There was no meaningful debate on the Constitution
Manohar Manoj
The two-day debate held in the Indian Parliament on the 75-year journey of the Constitution in the country was a very welcome initiative, but the aspects of the Constitution that were debated there proved to be just a stereotypical narrative of the country’s political theatre. Under the pressure of party democracy, apart from party line-based typed speeches and dialogues filled with boring political narratives, there was a complete lack of a complete, honest and critical intellectual discussion of the Indian Constitution in this debate in Parliament.In this debate in Parliament, allegations and counter-allegations of political parties were seen and then there was a competition among the politicians to prove themselves as the man of history and to prove their opponent wrong. If the speeches of these party leaders are examined accurately, some speeches were impressive, But overall all these speeches were drenched in the syrup of political correctness. If seen, the country has lost a very opportune time to present an excellent analysis of the world’s largest Indian Constitution on the floor of its largest Panchayat, Parliament.
In view of the country’s democracy, multi-recognizable society and modern governance system and high-quality good governance and inclusive polity, it was very important to look at every aspect of the Indian Constitution. First is the spread of real and modern democracy in India, second is its nationalism, cultural diversity and geographical integrity, Third is secularism and fourth social justice and equality of opportunity. The Indian Constitution could be interpreted with these four criteria in mind. The scale of functional success of the Indian Constitution on the above four criteria could have been determined very well through this debate.For example, these things were said about democracy in India one party strangulated democracy by bringing an emergency while the other said that that period of emergency was for a fixed time but now undeclared emergency has been going on in the country for a decade. Is. both things are ok but regarding this, both the parties will also have to introspect on why our democracy is imprisoned in the coterie of the arbitrariness of the heads of political parties of the country. Why does our party-based democracy not encourage the democratic participation of all the people in the country and all eligible candidates from anywhere? There should be no room for personality worship and monopoly or duopoly of political parties in any democracy. A two-party system indeed operates in America too, but the good thing there is that no matter how popular a President is, he gets a chance to get this post only twice. The reality of democracy in India is that any criminal, ignorant, feudal or corrupt person can hide all his misdeeds if he joins the ruling party. It is right that in this debate in Parliament, there was also discussion on the political dynasty in which all the party leaders are engaged, reminding us of the feudalism and aristocracy in this modern era too.
If we talk about nationalism, the second basic aspect of the debate, then a broad outline and consensus of Indian nationalism should be echoed and accepted by all the parties of India through the Constitution. For example, a party simplifies such a serious issue by talking about nurturing nationalism by praising Bharat Mata. The other party, even after accepting the communal division of the country, shows a tendency to create geographical fragmentation in the country in the name of inclusive democracy. It should be clearly stated in the Indian Constitution that the partition of the country was a terrible mistake, in which now this new thing should be announced that we will correct this later also and will crush any tendency of separatism in the country before it can flourish under any circumstances.
The third basic point regarding the Indian Constitution is regarding secularism, which all the parties have been discussing at their convenience. Secularism should be accepted by all democratic parties as a strong core principle of the Constitution which should not be mentioned again in elections and public debate in any way. The fundamental principles of secularism were being played within the country right after independence. And then in response to that, the mockery of the idea of secularism is being made, through both these narratives the Constitution is being grossly violated. The biggest crime in this matter is of those who did not implement secularism in its true form and made community appeasement as its alternative. In such a situation, the tradition of pseudo-secularism that has come into existence has been insulting the Indian Constitution along with playing with this great word. The biggest example of this appeasement is seen in the fundamental right given to minorities to conduct their religious education among the fundamental rights.
In a way, the biggest insult to secularism is recorded in the Constitution. Noted historian Irfan Habib also believes that minorities have the fundamental right to run educational institutions, but this constitutional right requires that its curriculum should also be secular. Pseudo-secularism is wrong but secularism is not wrong. One political group nurtures the flag of pseudo-secularism by appeasement in the name of secularism and calling the Constitution a garden of gold, while on the other hand, the other group bulldozes secularism and strangles the principles of competitive democracy and good governance through majority identity politics.When one party accuses the other of corrupting the Constitution, the other counters by saying that the country will be run by the Constitution, not by Sharia. In such a situation, the question is, what should be considered true in this confusing situation? Under the Directive Principles, the Indian Constitution talks about bringing a uniform civil code throughout the country. But why are even secularists afraid of implementing it? That is, both are wrong and the Constitution is doomed to become mute and face its contempt. On the occasion of 75 years of the Constitution, these things should be fully explained, which has not happened. The fourth fundamental principle of the Constitution, social justice, whose biggest latent clause is mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution itself as equality of opportunity, is nowhere visible in the practical democracy and administrative structure of India.
Social justice, which has been hovering only symbolically around the provisions of political-administrative reservation in the name of debate on the Constitution, was not mentioned anywhere in the debate on the Constitution.The great task of implementing the fundamental principles of social justice, which should be done through the comprehensive empowerment of eighty percent of the country’s Dalit, oppressed, exploited and unaware population, is out of the political and electoral discourse of the country. All scientific agendas of empowerment helplessly serve the interests of only the elite political-administrative personalities of the country and the equality of opportunity for the rest of the majority community is reflected in the form of gross inequality.
Overall, India’s democracy is dominated by its chauvinism and the promotion of meritocracy, entitlement, encouragement, empowerment and high ideological consciousness are living bluntly under the shadow of vested interest elements and a sick and unreviewed system. System under the shadow of political correctness and incorrectness, lack of correct review of society and government and its money power] muscle power, new aristocratic forms of medieval feudal power, identity power of caste, religion, province and language, Freebies, looting, provocations and political narrative based on lies, all these elements are dominating Indian democracy and teasing the great ideals of the Indian Constitution.Its full appropriate interpretation should have been done in the context of debate on the Constitution and accordingly, the constitutional remedies should also have been formulated as per the public opinion and opinion, which unfortunately could not be determined in this debate.
