Constitution debate reduced to mudslinging

It is unfortunate that much of the debate about the Constitution was about the Nehru family, the Emergency, and the Modi government.

A discussion on the Constitution in Parliament was relevant and appropriate in the 75th year of its adoption by the Constituent Assembly and should have served to highlight the ideas and high ideals that made it. It is the beacon that was to guide the nation and a democratic charter for the state and citizens. A discussion on it calls for introspection about how it has functioned and what challenges it may have in future.

There are always many slips between actions and aspirations, and even the best Constitution is only as good as it works. The discussion in Parliament for two days was not a collective introspection about our successes and failings in the working of the Constitution, but an acrimonious exchange between the ruling side and the Opposition, both blaming each other for the failures and taking credit for what they considered its successes.  

The ruling side rapped the Congress for the imposition of the Emergency in 1975 and the Opposition said there was an ‘’undeclared Emergency’’ in the country now. There is the ring of truth in both charges, and citizen’s rights, which form the heart of the Constitution, always face challenges from governments. These challenges have grown over the years. Emergency is a state of mind and an attitude, and the nation always has to guard against. Commitment to the spirit of the Constitution is the best guard against it.

The Constitution is also about secularism, federalism, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, the citizen’s right to choose the government, non-discrimination, protection of minority rights and many other basic features. All these have suffered setbacks in the last many years, and the value of some have even been questioned. But governments and parties swore by the Constitution even when their actions did not agree with its ideas or when their interpretations about its content contradicted intent.

All these matters came up during the debate, but most of them were expressed in terms of personal and political attacks by both sides against each other. The Prime Minister’s remarks were no different, and he did not rise above the level of pulpit talk and the limited politics of his party and government. The Constitution is a political document, and the country’s politics and governance should be anchored in it.

But it is also above politics. It is unfortunate that much of the debate about the Constitution was about the Nehru family, the Emergency, the Modi government and a host of charges and countercharges. The discussion sounded like a debate on a no-trust motion. The concern for the Constitution calls for better articulation, and should go above gestures like a ceremonial bow or the flourish of a copy and castigation of all, other than one’s own side.