An authoritarian vision

By Prakash Karat

THOSE WHO support the Vajpayee Government's proposal to initiate a comprehensive review of the Constitution are surprised at the opposition generated to this move. They ask, what is wrong with a review? Is it not time after 50 years to take a second look at the Constitution? Such arguments sound reasonable if they are isolated from the political context of who wants such a review and why it is being initiated.

The BJP has been harping on the need for a review of the Constitution for the last one decade. After the formation of the National Democratic Alliance in 1998 this proposal, originally mooted by the BJP, was included in the National Agenda for Governance. However, it is clear that it is the BJP which is the prime mover of this proposal. The reasons why the BJP wishes to have a review of the Constitution are being deliberately obscured by it at present because of the political compulsions of its alliance.

The BJP leadership responding to the widespread criticism of the move has defended the Government's decision by stating that the aim is to increase stability at the Centre and in the States, to devolve more powers to the States and the panchayati raj institutions. The BJP has been speaking in different voices about the intent of the Constitution review. While some talk of the need for change in Centre-State relations and electoral reforms, the declared stand of the BJP in its official documents has been somewhat different. The BJP had spelt out clearly what it intends to do with the Constitution in its 1991 election manifesto. It had talked of ``a commission to study and report whether the presidential system of government will give us the most suitable government than the present parliamentary system''. The second demand in the manifesto concerns the modification of Article 30 which guarantees the rights of minorities to run their own educational institutions. The BJP wishes to amend the Article in such a manner as to put an end to the Constitutional protection given to the minorities. The third change proposed is the abrogation of Article 370 regarding Jammu and Kashmir.

Significantly, in the 1996 and 1998 election manifestos of the BJP, the first two demands are not repeated. Instead the proposal for a comprehensive review of the Constitution is made. This is because by 1996, the BJP had realised the need to muster allies who may not agree with these demands. It therefore decided to take up these issues in an oblique manner through the mechanism of a Constitution review.

Notwithstanding what the BJP says today about not taking up ``contentious issues'' it is a party which has openly declared its allegiance to Hindutva. In the last election manifesto issued by the BJP as a party in 1998, in which it promised to undertake a review of the Constitution, the BJP also echoed the slogan of the RSS of ``one nation, one people, one culture''. It talked of Hindutva as the core of cultural nationalism which should be the principle of the Indian state.

The central thrust of the BJP-RSS combine for review of the Constitution is the desecularisation of the Indian state and society. It sees the Constitution as a roadblock to installing Hindutva as the guiding principle of the state. At the present juncture, the infiltration of the Hindutva ideology into the Constitutional scheme of affairs cannot be accomplished directly by the BJP as it does not have a majority and it is compelled to run a coalition. It is therefore striving to indirectly bring it on to the agenda of the Government.

Talk of having a presidential form of government must be seen in this background. The Presidential form, with the concentration of powers in one leader, will be more suitable for entrenching the Hindutva ideology in the institutions of the State. The President can induct key personnel, to run the state apparatus, who are not directly accountable to Parliament. The parliamentary system which has taken root in India is more accommodative of and responsive to the diversity of Indian society. At the root of the BJP's advocacy of a presidential form of government lies the authoritarian vision of ``Akhand Bharat''.

The review of the Constitution is intended to serve another purpose. The BJP focusses on those provisions of the Constitution which provide protection to the rights of the minorities - a feature inherent in any genuine democratic set-up. That is why the BJP seeks to abrogate Article 370 providing autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir and nullify Article 30 which guarantees the rights of minorities to run their own educational institutions.

The Law Minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, has gone on record that the Supreme Court's notions of ``misguided secularism'' as the basis for the use of Article 356 need to be reviewed. This ominous remark is directed at the Supreme Court judgment in the Bommai case which upheld the dismissal of the BJP-led State Governments in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition. The judgment had declared secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.

Previously when the 13-month Vajpayee Government was in office, the Union Home Minister, Mr. L. K. Advani, had spelt out some of the ostensible concerns regarding the Constitution review. He talked of reviewing Centre-State relations with a view to providing the States more powers, electoral reforms to strengthen the democratic system, and the question of the presidential form of government being preferable to the parliamentary system. In the case of both Centre-State relations and electoral reforms, there is a widespread consensus on the need for change, and this does not require the type of omnibus Constitution review which the Vajpayee Government wants to undertake. For suitably amending Article 356 or other relevant articles on Centre-State relations, the Inter-State Council is the proper forum to arrive at a consensus. In the case of electoral reforms, the Government has only to initiate legislation. None of these require a basic review of the Constitution. So what we are left with is the pet project of the BJP which is to alter the basic character of the political system under the Constitution by ushering in a presidential form of government.

Those who cite the Supreme Court judgment in the Keshavanand Bharati case to assure that no change in the basic structure can take place, overlook the fact that a key reason for the review is the push for a presidential form of government. The changeover to a presidential form would mean a drastic change in the political system of governance set out in the Constitution.

During the emergency, the 42nd Constitution Amendment was rammed through. If this assault on the Constitution was reprehensible, the covert move to rewrite the secular and parliamentary democratic features of the Constitution through a handpicked Commission is as harmful.

The procedure proposed for the Constitution review is equally objectionable. A small body of experts selected by the Vajpayee Government will constitute the Commission to undertake the task of basic review of the Constitution. Some of the names being mentioned for the Commission are those who have already spoken in favour of the presidential form of government or are votaries of curtailing the role of Parliament and the party system. The former President, Mr. R. Venkataraman, is one such name.

It is Parliament, elected by the Indian people, which is empowered to amend the Constitution as per the procedure laid out in Article 368. Only Parliament can mandate the scope and terms of a Constitution review. The Constitution is not just a legal document to be dissected by legal or constitutional experts. The process of changes to the Constitution which is ongoing acquires legitimacy only through the political process. The BJP wishes to open up the issue of basic changes in the Constitution through the mechanism of a Commission. It knows that it cannot get its amendments passed through Parliament at present. But what it wants is legitimacy for its ideological positions through the trappings of a Commission.

(The writer is a member of the politbureau of the CPI-M)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Water dispute
Next     : A free trade area for Asia