From: kumarv@pepper.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty)
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: 21 Dec 92 00:43:00 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

This is inpart reply to Ajay and in part an invitation (from others)
for a discussion on the constitution. We need to get over this over
glorification, and I am willing to post extensive excerpts (if needed)
about Cabinet Mission Plan. I am (of course) willing to be corrected
about my impression of our "great" constitution.

In article <h0q2kbp@rpi.edu>, divaka@vccsouth14.its.rpi.edu (Ajay Divakaran) writes:
> In article <Dec.18.16.15.31.1992.2200@paul.rutgers.edu>, kumarv@paul.rutgers.edu (kumar vadaparty) writes:
> |> 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 

Answering syntactically, then you should not have objected to the
previous poster's claim that they were mediocres. After all, that was
his opinion.	 Anyway, lets get to the meet of the matter.

> favourable end of a totalitarian setup. Jefferson-Franklin-Madison had
> the advantage of starting with a virtually clean slate. They did not

Are you serious? There was one time when the thirteen colonies decided
to break and go their own way. There was time when they had EACH of
ITS OWN Currency, export/imports and so on. One of the famous
drawings/emblems was invented by Franklin to unite them. The
discussions were so serious that it was almost decided that they would
break apart, which is when the senetorial system was invented. 

> have to face the complexity that the Indian lawmakers did in terms
> of diversity.

Give me five (5) things that the constitution has done to protect the
diversity of Indian nations/cultures? The federal set up promised in
the CMP was completely ignored in the constitution.

> 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

You dont need to. I know that. Now, let us face it. Jefferson and
Madison (if you read their biographies quoting their diaries) both
deplored for having slaves and yet, not knowing how to do go about
without them. 

Let me make it clear here: American nation builders were the first
peoiple to bring democracy from "kingly" clans and feudal lords and
nobles (of Britan) to common (of course WHITE) man. The step of taking
it further to every human waited for almost one hundread years.
Jefferson's declaration of Independence reverbarated with revolutions
in France. For your information, they were so moved by this liberty
movement here that they even presented the USA with a big statute (of
liberty) with money collected from common people.

I measure one man's greatness by seeing how much he(she) looked ahead
of his (her) peoples. I think Jefferson Madison and Mason get far more
points in this than Dr. Babu Rajendra Prasad. Just for information,
could you point out three (just three) documents written by Dr. RP
explaining the constitution, its motivation or its subtilities?
Jefferson wrote several (of the order of eighty) articles on the
constituion.

> |> 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 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

Well, please refer to one of the old posts by (Dheeraj, I think, but
may remember that wrongly) on this fact. To give you corrobrative
evidence (not proof), Indian "road laws (for driving)" did not chage
since the british put them first in 1920's, and Indian
district-collectors' adminstrative system did not change since the
british left, the Indian "Taluk office" system did not change  until
NTR introduced mandal system, and so on.....

> |> 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

Not so, sir. In the CMP the INC and ML agreed  to give complete
freedom except three issues to the provinces.

> 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.

> |> 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

No. There was no discussion on altrenative govts. There was discussion
on how much power does President have (Dr. RP often lamented on that issue).

>Pandit
> Nehru had clear views on why he preferred the parliamentary system. There were

Please tell me where he convincingly argued in favour of one over the
other?

> |> 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

This is the point I hate. What is this "spirit versus practice"? Ours
is totalitarian from the principle through practice. The very fact
that the PM can manage to dismantle three state govts is a sign of how
horrible our constitution is designed (or amended).

> 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

No. You should read the CMP which was the original agreed up on
foundation.  This was completely ignored by Nehru and company.
BELIEVE ME, NEHRU MESSED UP WITH AP GOVT TWICE (I CAN GIVE YOU
EXAMPLES) INSULTING DEMOCRACY.

> |> 
> |> 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

No. For example, our executive head and legislative head are
(approximately) the same person, with a titular head called president. 

>        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 americans had less than half as many (un covered situations i.e.,
amendments) as we had in almost eight times more years.

> 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

As I said, I can tell you at least three BIG instances (two just about
AP) in which he spoiled the spirit of Democracy irrevocably.

>                             Regards
>                                                    ajay

Kumar.
-- 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian.telugu