A defensive exercise

THE LATEST SET of consultation papers released by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), like those brought out last January and May, are palpably wanting in suggesting imaginative alternatives to the purportedly many Constitutional aberrations and anomalies that characterised the first five decades of the Indian Republic. On the singular question of the country's experience in recent years, with political instability and fractured mandates - an issue that supposedly lent legitimacy to the enterprise of a Constitution review by an otherwise illegitimate body - the Commission had little to offer except cite the German model of a constructive vote of confidence or some form of amalgum of indirect and runoff elections. Even if these proposals were circulated merely to elicit public opinion, they barely dwell beyond the usual allusions to generalities on these subjects. On other issues, the mindset informing the Commission appears to be either one of proposing cosmetic solutions to fundamental moral questions of realising the egalitarian vision enshrined in the Constitution, or of steering clear of controversy in relation to ticklish questions with a potential for political fall-out. On the contrary, the answers to some of these predicaments would appear to require nothing short of a practical blueprint, charting radical proposals for social change as well as continuity. The paper released last week on ``social security'', for instance, does not go beyond hinting at declaring a minimum 80 days work for rural wage labourers as a fundamental right. An earlier document on fundamental rights never even addressed the current controversies surrounding the status of the rights of religious minorities. Instead, it expatiated on the extension of fundamental rights, an area elaborated admirably by innumerable judicial interpretations.

But even if the final outcome of the Commission's exercise is unlikely to suggest any path-breaking endeavours in Constitution remaking, its role has clearly been underpinned by strict conformity with the norms of a democratic Constitutional order. This may be in large measure due to a recognition across the political spectrum of the sanctity of the basic structure doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court and the repeated assurances from the Commission, including its Chairman, Mr. M. N. Venkatachalayya, that the spirit of the proposals would not conflict with the basic features of the Constitution. The Commission has likewise exercised care to keep out the pursuit of personal agenda by some of its members, especially on the question of the right of naturalised Indian citizens to hold high office.

Contrast these with the motives underlying the National Democratic Alliance Government's case for a review which were always suspect because they were informed by the politically partisan predilections of the Sangh Parivar wedded for many decades to overthrowing a liberal, pluralist Constitution. Correspondingly, the formation of the Commission was itself shrouded in controversy as such an exercise was undertaken bypassing Parliament and without popular mandate. A final word on the Commission's assignment must obviously await its report due at the end of its term by October 2001. But it is hard to imagine that even the noblest pronouncements of a body whose genesis and role lacked a modicum of legitimacy could pass muster with the people of India.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Fine-tuning the anti-terror chorus
Next     : Hounded and harassed