In our neighbourhood, Nepal had six constitutions between 1948 and 2007, earlier than lastly settling for the current one in 2015. Chile in South America launched into rewriting its structure in 2021, whereas the president of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, secured a thumbs up for a similar in a referendum a number of months in the past. But none of those nations is similar to India. Political expediency or lack of consensus over rules had been largely accountable for them to undertake such workout routines.

The story of our structure making is completely different and distinctive. The draft structure ready by the committee headed by Dr B R Ambedkar was totally mentioned within the Constituent Assembly. Its members urged 7,635 amendments, of which 2,473 had been mentioned throughout a interval of 114 working days, unfold over nearly three years. The Constitution that got here out of this tough work contained 395 articles and eight schedules. It gave new hope to 320 million Indians, particularly to tens of millions of underprivileged residents just like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

One of the vital criticisms in regards to the current Constitution is that it was a “colonial constitution”. It is argued that a big a part of it was a “copy-paste” from the Government of India Act 1935, enacted by the British Parliament. While there isn’t a denying the truth that the 1935 Act was a colonial enterprise to perpetuate the British stranglehold over our nation and there have been some similarities within the clauses of the 2, the “colonial” tag could also be an oversimplification.

Allaying such apprehensions, Dr Rajendra Prasad, in his remaining tackle on November 26, 1949, because the chairman of the Constituent Assembly, made an vital assertion that they had been “not bound to have a Constitution which completely and fully falls in line with known categories of Constitution in the world”. Rajendra Babu insisted that “the Constitution has, not to an inconsiderable extent, been influenced by such realities as facts of history” of our nation.

One such “fact of history” was the go to of the Simon Commission in 1927 with the mandate of reviewing the working of the Government of India Act, 1919, and proposing constitutional reforms for the nation. The Indian National Congress determined to boycott it on the grounds that there was not a single Indian member in it. Instead of accepting the error, the British sought to problem Indians to show that they may draw up a structure of their very own.

An analogous problem was thrown by Lord Birkenhead, Secretary of State for India, within the House of Lords in 1925, calling Indians to “produce a constitution which carries behind it a fair measure of general agreement among the great peoples of India”. Leaders of the nationalist motion accepted the problem by establishing an all-party convention in December 1927 to draft a structure for India. Motilal Nehru led it, with Subhas Chandra Bose, Annie Besant, M R Jayakar, Jawaharlal Nehru, a few Muslim League representatives and others as its members. It got here out with a draft structure in 1928 that turned standard as “the Nehru Report”.

Unfortunately, political consensus eluded the Nehru Report at the moment. It, nonetheless, turned the idea for the long run constitutional battle. It contained 22 chapters and 88 articles and handled vital topics like basic rights, bicameral parliament, division of powers, judicial independence and centre-state relations. It unequivocally declared that each citizen of 21 years of age shall have voting rights. A number one newspaper exclaimed in its editorial that whereas Birkenhead acquired a befitting reply, “…we have drawn the Magna Carta of our liberty”.

In actuality, the Government of India Act, 1935, was a hurried British response to the rising demand for liberty centred across the Nehru Report. While permitting restricted democracy, it enhanced the powers of the viceroy together with the ability to dissolve the Parliament, prompting Congress to name it a “slave constitution”. Far from being common, voting rights had been prolonged to lower than 15 per cent of the inhabitants. There was no provision for rights in any respect.

Upon dispassionate evaluation, the Indian Constitution appears extra akin to the Nehru Report than the 1935 Act. The proof of the pudding is within the consuming. In the roller-coaster of Indian politics within the final seven a long time, it served the nation effectively. It failed when leaders failed it.

Some may nonetheless argue that the nationwide actuality calls for its rewriting. Two issues should be saved in thoughts. One, many main nations, together with the US, run their affairs with out tampering with their constitutions an excessive amount of. Several, just like the UK and Israel, run their nations even after they don’t have a written structure. Two, whereas responding to Birkenhead’s problem, we accepted its underlying precept: A structure that carries behind it a “fair measure of general agreement” among the many peoples of India. We should be ready for such a big train, not forgetting that the current Constitution was drafted with out taking recourse to voting and divisions in lobbies.

In any case, Rajendra Babu’s sane recommendation ought to all the time ring in our ears. “Our Constitution has provisions in it which appear to some to be objectionable from one point or another. If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, they would be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution. If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country.”

The author, president, India Foundation, is with the RSS