From: divaka@vccsouth14.its.rpi.edu (Ajay Divakaran)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu
Subject: Re: About our glorious constitution.
Keywords: Netters, Please forgive me for the length of this posting and its
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: divaka@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

questionable relevance to soc.culture.indian.telugu.
                                                           ajay
In article <Dec.18.16.15.31.1992.2200@paul.rutgers.edu>, kumarv@paul.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
|> In article <15m2ndg@rpi.edu>, divaka@vccsouth25.its.rpi.edu (Ajay Divakaran) writes:
|> > In article <1992Dec17.141622.22351@lgc.com>, thiru@lgc.com (Thiru Bollam) writes:
|> > |> In article <Dec.16.16.53.55.1992.10644@paul.rutgers.edu> kumarv@paul.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
|> > |> >conduct according to the Indian Constitution. 
|> > |>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 	[stuff deleted]
|> > |>   Is it not the same book, made by bunch of mediocre legislators to suit
|> > |> Thiru
|> 	[stuff deleted]
|> > Could you please be a little more specific about which mediocre people
|> > you are talking about? Babu Rajendra Prasad? B.R. Ambedkar? Pandit Nehru?
|> >                                                     ajay
|> 
|> Now, purely for the sake of intellectual pursuit after truth (not for
|> any practical reasons), I insist and justify that (i) neither our
|> constitution was a master piece (ii) nor was our constituent assembly
|> a collection of the best of the "nation builders", not even close.
|> They are a mere mediocre people AMONG THE NATION BUILDERS of the
|> world. They are NOT mediocre, if you take the average Indian
|> intelligence for comparison.  But, that is like comparing apples and
|> appricots. If you want to compare them with others, choose other
|> nation builders: "Jefferson-Madison-Franklin,...", "Lenin-Trotsky",
|> etc.  In such a company, ours are MEDIOCRE (sic). Ours are not the
|> worst because, there were others who are worse, such as those building
|> AFrican Nations. At best you can call our nation builders as "second
|> class", but the first class and teh second differ by a big margin.
        This is purely a matter of opinion. Lenin and Trotsky had the 
luxury of not being accountable for their actions and were at the
favourable end of a totalitarian setup. Jefferson-Franklin-Madison had
the advantage of starting with a virtually clean slate. They did not
have to face the complexity that the Indian lawmakers did in terms
of diversity. America, in fact WHITE America, was a nascent society when
its constitution was written. India was forced to maintain a continuity from
a complex traditional society to a democracy. Opinions may differ as to how
much of a change it was etc. but it was a change. In terms of change from the
old to the new, the Russian experience is a lot closer to the Indian experience
than is the American. As I pointed out earlier, the Soviet setup was totalitarian and internal debate was often snuffed out. All parties other than
the Bolsheviks were completely excluded from the process. The Indian 
constituent assembly presents a stark contrast in terms of diversity of
thought. You will see that as you take each example, the uniqueness of
each experience in general, and the Indian experience in particular will
come through loud and clear. I maintain that our constituent assembly had 
people who displayed a full commitment to democracy and tried to include
every section of society. Need I remind you that while Jefferson waxed eloquent
about democracy and freedom, he also owned slaves? I guess that now you will
say that we have to judge the constitution by what it says and not by
what one of its writers did. You are talking about intellectual stature I 
presume. Again, that is a matter of opinion. I have more respect for
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who rose from the ranks of the lowest of the low to
become a premier legal scholar, than I do for Thomas Jefferson, whose
views on democracy I fully respect. 
|> 
|> Next, our constitution was a hotch-potch of "India act" 1936 of the
|> British.  We made no significant changes to it, and simply called it
|> "made in India".
|> 
       Are you telling me that our Fundamental rights and Directive principles
are in fact a gift of the British? Please let me know where I can actually
look up these two documents and see if in fact the constitution was in fact
a souped up version of the India Act.
|> Our constitution did not address (for example), a significant and
|> important issue of "giving adminstration to states on the basis of the
|> language spoken". It had to wait until late 50's when Nehru (yes, the
|> Pandit Nehru; I love the word "Pandit") had to be forced to give in.
|> 
     This matter is open to debate. It can be reasonably argued that
linguistic states have promoted fissiparous tendencies in India, and equally
reasonably it can be argued that linguistic states were an essential part
 of a democratic setup.The issue 
is by no means as cut and dried as you make it out to be. Linguistic
states are by no means sacrosanct. Linguistic disputes were regarded as
chauvinism by quite a few educated people in that period. The country had just
been divided on the basis of religion and any divisive rhetoric was viewed
with suspicion even when it had a legitimate basis. It is very easy to
have 20-20 hindsight and second guess the constituent assembly. Even the
American constitution overlooked the vital issues of slavery and  the right
of women to vote.
 Should we use this as a criterion to completely dismiss
the American constitution framers as "mediocre?"
|> Our constitution builders did not address alternative methods of
|> governing. They could not think of anything like "states having
|> representation". Like the senate here. They simply followed the then
|> Brtish approach of Parliament. It was neither discussed nor debated as
|> to why the states can not and should not have equal representation
|> (independent of size and population) in the so-called upper house.
|> 
|> Our constitution builders did not address the issue of why we need the
|> ornamental "president" especially if he can not refuse to sign more
|> than once on a financial bill. They took the "governer general"
|> position and called it president (just like the English Queen).
|> 
     I clearly remember reading about
 heated discussion on the subject of the role of
the President, which continued during Dr. Rajendra Prasad's presidency. The role
of the President has evolved just like everything else has. President Venkataraman
showed us all what the President can do in times of crisis. Both the 
British and American constitutions were used as reference sources. Pandit
Nehru had clear views on why he preferred the parliamentary system. There were
people in the constituent assembly who wanted a Presidential system. Once again,
the matter is one on which reasonable people can differ.   
|> 
|> Our constitution builders did not adopt some of the most important
|> issues in the cabinet mission plan that was originally signed by teh
|> Indian National Congress and the Jinnah's Muslim party. They did not
|> incorporate some of the fundamental issues: FEDERAL STRUCTURE.
     This is once again open to debate. I remember the following maxim 
that we were made to memorize in class, "Our constitution is Unitary in
spirit and federal in practice." It was subsequent destruction of state
level leadership by Indira Gandhi which lead to the "spirit" taking over
the "practice." The constitution did recognize the right of the states
(Recall the concurrent list, state list and central list.) So important
a thing as education is on the state list for example. Whether our
constitution should be more federal or more unitary is open to debate. But
you cannot deny that the foundations for a federal structure were clearly
laid, and that a more federal interpretation of the constitution could have
easily made our country more "federal." By the way, I am somewhere in the
middle myself. I do not feel comfortable with the idea of just defence,
foreign affairs and currency being with the centre, and at the same time
I thoroughly detest the "unitary" perversion of the center's ability to
impose President's rule on states which have elected the "wrong" people
to office. 
|> 
|> Our constitution builders hardly had a discussion that is even
|> remotely close to the discussions of Bill of Rights, or the personal
|> property laws, the interaction between the "trinity" the executive,
|> the judiciary and the legislature. Our constitution is ambivalent on
|> whether or not we need "state council" (which was dismantled in some
|> states), or on its role.
|> 
     I am no expert, but once again I can think of one issue which was 
heavily debated. That was the issue of universal adult franchise. Dr. Rajendra
Prasad was personally opposed to the idea of illiterate people having the
right to vote, but bowed to the consensus which felt that Universal adult
franchise transcended notions of literacy. I am of course paraphrasing
 Dr. Rajendra Prasad's account. This discussion in my opinion was 
as noble and high minded as any of the discussions you have listed here.
         There
was also a discussion on the supremacy of fundamental rights over directive
principles, which continues to this day. Reasonable people can differ on
this. There is no other constitution which had to face this issue . 
       The Hindu personal law was debated very intensively. It is another
example of the overall attempt to maintain continuity with tradition while
rejecting elements of tradition which conflicted with the spirit of democracy.
       This brings me my main point. The Constitution was not written to
cover every eventuality. No human document can. It was written to provide
a guiding vision. By the way, the bill of rights came as the first amendment
to the constitution. Should we condemn the American lawmakers because they
did not get it "right" the first time? Once the guiding vision was established,
the actual day to day law would have to evolve from practice i.e. from
legitimate debate between conflicting interests. This may sound idealistic,
but no constitution can claim to be more than a guiding vision. Which constitution has not been amended to suit current reality? It is very easy
to look at any constitution in the light of history and point out flaws.  
|> Of course, the modicum of decorum the constitution ever had was
|> destroyed beyond measure by the ammendements made to it in the last
|> fifty years.
       In the last forty two years is probably what you mean. I have to agree
with you in your condemnation of the amendments. Indira Gandhi systematically
eroded our democratic institutions and it was in her time that amendments
became a matter of political expediency. Her successors have been no better.
|> 
|> Let us not elevate "Pandit" Nehru and company into skies. They were
|> the best men we had? Maybe. But, that is like one-eyed man in the
|> kingdom of blind people.
|> 
|> I like Nehru more as a writer than as a politician. His books are
|> better than he ever was.
       That is once again your opinion. I would not refer to the constituent
assembly as Nehru and company. It is not as if the constituent assembly was
a rubber stamp for Nehru's ideas. As for your not liking the term Pandit,
I am not very happy with it myself, but I do not like to refer to him as
just Nehru. Since you like his writings yourself, you have to concede that
Pandit (as in the English Pundit) is  not an unreasonable appellation.
           About his books. Once again, in his books he set out a vision. As
a politician he dealt with reality. As you have noted, his commitment to
democracy presents a contrast to every other third world nation. Whatever
your view of his success/failure, you have to admit that he did do his bit
as one of the custodians of the infant Indian Democracy. As a politician,
he did his best to carry out his vision, and once again reasonable people
can differ on the extent of his success/failure. But none can question his
integrity or his commitment to democracy.
|> 
|> For more details on this, I recommend Azad's book "India Wins Freedom"
|> or the book by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's son. Both tell you about
|> Nehru and company.
|> 
|> Kumar.
|> -- 
          Thanks for the references. I will look them up. Do you mean
Pandit Nehru's biography by Dr. S. Gopal? I am not a legal scholar and
would appreciate references which actually have the proceedings of
the constituent assembly. maulana Azad and Dr. Rajendra Prasad
 were just one of the four hundred
odd members of the constituent assembly, so perhaps we should look 
directly at the proceedings.  
                            Regards
                                                   ajay
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu