The Constitution as scapegoat
By Prem Bhatia

DELHI has now come to be recognised as India’s "seminar city". You name the subject and the activists are ready for a discussion which may well range over such diverse issues as ecological pollution, family planning, human rights and civil liberties, corruption, freedom of the press, secularism and the working of the Constitution. The list is by no means exhaustive since Punjab and Kashmir are among the several popular repeats that are ripped open day after day. The efforts of the seminar sponsors reflect a healthy faith in public debate and they surprisingly, always manage to get the necessary auditoriums and meeting halls for their get-togethers as well as the speakers and the audiences.

There is obviously a hunger for information among the city’s educated population, as also a keen desire to be heard. Unfortunately, much of what is said at these seminars remains confined to the participants since the debates can reach wider audiences only through the cooperation of the media. While Doordarshan is only too willing to help if the sponsors can rope in a senior political leader or a minister (never mind what he or she says), the press has too much on its hands to find the time and column space for what are regarded largely as stale chunks of grievances and wisdom. Nevertheless, the presence of a politician of standing does make a difference even for some newspaper reporters. Apparently ministerial platitudes have not entirely lost their shine.

Sad to confess, seminars (even those backed by generous hospitality) are not my own cup of tea. They are often poorly directed from the chair and lack focus, which leaves one at the end no wiser than at the point of departure.

But there was a seminar last week which attracted me for several reasons. First, the subject was of vital interest to those of us who consider themselves opinion makers. The title was "The working of the Constitution of India and the need for constitutional reforms." Second, it was preceded by much painstaking preparatory work. Third, the sponsors covered a wide spectrum of institutional interests such as the Indian International Centre, the Centre for Policy Research, the Indian Institute of Public Administration, the Indian Law Institute, the Bar Association of India, the Rajaji International Institute of Public Affairs and Administration (Hyderabad), the Forum for Women Lawyers and at least half a dozen others.

A significant pointer to the earnestness behind the sponsors’ good work was the two dozen papers submitted by the participants which filled 500 mimeographed pages and were made available in advance in a bound volume as the basis for discussion. The list of participants other than those who submitted their papers mentioned some 100 names comprising politicians, academics, experienced and noted administrators of the past, legal luminaries and journalists.

Two persons of eminence who deserve special mention for their initiative and labour were Dr Karan Singh, President of the India International Centre, who thought of the seminar in the first place, and Subhash Kashyap, formerly Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha, whose own paper was a masterly exposition of the subject under discussion. B.K. Nehru, who had spoken on previous occasions on the need for a new look at the Constitution, L.K. Advani and Dinesh Singh presided over three of the sessions of the two-day event. Dr Karan Singh delivered the inaugural address.

This somewhat longish preamble to the article seems necessary to indicate the seriousness with which the seminar was viewed by the organisers and the participants alike, and deservedly so considering the widespread public dissatisfaction over the state in which the country finds itself, politically, administratively, socially and economically.

The common man’s resentment is usually directed at an undetermined entity called "the government" or a more easily identifiable target named "the politician". The more sophisticated among us, however, also find fault with the Constitution itself. Is it really suitable for our current requirements and does it need a major revision in the light of experience gained over more than 40 years?

Two clearly discernible views emerged at the seminar. First, the Constitution, written with lofty ideals in view, was handed down to us at a time when we were not prepared for it. Second, there is nothing very much wrong with the Constitution, but those put in seats of power by the resulting system have proved unworthy of the trust placed in them.

Either way, it was obvious to the speakers at the seminar that certain substantive changes were needed in the Constitution to meet the requirements of our condition as it has developed over the past four decades. That, to sum up, was the broad consensus.

While public debates such as the one under reference have a certain value in highlighting national problems, one did not have to wait for last week’s seminar to arrive at the conclusion that some fresh thinking on the Constitution is definitely called for to make our chosen democratic system work for the common good, assuming that the system as such is still acceptable.

There is no doubt that the assumption is correct but it is also obvious that somewhere along the road we lost our bearings and have reached the present stage of discontent which goes beyond the normal pattern of differing views as an essential part of the democratic process.

There was talk at the seminar of setting up a new constituent assembly to "restructure" the Constitution. This is a suggestion which I cannot see being implemented by the present Government. In fact it is idle to expect that the set-up presided over by Narasimha Rao would be willing or able to initiate any long-term drastic steps during his tenure. With all the good intentions he is credited with, the Prime Minister is a slow mover whose main objective seems to be to ensure stability with small doses of reform. In fact he is unable to cope fully with even some of the immediate problems such as the secessionist rebellions in Punjab and Kashmir.

But Narasimha Rao does not have to wait for the advent of another constituent assembly to put the national house in order. Not all the worrisome issues he faces, and for which his Government is condemned day after day, require an amendment of the Constitution for solutions. Does the Constitution have to be "restructured" to control the present high graph of prices or to reduce the outrageously widespread area of corruption? Must the Constitution be amended to get work out of government or public sector employees? Do we really need another constituent assembly to enforce law and order?

These are only a few example of unsatisfactory governance. We do not have to long for the return of a Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad or Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer to sit in conclave to reform our judicial system or to improve the administration. What we require immediately is less of politics and ideological hypocrisy such as the year-long celebration of the "Quit India" movement of 1942 and the routine samadhi worship by leaders big and small. A new work ethos will see us through many of our present difficulties more easily than political orations and sermons.

While fair-minded Indians appreciate the small measure of reason and good sense which Narasimha Rao has imparted to political practitioners, the time has come for him to be judged by less indulgent standards. The Constitution is undoubtedly in need of a review, but why should the country stand still in the meantime? To make the Constitution a scapegoat for our administrative and political failures is an inexcusable escape from reality which does not fool the nation any longer.

The death anniversary of Prem Bhatia, former Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, falls today.