dark state. Many changes restricting the power of judiciary too with retrospective effect were made with the whole purpose of saving Mrs Indira Gandhi from election litigations. It is easily understood that the Indira Gandhi government made the amendment as part of its populist schemes for their political purposes, to divert the attention of the general public from the emergency excesses and to create the illusion that all that is happening is for the good of the people. Indira Gandhi through the same 42 amendment created a new section- 4A, with 10 fundamental duties thrust on citizens.
In 1977 amendment 43 and in 1978 amendment 44 were brought in by the Janata Government to revert some of the distortions introduced by 42nd amendment. The jurisdiction of courts in judicial reviews of certain writs was restored. Some safeguards against the tendency to take over fundamental rights were provided. The addition of duties of a citizen was not questioned as it was like a feast to all ruling parties. The successive governments also felt that it was necessary even when the original constitution did not mention them. Irrespective of parties no government changed them knowing well that they were introduced in an unconstitutional way.
But the words Secular, Socialist in preamble added by Mrs Gandhi were challenged in court of law much later also. It was the time when a party which considered secularism to be ‘sickularism’ was in power. The party could not digest the concept of equality of majority and minority religions. The petitioners, included Supreme Court advocate Dr.Balram Singh and Bhartiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy who argued that it was a betrayal of the Constitution. They argued that the term ‘secular’ was deliberately omitted by the Constituent Assembly and that the word ‘socialist’ would deprive the elected government of the freedom to choose its economic policy, and that the removal of those two terms would represent the will of the people. The persons who introduced these terms and persons who wanted to abolish these words-both argued that it was the will of the people.
However, in its judgment dated 25.11.2024, the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of the words ‘socialist and secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. The word ‘secular’ refers to a republic that respects all religions equally. The term socialist represents a republic dedicated to eradicating all forms of social, political and economic exploitation,” a bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed. The court observed that the motives of the petitions filed years later were questionable. The court observed that the Preamble of the Constitution is an inseparable part of the Constitution and that parliament has the inalienable power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution and that power also applies to changes in the Preamble. The Court observed that the Constitution is a living document and can be amended in accordance with the requirements of the times. “These words have gained wide acceptance and have been understood without any doubt by the ‘people of India’.
It is true that the Constituent Assembly has not agreed to include the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. In 1949, when some scholars and jurists commented that the word ‘secular’ denotes a sense against religion, it was then considered absurd to include such a vague word. But over time, India developed its own explanation of secularism in which the state does not support any religion and does not prevent any religion from being practised. “This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It prohibits discrimination against citizens on the basis of religion while ensuring equal opportunities in government jobs. Secularism is an integral part of the Constitution” the supreme court observed. The court observed that the original principles of equal status, equal opportunities, fraternity, dignity and liberty contained in the preamble reflect the secular values of the Constitution. But in practise the ruling parties follow the appeasement of majority or minority or all religions as vote banks. This cannot be treated as secularism.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that ‘socialism’ in India means a commitment to function as a welfare state. Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble lays down a specific economic policy or structure. ‘Socialist’ refers to the government’s commitment to being a welfare state and providing equal opportunities. India has consistently adopted the model of a mixed economy where the private sector has developed, expanded and developed.” the Supreme Court pointed out. Whatever might have been proclaimed or followed, [whether non-capitalist, mixed, socialist or neoliberal India is now at the forefront of being the system that created the highest inequalities. As per Oxfam report 2021 While the top 1% of India’s population is accounted for more than 40.5% of the total wealth, the bottom 50% of the population were able to get only 13%. According to the World Inequality Report 2022, India is one of the most unequal countries in the world. The top 10% of the population has shared 57% of the total national income. In the bottom 50% incomes have fallen by 13%. After corona pandemic people are pushed into such a poor status that 80crore are being supported with free foodgrains for their subsistence. The government cannot afford to lift it for next 5 years as their situation has not improved. The exploitation of big bourgeoise and plunder of multinational corporate companies goes unabated causing this type of poverty. Our economy could not flourish independently even after celebrating Amruth Mahotsav of Indian independence.
It is clear that when the Constitution was prepared, certain objectives were announced in a casual manner, but they did not have clear definitions and specific meanings, nor did they devise the right ways to achieve them. “It has been designed to suit the ideas of the contemporary generation. But it is not necessary that future generations will be bound by this.” The Constituent Assembly has said that they have given enough provision to change constitution with just 2/3rd majority to suit with the needs and ideas of future generations[=rulers]. It can be understood that the meanings, concepts and interpretations change from time to time. Hence the need arises for those in power to change the Constitution to safeguard their interests. It is clear that the constitution also gave this right to change. It can be understood that the Constitution is not a sacred inscription as is being propagated. The architect of the Constitution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar on November 25, 1949, on completing his work made some remarks with much anxiety and concern about the future of this country. Whether this Constitution would be able to protect the independence and democracy of the country was his major concern.
Apprehensions of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar
“On January 26, 1950, we are about to enter into a life of contradictions. From that day onwards, the Constitution of India begins to come into force. Then there will be equality in politics, inequalities in social and economic life. In politics, we recognize the principle of one vote for one man and one value for one vote. But in our social and economic life, because of our social and economic structure, we do not follow the principle of one man-one-value. If it is rejected for a long time, it will put our political democracy at risk. We must remove this contradiction as soon as possible, otherwise those suffering from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy,” he explained to the ruling classes an impending danger.
He pointed out the contradictions inherent in the Constitution. The essence of the fact is that this Constitution has not resolved those contradictions. It also means that though he wanted to do so, he could not find a solution to the social contradictions through this well written constitution. That is why the ruling classes should be aware of future conflicts and warned them to take timely steps to prevent chaos. The opportunity to make amendments was given for this purpose.
He also professed some rules to the people. “In the absence of constitutional procedures, there may be a justification for unconstitutional methods but when constitutional methods are there, the unconstitutional methods should not be followed to achieve economic and social goals. They cannot be justified” he said clearly. “The first thing that we must do to achieve our social and economic goals is to adhere to constitutional methods, that is, we must give up bloody methods of revolution, i.e., we must give up civil disobedience, non-co-operation and satyagraha” These methods are nothing but anarchic grammar. The sooner they are abandoned, the better for us,” assertively he told people. In a way, he declared the usual way of satyagraha in which people protest as an anti-constitutional method.
Diverting the attention of the people from the nature of constitutional supremacy, the primary weapon of the rulers, he said “I feel, however good a constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot.” He also added “The working of a constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depends are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.” So, any change good or bad rests on the people and on persons whom they elect. Thus, the role of people in achieving social and economic changes is reduced to just electing good representatives.
What can be done to build democracy?
We should not be content with mere political democracy, but should be transformed into social democracy. Social democracy means a way of life that recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. They cannot be treated as separate entities. Liberty without fraternity leads to discrimination. Equality without liberty kills individual initiative. Equality cannot exist without liberty and fraternity.
“Political democracy cannot survive unless there is a social democratic foundation. This newly born democracy can accommodate dictatorship while retaining its form. For in India there is so much more of so-called bhakti, individual worship or heroic worship, it plays a greater role in politics here than in the politics of any other country. Bhakti in religion may be the way to salvation, but in politics bhakti or individual worship leads to downfall and ultimately dictatorship” Dr. Ambedkar predicted.
Moreover, constitutionally, there is a peculiarity in our electoral system. The votes won by a party do not match the seats. A party with the lowest number of votes also can win the maximum number of seats and come to power. A party with the smallest number of seats can get the prime minister’s post constitutionally. Even if one party wins and forms the government the opposite party persons can have a berth as ministers in the new government. The principle of a government elected by the majority of the people is not being implemented but still it is constitutional. It is not the people, but the politics of opportunism decide the governments by horse trading of elected persons. Everything is treated as constitutional. The Constitution says nothing about representation in the legislatures on the proportion of votes, and therefore the Constitution itself denies the possibility of representing the views of different kinds of people [voters] in the legislatives or in administrative machinery.
“The fruits of independence today are being enjoyed only by politicians, civil servants, affluent sections and street goondas. What is currently being implemented in our system in the name of independence is the legal autocracy. What is happening in the name of democracy is constitutional exploitation. To put an end to this tyranny and exploitation, we have to fight for true freedom,” said Jayaprakash Narayan who resigned IAS and took politics for social reformation. Such persons recognise the fact of the society but deny the peoples’ right to revolution to bring changes. People are being conditioned to confine to constitutional methods. They believe that the Constitution is good but the governments are bad. Therefore, they advocate that a bad government should be replaced with a good government. They do not realise the nature of the Constitution or the inherent contradictions in it.
In the recently concluded Lok Sabha elections, there was a discussion about the Constitution publicly and an attempt to portray the Constitution as the most sacred, inviolable and should not be changed. Any change will be detrimental to people. Political parties were divided into two groups one as defenders of the Constitution and others as destructors of constitution. All opposition parties criticised the BJP for going against the principles of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They propagated as if BJP was the only political party against the Constitution. Those who wanted changes in the existing Constitution were portrayed as autocratic and anti-democratic. The lonely BJP was forced to declare that it also supported the constitution. The candidate contesting from Faizabad constituency (Ayodhya district) campaigned for a two-thirds majority to bring changes in constitution. He was defeated. Former Union Minister Anant kumar Hegde repeatedly called for the constitution to be changed. The saffron party denied a Lok Sabha ticket to him. The opposition’s campaign to protect the Constitution was so virulent that it obscured the extent to which the Constitution was practiced when they were in power. It is strange that the Congress, which suspended the fundamental rights of the people and declared a state of Emergency three times-1. in 1962 [during war with China] 2. in 1971 [during war with Pakistan] and 3. in 1975 [state of internal emergency] today proclaims as the protector of the Constitution. The political manoeuvres went on until the Bhartiya Janata Party hurriedly announced that it had no intention of changing constitution. The constitutionalists rejoiced with the election results and felt a sigh of relief that the basic principles of the Republic of India had been strengthened in this general election. Slowly they realize that Democracy faces the same fate under NDA rule or INDI alliance ruled states.
Similarly, there has been a lot of debate on casteism and communalism citing the Constitution. No matter from which religion they originate from, they are against the principles of equality and fraternity and therefore a threat to the country. But is it only the Hindutva parties that are practising such discrimination? Are the other parties staying away from these bad practises? When the value of a person is measured on the basis of their caste and religion of origin, it demeans the personality of that person and reduces the contributions of those groups to society. Is it not barbarous if the value of a person decreases because he is not born in a particular caste or group? No society can prosper if a person is not valued for their work more than the matter of where he was born. Can constitutional values accept this social attitude that is currently in vogue?
Denigrating democratic principles, interfering in institutions that are supposed to ensure the rule of law, inciting political and social violence, and not promoting a culture of equality have been adopted by all the ruling parties. In addition, majoritarian communalism is on the rise, and the motivation for this is the consolidation of a large vote bank, and the BJP is active in this regard, but it is not correct to say that all its voters are communalists. Its main attraction is that a section of the supporters raises the slogan in accordance with their underlying sense of superiority. We have also seen changes in citizenship identity and attempts to remove the terms secular and socialist.
The ideological splits in the ruling parties are a sign of a crisis. They are struggles to decide which policy serves their masters the best and who to remain in power. It is not because some of them are in favour of public interests and some are opposed. Let it be any party, the very nature of these ruling classes is exploitation and oppression. That is the reason for the contradiction between the letters of the written Constitution and the practices.
Many intellectuals feel that the constitutional values and vision be taken to every citizen. They feel “lack of proper understanding in people on the role of the Constitution in India’s progress is the reason why some parties threaten the constitution. They showcase this Constitution as profound and profess that its ideals are the real drivers of social changes. However, the main objective of the Constitution is to protect the present social order. In contrast a majority of people feel that the present system is not conducive to the proposed socialistic changes. 75 yrs of experience only indicates that this Constitution if preserved or even if amended, there will be no fundamental changes in the present social life. Therefore, it is not the Constitutional reforms, but the State; Not the ruling party, but the ruling class which must be radically changed to bring out a new social order.
Many argue that among the countries that have faced colonial rule, democratic India stands out with its head up as one of the most advanced countries, and that strong democracy and rule of law as per constitution have enabled peace and development. Educational institutions, medical institutions, industries and so on are tuned to provide access to vast majority and created an opportunity for well-being of marginal sections. Many educated people believe that the country is moving towards social justice with the provision of reservation constitutionally and if there is an imperfection in this system, it is acceptable, and enough to correct those shortcomings. The Save India and the like movements are being carried out to emphasize the role of the Constitution and protecting it.
They fail to see the facts camouflaged. Since the early days of the Constitution, the Government of India, is engaged in anti-people, undemocratic practises. It started its glorious travel by plunging the Telangana armed struggle of people [1946-51] into bloodshed. Successive governments unleashed violence and massacres against people in Tripura, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and other north east states, Kashmir and Bengal declining their demands as antinational. They resorted to encounter the people’s movements dubbing them or anti-social and anti-constitutional in Srikakulam, Telangana, Odisha, Chhattisgarh and so on. This is done under the cover of constitution. Such draconian governments disguised themselves as the people’s governments. But yet the nature of the egregious violent constitution is portrayed as innocent cow.
The supporters of the Constitution shamelessly pronounce that the country will survive as a democratic system as long as the backbone of this Constitution remains intact even if the leaders make some mistakes. They also narrate that in the absence of this kind of constitutional obligation, Pakistan is often mired in military rule or under the supervision of military forces, Sri lanka has been subjected to civil war because it has denied equal rights to its Tamil citizens. We are made to believe that we have established a democracy and the ethnic struggles taking place in our country are anti- democratic. The rulers cover up the carnage that is taking place in parts of our country. The history of suppressing the decades-long national struggle in Kashmir and the atrocities committed by the army there are portrayed as heroic deeds. Claiming to be suppressing terrorism the state was torn into pieces, depriving people there of their constitutional guarantees and privileges. Our courts are issuing certificates that all such acts are in accordance with law.
People’s Democracy
Whatever may be the judgments of the courts or laws passed by the Central government or the State Legislatures, what the people want is equality, fraternity, social and economic development. It is their birthright to achieve them. This Constitution does not permit struggles at all. If people challenge restrictions and pre conditions are imposed on the peoples’ rights. Courts at times cannot exceed the principles of certain provisions and so in some cases give a verdict in favour of the people. But the government machinery will not implement such orders. If necessary, governments will plug the loopholes that have led to judgments favouring agitators and frame more stringent regulations in favour of persons in power. They change the laws and make all their deeds look as “constitutional”. Only when the people of India realise the constitutional nature; the shameless manipulations of the constitution by rulers will cease to work.
It is described as a constitution created by the people of India and an attempt has been made in the Constitution itself to say that it is a people’s constitution. It is said to have given many kinds of rights and liberties to the people. But those rights are enjoyed by those who are protecting the present system of exploitation, and by those who support the ruling classes and those who are at the top of this unequal society. The rights of the rest are given with one hand and snatched away with the other by imposing many conditions and regulations. Democratic rights are being eroded; the ruling classes continue to exercise their will in implementing court orders also. Do they rule in accordance with the Constitution on which they pledge?
Oddly enough, some progressive aspects of constitution are showcased to create illusions among the people. It is being obscured that the Constitution which has been implemented for more than 75 years has established electoral dictatorship and constitutional autocracy in the country. We have seen that the rulers can declare a state of emergency and abrogate all the rights of the people whenever they wish. Today we see that even without declaring emergency dictatorial methods are applied. The administrative machinery is useful only to the exploiting classes such as the big capitalists, the pro-imperialists and the feudal classes and not to the people. In this situation Some revolutionaries declare “it as an absolute right of people to overthrow such a system and build a complete democratic system. The constitution does not permit that right is arbitrary.”
Scholars should recognize that to demand for the enforcement of the peoples’ rights awarded in the Constitution is different from living in an illusion of this Constitution as a panacea. There are some who, frustrated by the present level of revolution, have put forward a sole programme of saving this state and the Constitution from fascist communalists like the BJP as a revolutionary goal. Is showing BJP as hoax and defending the other ruling parties as anti-fascist lead to real democracy? The so-called democratic forces are given a reputation that they do not deserve or have. They are also preaching to strengthen this Constitution by increasing the cooperation of the people. Does it not mean to protect the constitutional umbrella of exploitation and oppression? Is this not the desire of the ruling classes either in power or in opposition?
No matter how democratic, how liberal and how progressive they may appear, they are creating illusions of an authoritarian India in the real sense. Being generous to one or the other parties of today’s ruling clan, most of the civil rights activists are walking into the trap of democratic faced dictators. Some are confident that with some few reforms today’s constitution will become pro-people. This harms the progress of Indian Peoples Democratic Revolutionary Camp which wants to demolish the bourgeois democracy and establish a people’s democracy. Constitutionalists are becoming a practical obstacle to that movement.
The people of India are still being plundered by the landlordism, the big bourgeoisie and the imperial supremacy. The ruling parties who are their pawns are mortgaging the independence and economy of the country. The people must unite to abolish this system and establish a full democratic system. People will continue their revolution even if they are not allowed.
Comparing the freedom and liberties given to the people by this Constitution and also the power conferred on the Government by the same Constitution to take away the rights, the people are left with no remaining rights. The people of India are demanding a constitution that liberates them from the clutches of a few landlords, capitalists and foreign exploiters and plunder the wealth and natural resources of the country. They want a state where there is no religious or caste discrimination, where there is social harmony, security, equity of opportunities, peace and comfort to their lives. They want a constitution and state machinery that stands for them. In a word, they want a Peoples’ Democratic Constitution. “This is the constitution of the exploiters. It should be abolished and the constitution of the proletariat state must be achieved through revolution.” Stated many revolutionaries.
I conclude this article by reminding the words of Dr. Ambedkar with his apprehension anxiety and early warning to the rulers “Who can say how the people of India and their purposes or will they prefer revolutionary methods of achieving them? If they adopt the revolutionary methods, however good the Constitution may be, it requires no prophet to say that it will fail. It is, therefore, futile to pass any judgement upon the Constitution without reference to the part which the people and their parties are likely to play.”
Dr.S.Jatin Kumar is a political commentator