Ignorance or pretence of it?

WHY IS it that many people are worked up about the constitution of the Venkatachaliah Commission to review the Constitution? Are they worried that they will be caught unawares and the Constitution would be changed without their knowledge? Or is one party chary of another political party getting recognition and credit for attempting to do what it did not or could not do?

The reason lies either in ignorance or pretence of ignorance or in not accepting the reality. As for the excuse of ignorance, it could well be true that a large number of people are not aware of what is happening around them, particularly as they are beyond the pale of the Constitution in their daily struggle of life and livelihood. For those pretending not to know, perhaps it is political strategy and the playing of games in that arena.

Article 368 of our Constitution provides the procedure for amending the Constitution. Parliament assumes, in this regard, a role distinct from its usual role of a legislature. Very briefly three steps are identifiable: only by introduction of a Bill in either House can amendment be initiated; Parliament can amend only by a special majority (in the case of provisions affecting the States, ratification is necessary by the legislatures of not less than half the number of States). Parliament alone is the body which can amend, alter or repeal a provision of the Constitution and no court of law can sit in judgment over it (unless the basic provisions relating to ideology and intent have been touched).

This being the case where is the question of a commission formed by the Government (even if it includes some of its favourites) `amending' or `altering' the Constitution? The critics clearly want to confuse review with reform and amendment so as to blur issues.

Actually it is not such a bad idea to take stock of the situation - of how we have weathered many a storm because of the strength of the Constitution to back us or of the lacunae that have been noticed in it, while handling a problem. While it would be impossible to build in every foreseeable and non-foreseeable situation into the document, it would still be useful to know whether we can meet the challenge of change that is with us all the time. Ambedkar, known as its chief architect, felt ``that it is workable, it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peace-time and in war-time.'' Should this not be checked out with the way events have been handled in the last half-century? That is a good way to find out its overt and covert strengths and weaknesses and seek to build on it with the people's help.

Priceless heritage

The truth seems to lie in that people are apprehensive that there is a hidden agenda in government's mind taking shelter behind such innocuous and indeed laudable objectives as is made out. Their argument is probably that there has been no earth- shattering event to warrant such a review. We have amended the Constitution not less than 80 times when the people's representatives saw a need for it. It makes sense to undertake amendment according to need and situation. The Constitution is a priceless heritage written with the greatest concern and care for succeeding generations by people who made great sacrifices for the country and some of the best brains in the land. It is too serious to be left to politicians and governments, who are here today and gone tomorrow. Normally a complete overhaul is undertaken or a new Constitution written when a country attains freedom or there is a change from a military regime to a democratic one. There is no such situation in India like this at present.

We may recall several attempts to study and review parts of the Constitution undertaken in the past, such as Centre-State relations. Many of the recommendations are yet to be taken up for action. The classic example is the appointment of the Sarkaria Commission in 1983, to examine and review the working of existing arrangements between the Union and the States in regard to powers, functions and responsibilities in all spheres and recommend appropriate changes and measures. But so far, not much has been done. People may take heart from this habit of ours of not taking reports and reviews too seriously. Who can guess what the fate of the Review, which is to emerge, will be and who will be at government's helm at that time - for much depends on the political will to take a follow-up action.

It is interesting to note that South Africa, the youngest democracy, has a simple, short Constitution encompassing the basic tenets, principles and ideology, leaving it to the legislature to spell out the details. This means that the question of ``amendment'' would hardly arise. It is much easier to change the Acts of the legislature than to amend a Constitutional provision. Note also that a simplified version of the Constitution has been made available for the benefit of the public. You and the Constitution is available to each and everyone. People are encouraged to learn about their country and its Constitution and to participate in its democratic working through knowing and understanding their rights.

Compare this with our situation, where the Constitution is long and legal, with technicalities that common people would hardly understand. Public participation in knowing and understanding it has hardly ever been sought by any government here. The Review Commission has appointed ten committees, each headed by a legal luminary for it is only they who can unravel the technical nuances. And although Justice Krishna Iyer has said that ``it is no petrified parchment or fossil jurisprudence'', it is not simple for the masses to get the hang of it. How are we going to involve the people in expressing what they want as review?

One hopes that the review body will seek to recommend simplification rather than anything else to ensure public participation. Then can we go nearer to greater and better democracy, where the law applies equally to every citizen. Anyway one of the first steps that can be taken up right now without fear of controversy and indeed would be welcomed by all is to release for the people an officially prepared simple version of the Constitution, in all the languages. People may, with a copy of this, not question the motive for setting up the Review Commission.

PADMA RAMACHANDRAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Fiscal crisis and review of the Constitution
Next     : Know your English