Opinion: To uphold our motherland’s prestige that is the Constitution

 The pageantry in the capital and the event at the Marina in Chennai were spectacular, with brave hearts of the Tamil Nadu Police motorcycle riders forming ‘Jaya’s flaming arrows’ and their acrobatics catching everyone’s attention.Another heartwarming announcement was the Padma Awards to nine sportspersons-all women-led by boxer Mary Kom and badminton star PV Sindhu.

January 26 is a special day in the history of Indian Independence struggle. It was on December 19, 1929 that the historic ‘Purna Swaraj’ resolution was adopted in the Lahore conference of the Indian National Congress. In pursuance of this resolution, a public declaration was made on January 26, 1930 urging people to celebrate that day as Independence Day. Hence, after the drafting of the Constitution twenty years later, India declared itself as a Sovereign Republic on this auspicious day.

Never before has there been so much discussion on the various provisions of the Constitution, thanks to the controversy over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) raging the country. There is welcome debate on various provisions of the Constitution, particularly Part III which deals with fundamental rights.

The Preamble to the Constitution contains sixty-five words which declares that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’ to secure for its citizens ‘Justice-social, economic, and political’ besides liberty and equality. The words, ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ were added by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in the year 1976. Though these two words were not expressly mentioned by the framers of the Constitution, post Independence, India followed the socialist pattern of economy and a secular governance.

The Maharashtra government has made the recital of the Preamble in schools compulsory, which has a political connotation. The present political dispensation in Maharashtra were the architect of the Emergency in 1976 and introduced the 42nd Amendment. In fact, the more important Article of the Constitution which ought to be committed to the memory by every citizen is Article 51A which lists eleven duties of the citizen that include respect to the national flag, national anthem, cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired the national struggle for independence, to renounce practices derogatory to women, to protect the environment and protect all living creatures, to safeguard public property and abjure violence. In the light of what is happening in educational campuses, particularly in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the dictum to abjure violence is very much relevant.

Stalwarts of the freedom struggle have participated as members of the Constituent Assembly to draft the Constitution. The drafting committee had seven members headed by Dr Ambedkar, Alladi Krishnaswami and Gopalaswamy, among others.

It should be a revelation to many that the only woman member from the Muslim community was Begum Qudsia Aizas Rasool. She was one of the 28 Muslim league members to join the Constituent Assembly of undivided India and she contributed immensely to the debate in the Constituent Assembly. Her words were prophetic: “A Constitution is judged by the spirit in which it is worked; it is judged by the manner and method of its implementation. Then again, the ultimate aim of all Constitutions is to increase human happiness, human well-being and weld together the various elements in a country into one nation. Ours is a great country with a great destiny stretching before her. I hope and pray that the implementation of this Constitution will be such as to enhance the prestige of our motherland and make her a dynamic force that will bring together all nations of the world within the orbit of enduring peace.”

Begum Qudsia also strongly opposed the reservation for minorities in elections as she rightly said it would divide the society on communal lines. Though belonging to an affluent family, married to a landlord, as a legislator she fought against the Zamindari system and said that the land should belong to those who toil. From Purdah to Parliament is her book which deals with the problems women have to face in the male-dominated political arena. The story of the Indian Constitution would be incomplete without this strong lady’s role in framing it.

Dr Ambedkar who was the chairman of the drafting committee highlighted two aspects in his presentation address to the Constituent Assembly: one, the description of India as the Union of states though there was demand it should be a federation of states, and the other on amendment to the Constitution. With regard to the Union of states, Ambedkar wanted a strong Centre which, of course, should not get stronger but in the course of time be gracious enough to share powers with the states. He said that the Constitution should ensure that no State can break away from the Union. The Constitution he pointed out has focused the individual as the unit discarding the village. He was wary of the value system in the villages and stated: “What is the village but a sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism?” Those caustic comments on villages are so true even today with the kind of injustices which continue to be perpetrated against the weaker sections. Though the Constituent Assembly passed the Constitution by simple majority, he wanted the amendment by future Parliament to go through a process of debate, with two-thirds majority of members present and voting and approval from the states. This safeguard is to ensure that no political compulsion of the majority party should dilute the important provisions of the Constitution. He also justified the special provisions for the minorities and asserted that it is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against the minority.

What Ambedkar dreamt of, namely protection to fundamental rights, was realised by that redoubtable, intrepid Jurist Nani Palkhivala who was rightly eulogised as the ‘Gift of God’ to India. His centenary this year is observed all over the country, recalling his signal contribution in the Kesavananda Bharati case before the constitutional Bench in the Supreme Court. His persuasive arguments in this case took the judiciary to a much higher plane from which the judiciary saw larger area of the Constitution as its basic structure, resulting in the landmark judgment that the fundamental rights forming the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered. The heights of eloquence to which Palkhivala had risen have seldom been equalled and never surpassed in the history of the Supreme Court; he was the encomium of the Bench of the Supreme Court which heard the case. Palkhivala lamented that India is like a donkey carrying a sack of gold; the donkey does not know what it is carrying but is content to go along with the load on its back.

India of the future will find her identity only by realising its hoary past, value the nation and not be a mere collection of communities.