• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Economy and statute review

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

ON JULY 8, the spokesman for the Constitution Review Commission, Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, announced that the panel would look into the nation's economic policy and assess whether ``globalisation'' had helped alleviate poverty or not. To quote him: ``P overty is one of the major concerns and we have to see whether the new economic policy has contributed to the eradication of poverty or actually further added to it.''

This is not a new thought, as far as the Constitution Review Commission is concerned, for on March 29, Justice Reddy had stated that among ``ten core areas for examination'' by the Committee, one would be the ``pace of socio-economic change and developme nt and removal of poverty''. Going back even earlier, (the setting up of the Commission was announced on February 13), a January 29 report in an English-language daily had said that ``the Law Ministry's Cabinet Note on Constitutional review, which has be en circulated, is based on a `background paper' drafted by a committee with a `saffron complexion', as a Ministry official put it''. Among the many points listed for review by the committee, the background paper included ``economic reforms''.

On March 29, Justice Reddy had also said the Commission would review the Constitution's working, not the original document itself. As he succinctly put it, "Examine, not rewrite''. But, of course, one must know what is written in the Constitution if an ` `examination'' is to be conducted on a particular subject. So what does the Constitution say on the subject of removal of poverty or, alternatively, economic development?

Part IV of the Constitution contains the Directive Principles of State Policy, and Article 37 says: ``The provisions contained in this Part (IV) shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws''. What are the principles relevant to the specific issue under discussion?

Article 39 states: ``The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing _ (a) that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood; (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed, as best to subserve the common good; (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment; (d) that there is equal pay for equal work fo r both men and women; (e) that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their are or strength; (f) that childre n are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment''.

Article 41 states: ``The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want''. Article 43 lays down that the State ``shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, con ditions of work, ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or cooperative basis in rural areas''.

Article 43A says the State ``shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisation engaged in any industry''.

Going back to the Review Commission spokesman's March 29 formulation, the Commission's objective is to examine whether the actual working of the Constitution during the past 50 years has lived up to the promise contained within its covers and, subsequent ly, if the objectives have not been met, to suggest what has gone wrong and perhaps also how to produce better results _ without re-writing the Constitution (it remains to be seen how this part of the exercise will be conducted, since the review panel do es not appear to have any specialists in this sphere).

Seen against this background, it is a trifle surprising that the ``new economic policy'' has been singled out (as Justice Reddy's July 8 statement indicates) for specific study. Clearly, the new policy, which is being implemented since the early nineties , can form only one aspect (no doubt the current aspect) of the examination, which should extend backwards to the mid-fifties, to the time when the First Five-Year Plan was being implemented. If the current policy of ``globalisation'' is to be examined t o ascertain whether it is combatting or further promoting poverty, it should follow that there will be similar examinations of whether the Five-Year Plan system itself passes muster vis-a-vis the Constitution, and whether or not, the old policy of self-r eliance was constitutionally appropriate.

In fact, the question arises whether there is really a need to examine the economic policies of the Government of the day vis-a-vis the Constitution because, among other things, ineffective economic policies, as far as attainment of growth is concerned ( which itself is not quantified), cannot be termed un-constitutional in the legal sense of the term. This apart, concepts such as ``concentration of wealth'', are not quantified in the document, which leaves much scope for debate and obfuscation of the re al issues at stake, which cannot add productively to the debate on whether or not, the Constitution has worked well during the past half-century.

The Preamble to the Constitution says that the people have resolved to constitute a ``Socialist'' republic. Since this has some links with the credo of ``socialism'', it can be argued that the Government's economic policies can be examined with a view to ascertaining whether the cause of Socialism is being promoted. But is classical socialism still workable? (what the neo-classical variants are is anybody's guess.)

What does worldwide experience suggest, including that of Communist China and Cuba? Indeed, should the word ``Socialist'' still be a part of the Preamble, being put there by the infamous 42nd Amendment Act of 1976? Does the inclusion of the word in the P reamble, cramp the efforts towards economic development in keeping with current international trends? Or can the effects of an open economy (globalisation, et al) be made consistent with all that the word ``Socialist'' stands for, in the economic sense o f the term as opposed to social organisation?