HOME | REPUBLIC | COMMENTARY |
|
'The weaknesses are not of the Constitution but of the system and of the State' Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral on the Constitution review.
I K Gujral remains cautious about the National
Democratic Alliance government's plan to review the Constitution. He
has expressed his concerns about the panel headed by former Justice M N Venkatachaliah.
In an interview to rediff.com's Amberish K Diwanji, he voiced his apprehensions.
Why are you worried about the government's plan to review the
Constitution?
The review committee is being set up but it sounds very vague because the
government has not made up its mind on what it wants to review. They have
only said that the 'basic structure' will not be touched, which means that
the Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles will not be
touched. So what is that remains to be reviewed?
The government has said that besides retaining the parliamentary form of
government and the basic structure, everything else can be reviewed.
Does this mean that the government wants the review committee to look at
fundamental rights? Do they want the directive principles of state to be
revised? What do they want revised? It is for the government to spell out.
It is not for me to do so.
The government has said it is looking at the 'working' of the
Constitution.
They have not said so. This is a construction by the media. No statement
from the government has specifically said that. As a matter of fact,
the working of the Constitution is a broad definition. It has a very wide
meaning, and can open up many Pandora boxes.
Any reason why only the ruling parties want to always change the
Constitution? Earlier it was the Congress and now the NDA?
I don't want to attribute motives but I think they have been affected by the
fact that the governments have changed twice. It was the President who said
the instability of the government is not instability of the
Constitution. Those problems have to be sorted out politically. Such
instability is bound to occur when there is a change from a single-party
polity to coalitional polity. Thus, parties have to face elections
frequently, and I don't know how the Constitution can safeguard such a
system.
If any laws have to be changed to bring about stability, such as the
anti-defection law or something, then these are legislation that Parliament
has to change, not some committee of experts.
As a politician, do you see a political motive in this exercise?
Again, I don't want to attribute motives, but I think the Bharatiya
Janata Party was badly affected by the fall of their previous government by
just one vote. Hence, I think they were concerned with ensuring a secure
five-year term for their next government. But it won't work because any
changes in the Constitution to ensure stability raises other questions and
issues.
A complaint is that our Constitution has been amended too many times -- 79
-- while the much older US constitution has had far fewer amendments.
It is to the strength of our Constitution that it is so flexible and could
be amended 79 times. It is not a grievance, particularly in a society like
India that was transforming from a colonial to a modern state. And in a
large, diverse country like India, as we develop, we come across problems
that require changes in the Constitution. The ability to amend the
Constitution proves that it is elastic, it is not rigid, yet at the same
time it is also provides guidelines to the people.
The Constitution has sustained India for 50 years and I don't know what the
committee will tell us.
What do you perceive as being the weaknesses of our Constitution?
The weaknesses are not of the Constitution but of the system and of the
State. I don't see why we should transfer these weaknesses to the
Constitution. If we are not able to implement the Directive Principles, if
we cannot send all our children to the school, then these are not the
weaknesses of our Constitution. Our Constitution has declared that all
children must be sent to school and the weakness is our failure to implement
these directives. Why blame the Constitution?
So in your opinion there is no need to review the Constitution?
I don't think the setting up of a review committee is the best way of doing
it. Whatever changes are required, we have the system of Parliament to make
the needed changes. Parliament can discuss and by a two-third majority
implement the changes needed to help make the Constitution more effective.
Second, this type of freebie is very strange because the panel can take up
any issue, in fact much more than it can solve. There are certain promises
that our society has kept under the carpet and chosen not to bring up. If
the panel brings up such issues and yet provides no answers on how to solve
them or implement them, then we will create more discontent than less and
more friction.
If the government had applied its mind, it would have told the review panel
what areas and subjects exactly to review, but it has not done so. It has
asked the review committee to find out the areas of review and change. Then
what are the terms of reference for the Constitution?
Another point is that if at all the government did want to review the
Constitution, it could have moved a motion in Parliament and Parliament
could have set up a review panel.
Or set up a constituent assembly?
Exactly. Also, the type of persons who will comprise this review committee
remains important because in our country, unlike several other
countries, our Constitution was given by the Constituent Assembly and not by
the experts. Some countries had experts prepare their constitutions.
I think it was in 1941 that Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in a book in which he
said that the Indian Constitution will be prepared by the constituent
assembly. That is why our Preamble says, 'We the People of India give to
ourselves this Constitution...'
Now would you rather that the judges give us a new Constitution?
So are you suggesting a constituent assembly?
I am not saying that. What I am stressing is that the government should have
come to Parliament to set up a review committee, and given specific terms of
reference mentioning what exactly should be looked at. Parliament could
have set up its own Constitution review committee.
You are suggesting a parliamentary committee. Yet, many Indians despise
politicians and don't trust them the least?
So you want to bypass Parliament now...
But you have to admit that people are disillusioned with
politicians.
Do you want to bypass Parliament and go the Musharraf way? And what can the
judges do with the people's disillusionment with the politicians? If we want
to sustain democracy, then definitely politicians will be there. Parliament
will be there.
Tell us what you think of this interview
|
|||
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
MONEY |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK |