Amend the Constitution?

India celebrates January 26 as the Republic Day because it adopted on that day in 1950 the constitution, which converted the country into a republic. The republicisation of India is, by no means, an ordinary achievement.

But the real significance of January 26 is that Jawaharlal Nehru, then Congress president, declared on that day in 1930 from the bank of the Ravi that India would only accept purna swaraj, full independence, and not Dominion Status, the goal placed before the British rulers till then. Mahatma Gandhi designed for the occasion a flag, which later became the country's national flag.

The flag was three-coloured - white, green and saffron. White represented purity, green the Muslims and the saffron the Hindus. There was a drawing of a spinning wheel on the flag because "India, as a nation, can live and die for the spinning wheel." When the country became free on August 15, the same flag was declared the national flag, with the Ashoka chakra replacing the spinning wheel.

The Gandhites, who are observing a fast on January 26 at the Raj Ghat, where the Mahatma was cremated, are underlining the point that independence has not given India what the national struggle had promised. Mahatma Gandhi had warned that political independence would have no meaning without economic independence.

Indeed, in numbers, we have more hungry, more uneducated and more unsheltered people than we had at the time of independence. Neither the policy of self-sufficiency, nor that of liberalisation, has freed the country from poverty. The first stagnated the growth rate. The second increased the disparities.

It is a strange thing that industries are sick but the industrialists are rich; the tillers are poor but the landlords are wealthy; the common man is helpless but the rulers have all the power. The country has not reconciled the contradictions even after 52 years of independence.

The BJP-led government is trying to find an answer to the country's ills through amendments to the constitution. It is a wrong approach. The constitution has seldom come in the way of development or economic growth. The courts have generally interpreted the constitution in a positive and progressive way. The Supreme Court has revised its own judgments which favoured vested interests; for example the abolition of privy purses.

Dr Rajendra Prasad, who presided over the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, had warned, that the future of the constitution would depend on its working. That warning has gone awry because some people in power have mutilated the constitution both in letter and spirit. There have been about 85 amendments to serve particular interests. And there is no sensitivity to the dignity of the constitution. For instance, the Emergency (1975-77) deliberately derailed the constitution by suspending the fundamental rights.

Even when suggestions have been made to sort out problems without amending the constitution, little attention has been paid to them. Subjects for the States and the Centre were demarcated by the Constituent Assembly. Still, the Centre has spread itself all over. The Sarkaria Commission proposed several steps whereby the states would feel more independent and more self-sufficient. No constitutional amendment was recommended by the commission. All the suggestions remain unimplemented even after 16 years of the commission's report.

It shows that amendments to the constitution are not necessary. Administrative measures can be devised to get over the deficiencies. The flaws in the constitution are not real flaws. They are either a fallout from the accumulated mistakes of different governments or a devious plan to put fetters to democratic institutions.

One of the suggestions which the BJP has floated is that the Lok Sabha should have a fixed tenure of five years. This goes against the grain of democracy. How can people be stopped seeking fresh elections when they find that the government in power has become dictatorial, sectarian or communal?

Jayaprakash Narain represented the country's mood against Indira Gandhi's personal and corrupt rule during the Emergency and after. The Jana Sangh, the earlier incarnation of the BJP, also rallied behind JP. How can the same party think of stalling a popular movement for fresh elections? In fact, JP's demand went even farther - a constitutional provision for the recall of MLAs and MPs to reestablish their acceptability with the electorate through fresh polls.

Parliaments and assemblies are a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is the people, who should remain sovereign. That is the essence of democracy. The tenure of parliament and assemblies are important in the sense that members continue to enjoy support in their respective constituencies.

Our constitution states, as does the Irish constitution, that the Directive Principles are not judicially enforceable. This is quite natural, because, on account of their very nature, the implementation of these principles has to be left to the legislature. Providing free and compulsory education, for instance, cannot be achieved by a judicial decree but has to be left to legislative planning.

The farmers of our constitution specifically laid down that such principles were fundamental in the governance of the country, and that it was the duty of the state to implement them by legislation. Just because these principles are not enforceable through judicial decrees, they do not cease to be fundamental or obligatory. But no government has bothered to respect that sentiment.

If the Centre still wants to appoint a commission to revise the constitution, there should be a debate on the pluses and minuses of such an exercise. The Vajpayee government should hold discussions with the state chief ministers because they will face the 'brunt' of the amendments. Perhaps there can be a consensus on how to work the constitution. This way, the Centre's proposals will have the States' backing. Otherwise, it can destroy the constitution which has stood the test of time. The new commission, loaded in favour of the BJP, may make proposals exposing the entire edifice to the danger of sectarianism.

Without meaning any disrespect to former President R. Venkataraman, it is unfair to make him the chairman. He was the top leader in the South when the emergency was imposed. One lakh people were detained without trial; the press was gagged and the worst crimes were committed with impunity. There is nothing on record to show that he protested publicly against what Mrs Gandhi did or her son, Sanjay Gandhi, did when they hijacked the constitution.

The people of India have demonstrated through elections that they have the ability to run the institutions that the constitution has devised. The real problem is how to inculcate the values of democracy, especially among politicians who are interested only in grabbing power and sustaining it by hook or by crook. No amount of amendments will make the constitution work if they don't change.

The nation faces many problems. The Centre should not indulge in futile exercises like the constitution amendment. Probably it is an attempt to divert the people's attention from the real issues. Let's implement the Constituent Assembly's first resolution. It said that the 'residuary powers' be given to the states. India is at present a 'Union of States.' It should be a 'federation of states'. People feel that too much power is concentrated in New Delhi.