Those branded as anti-nationals or accused of/charged with sedition can now draw some solace. They have company. Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao is the latest public figure to be called anti-national, with leaders of both the ruling BJP and the Opposition Congress demanding that prison is the place where he should be. We are truly progressing well as a democracy!
What’s KCR’s crime? For the benefit of those who missed his press conference on the day the Union Budget was presented, KCR vented out his anger at the Centre for ignoring the interests of states and said it was time to take a deep relook at the Constitution. “It’s now 70 years since we adopted one. We have failed to address the needs of people even after such a long period. As someone who spent 50 years in public life, I am proposing that the country debate and discuss my suggestion for a complete review of the Constitutional document to meet the emerging needs.”
The crux of his argument was that in line with our federal nature, instead of strengthening the states as we evolve as a nation, Union governments, whether ruled by the Congress or BJP, have been weakening them by way of centralisation, and that proposals such as ‘one nation, one identity’ or the more recent move by the Centre to provide itself the power to take on deputation any IAS officer from any state without the need for consent go against the basic tenets of the Constitutional spirit. The Opposition pounced on KCR, labelling him as one who gives least respect to democratic functioning and that his demand amounts to insulting Dr Ambedkar. By extension, they called KCR anti-Dalit. The problem with political discourse in India, particularly in recent years, is that it never relies on logic, reason or research. It takes the easy way out and brands the opponent—could be a young climate activist, a comedian, a writer, a poet, a tribal activist or a political leader—as anti-national. This episode is no different.
So, what are the facts? Is this the first time someone is proposing a relook at the Constitution? In the 71 years since we adopted it, the Constitution has been amended 100-plus times, a majority of them by Congress-led governments at the Centre. Neither is it uncommon to rewrite Constitutions as several countries have done, for good or bad reasons.
What we were taught through NCERT textbooks (not sure if they still exist given the way this government has been trying to correct distorted notions of India) was: “The Constitution naturally reflects the efforts to tackle the problems of the society at the time of writing the document. But it’s not a frozen, unalterable document and is open to revision, changes or reexamination.” The Constitution makers, Dr Ambedkar included, hoped that future generations would respect it but at the same time recognised that it may require modifications, which is precisely why provisions have been created for changes.
Saffron leaders now seeing red over KCR’s proposal may perhaps do well to read up a bit. The proposal to review the Constitution was one of the promises in the national agenda the NDA came up with in 1999 ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. Soon after coming to power, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government constituted in February 2000 a 11-member committee headed by eminent jurist M N Venkatachaliah. The terms of reference for the panel are worth recollecting. “The Commission shall examine, in the light of past 50 years, as to how best the Constitution can respond to the changing needs of efficient, smooth and effective system of governance and socio-economic development of modern India within the framework of parliamentary democracy and to recommend changes, if any, that are required in the provisions without interfering with its basic structure.” After exhaustive discussions, the commission recommended dozens of changes, 58 of them involving amendments to the Constitution and 86 requiring legislative measures. They relate to, among others, Union-state relations, decentralisation and devolution. That it remained unimplemented, like the multiple recommendations made by the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state relations, is a different matter.
Let’s keep aside the merits/demerits of KCR (since it’s not the subject of this piece), even if one were to assume there is some truth in the criticism that he is autocratic, has a feudal mindset, shouts down those who talk back and so on. But he is no Maoist either. KCR’s traits should not distract attention from the reasons he put forth to seek a review of the Constitution, the essential point being the weakening of states vis-a-vis the Union government. Does it not amount to violation of the spirit behind Article 1 of the Constitution that describes India as the “Union of States”?
A few other examples. To begin with, the recent move by the Union government in regard to IAS officers. Law and order being a state subject, what if KCR or another chief minister, in a counter move, says they would manage with their own police officers without drafting from the pool of All India Services? There is nothing wrong in doing so, legally speaking. Take education as another example. It was on the States List until the 42nd Amendment in 1976 when it was moved to the Concurrent List. Through the 42nd Amendment during Emergency, the Indira Gandhi government indulged in substantial tinkering of the Constitution, including an attempt to change the Preamble. It was a mix of good and bad and some of the changes were reversed when the Janata Party came to power post-Emergency.
Going back to education, if we are to accept the fundamental thesis that equality is meant for equals, how fair is it to pit a student coming from a village or small town with another brought up in a metro by adopting a common curriculum or test? In one such case, the late Justice Krishna Iyer observed many decades ago that even in a developed state like Kerala, there can’t be a uniform standard for all regions. Whether it is the one card, one nation issue that KCR flagged or other attempts to foist common rules, what is clear is that it’s in plain violation of not only the constitutional spirit but against the very diverse nature of this nation.
All of them are important issues that merit serious discussion involving multiple sections and cannot be dismissed with political slogans and personal attacks. The Constitution surely needs to be saved and reformed to strengthen it further, and the only way forward is to discuss and debate. Heckling those with whom one has disagreement, clamping down on protests or arresting critics only weaken the Constitution instead of strengthening it. This principle ought to be the common code for all those in public life.
G S Vasu is the Editor, The New Indian Express. He can be reached at vasu@newindianexpress.com.