Let’s debate the Constitution, not deify it

This will be my last article for the column, Articles of Faith. The simple reason I want to put an end to it is because I feel I have nothing much more to say. Over five years and sixty-plus articles, I have written about how different parts of the Constitution were debated and came into being. For the last few months, I have been finding it harder and harder to pick a topic that I have not already written about or find something new to say about an existing topic. I do not want to write just for the sake of writing or the ego-boost of seeing my name in the newspaper. I have felt the need for a break from regular writing to re-vitalise and re-energise myself, and so, I will bring this column to a close.

For me, writing this column has been a truly educational experience. I have read and re-read the Constituent Assembly debates and each time, found something new and interesting that I did not expect to find in the discussions. I have had the opportunity to dive deeper into the history of the ideas behind the Constitution and have come up enriched with much greater insight than I thought. I have had to develop the rigorous discipline to fit it all into no more than 700 words and be intelligible to the non-law trained reader. I am truly grateful to DH for this opportunity.

I started to write this column with the idea that the Constitution is not just a document for lawyers and judges. I also hoped to dispel the notion that it is a sacred text containing unquestionable truths. The Constitution was created by flesh-and-blood human beings, put into operation by flesh-and-blood human beings, and its interpretation debated by flesh-and-blood human beings. The Constitution came into being at a particular moment in our history. It was not handed down to us, it was not forced on us, and it was not mindlessly adopted from somewhere else. It is three things: a reflection of the long freedom struggle, a charter for India’s future, and an operating manual to help India survive difficult times.

Most importantly, what writing this column has revealed to me is that the Constitution is actually a conversation – one that we have with the founders of the nation and one we have with each other. The Constitution was made as a result of conversations (something that was explored in the context of the US Constitution in the book The Words that Made Us) not among the people in the Constituent Assembly but the people of India. This is an important point that Yogendra Yadav recently made – that the Constitution resulted from conversations Indians had been having for several decades in response to colonialism, repression and challenges of the modern world.

The Constitution also sustains when we, the people of India, have these conversations. Its ideas and principles are meant to be understood and debated by the people of India, not just the people in positions of power. When the framers of the Constitution put in place the procedure to amend the Constitution, they trusted in the wisdom of coming generations to debate and discuss the Constitution before acting on what changes are needed.

My articles and all the material about the Constitution out there are just raw materials. It is for you, the reader, to know the facts and the background, when you go out there and have a discussion about the Constitution. What you make of it and how you find it relevant is up to you. The Constitution survives not because of inertia or force but because every day, millions of people across the country find a way to use it to make their lives better. So, with that, I will end my monologue.