“Nobody claims that the constitution is perfect or even that it is the best that could have been devised if all the talent and patriotism theoretically available in the country could have been harnessed to the task. This, like all previous attempts at constitution-making, was largely moulded by the circumstances in which it was born….. If in spite of the conscientious and prolonged labour of so many men of goodwill there are to be discerned in the product elements of patchwork, unresolved contradictions and imperfectly apprehended trends, it can only be set down to the confusion of ideologies which is characteristic of our age and for coping with which we are as a people even less well prepared than the nations which have long enjoyed political freedom.”
NOVEMBER 29, 1949
The new Constitution
ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO WAS STARTED AN OPERATION which was brought to a successful close last Saturday. The new Indian Constitution is in many ways a remarkable achievement. It is the work of a body which was set up when the country had not achieved independence. And when independence came it came in a manner that involved the repudiation of some postulates which had long been regarded as basic. But, in spite of the sudden and terrific shock of partition, the Constituent Assembly did not allow itself to be thrown off its balance, though it did not hesitate to use the opportunity to cast off certain inhibitions. Thus, while the country had unwillingly agreed to partition in order to avoid strife and discord, it would not countenance the two-nation theory. And through the Assembly it reiterated the resolve that every one who had thrown in his lot with the new India should enjoy equal rights and responsibilities irrespective of caste or creed. While on the one hand it abolished communal electorates, on the other it reiterated its adherence to the ideal of what was, not very happily it must be confessed, described as “the secular State”. While continuing to retain the Federal structure, the Assembly came to favour vesting as large powers as possible, consistently with the maintenance of the Federal form, in the Centre. Time may show that in some ways the Constitution has gone farther in the direction of centralisation than may be compatible with the fullest regional and cultural autonomy. But that kind of mistake, if a mistake is shown to have been made, can be rectified without causing an upheaval; whereas it would have been an act of irresponsibility if the Assembly had ignored the baleful possibilities of giving fissiparous tendencies their head, of which the events of 1947 gave us so bitter a foretaste. After all, the main trend of political thinking in this country ever since nationalist agitation began over a century ago has been in favour of strengthening all the elements that make for unity. The Constituent Assembly and in particular the Drafting Committee with Dr. Ambedkar at their head may well congratulate themselves on keeping this major objective consistently in view.
Nobody claims that the Constitution is perfect or even that it is the best that could have been devised if all the talent and patriotism theoretically available in the country could have been harnessed to the task. This, like all previous attempts at constitution-making. was largely moulded by the circumstances in which it was born. As Dr. Ambedkar pointed out in his concluding speech, the Constituent Assembly, being predominantly composed of a compact political party, the Congress, has naturally been guided in its main objectives by the preferences of that party. At the same time it has included a numerically small but useful minority of men who do not belong to the Congress but who are generally in sympathy with the vision which the Congress has cherished of the future. These, being no yes-men, have brought to the debate of that party. At the same time it has included a numerically small but useful minority of men who do not belong to the Congress but who are generally in sympathy with the vision which the Congress has cherished of the future. These, being no yes-men, have brought to the debate knowledge and independence of judgment which have proved useful correctives. If, in spite of the conscientious and prolonged labours of so many men of good will there are to be discerned in the product elements of patchwork, unresolved contradictions and imperfectly apprehended trends, it can only be set down to the confusion of ideologies which is characteristic of our age and for coping with which we are as a people even less well prepared than the nations which have long enjoyed political freedom.
Dr. Ambedkar referred to the Socialists’ open declaration that they must have unfettered freedom “not merely to criticise but also to overthrow the State.” That is hardly the way to build up that stability and continuity on which alone any kind of well-ordered national life can be based. Dr. Ambedkar rightly emphasised that if we are not to lose the freedom we have got at long last, we must rigorously abjure all unconstitutional modes of protest or resort to violence. But he forgot his own injunction when speaking with considerable feeling on the subject of the down-trodden classes he declared, “These down-trodden classes are tired of being governed.” If a class war was to be averted, he went on, room must be made without delay for the realisation of their aspirations. While the need for ensuring social justice will not be disputed, the implicit claim that every one who feels a grievance against the existing order and thinks that relief is too tardy may resort to remedying his own condition by force, cannot but damage our frail edifice of freedom, whether it is the Socialists who make it or the depressed classes. This instinctive preference for a violent solution of political or economic problems is, of course, no isolated phenomenon peculiar to this country. It is part of the mental climate of our time. Man’s alienation from Society and from Nature is so complete that violence has come to be regarded as, on the one hand, necessary for the individual if he is to assert his individuality against a hostile universe and, on the other, natural as the instrument of power in the hands of a totalitarian dictator claiming to speak for the mass. As a French writer points out, “Even in the more democratic States, social disintegration and irresponsibility, the forerunners of terror, are playing an increasing role.” Every man who wishes well of his country must resist the obscure urges in himself of this anti-social impulse. And men who claim to be leaders and intellectuals should see that they have a special responsibility for safeguarding our newly enfranchised masses, who are all too little prepared for the burden that is being placed upon them, against the temptation to run after political mystagogues and impostors. The common man, unlike the handful of the intelligentsia, has still his roots in a great tradition of patience, tolerance and gentleness. While he must be helped to come into his own politically and economically he must not lose his precious spiritual heritage.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I