Change it if it makes sense, but then in democracy it is not easy, You need not just majority to pass a constitutional amendment, you need more than 2/3rd majority. There is a reason to the number, such that you just need to win a larger majority to make a change.
If these changes were made by the law makers we elected, very well and good. What is wrong with that? Yes, we were forced into emergency, though I never had any real experience of that time, from stories it looked like dark days in India, but then there were changes made to ensure that such an emergency kind of situation is not repeated? Has the system been flexible enough to take into consideration such an eventuality.
We are still a democratic institution, does it not say something about its ability to survive a scare?
One thing is for sure, the Indian constitution is too large for me to take an exam on it and pass. :-)
A good part is the constitution of a body to look into the constitution. This was done exactly to address the weakness and there are public hearings too.
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport.htm
If the rigidity of the US constitution is its strengths, its flexibility is its strength when it comes to India. The problem with the US constitution is that it is taken as a "document" that cannot be modified or too sacrosanct that the founding fathers evolved it.
An US view of the Indian constitution. Good read, the so called problem is its strength, many a times is it not..
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/11/15/what-india-can-teach-america-about-democracy
As argues a few cases do happen like this, that is discussed earlier.
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend24.htm
And check out all the amendments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Two views on the strengths/ Weakness
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/previous_seasons/shows/india/debate4.html
Power of the constitution to constitute a constitution body to review the constitution.!!!
All the people who commented on the constitution. If you did not participate , it is not because a window was not given....
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-8.htm
Why is the report a crap, when the inputs of so many have been taken into consideration?
We would take a western view as valid, where in work by so many of our eminent people is considered trash?
We need to change our viewpoint as to a cause and effect Western look at things to a more Indian view?
And do we think a person like Soli Sorabjee is incompetent? The author of this report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_Sorabjee
The panel members are
1. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Chairman, Law Commission of India
1. Justice Shri R.S. Sarkaria, former Judge, Supreme Court of India
1. Justice Shri Kottapalli Punnayya, former Judge, Andhra Pradesh High Court
1. Shri P.A.Sangma, former Speaker, Lok Sabha; and Member of Parliament
1. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India
1. Shri K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India
1. Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap, former Secretary General, Lok Sabha
1. Shri C.R. Irani, Chief Editor and Managing Director, The Statesman
1. Dr. Abid Hussain, former Ambassador of India in the USA
1. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni, former Member of Parliament, (Rajya Sabha)
The same Nehru said this
"The Constitution is after all some kind of legal body given to the ways of Government and the life of the people. A Constitution if it is out of touch with the people’s life, aims and aspirations, becomes rather empty: if it falls behind those aims, it drags the people down. It should be something ahead to keep people’s eyes and minds made up to a certain high mark…. Remember this that while we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, … there should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people.”
This is a statement which makes lot of sense or you make the constitution into something like a "Bible" that is not changed irrespective of the idiosyncrasies that are proven beyond doubt.
“.. ..… we have in India a strange habit of making gods of various things, adding them to our innumerable pantheon, and having given them our theoretical worship, doing exactly the reverse. If we want to kill a thing in this country, we deify it. That is the habit of this country largely. So if you wish to kill this Constitution, make it sacred and sacrosanct – certainly. If you want it to be a dead thing, not a growing thing, a static, unwieldy, unchanging thing, then by all means do so, realizing that that is the best way of stabbing it in the front and in the back… A Constitution which is unchanging and static, it does not matter how good it is, but as a Constitution it is past its use. It is in its old age already and gradually approaching its death. A Constitution to be living must be growing; must be adaptable; must be flexible; must be changeable… Therefore, it is a desirable and a good thing for people to realize that this very fine Constitution that we have fashioned after years of labour, is good in so far as it goes, but as society changes as conditions change, we amend it in the proper way. It is not like the unalterable law of the Medes and Persians that it cannot be changed, although the world around may change.”
This is a visionary statement, Nehru might have had all the problems, he was after all human, but he was definitely a leader, many a times it is easier in hind sight to talk on the weaknesses or something , but in the context of time.. It is the best you had to live at that time.
There is flexibility in everything, what is fundamental in 17th century is not applicable today or what is applicable today is not fundamental then.
For example:
Gay marriage - You would be killed for it, now it may become fundamental right - A clause saying "The state shall not differentiate in spite of the person's orientation"
Women equality: No one said it was wrong to disenfranchise women, for example Switzerland women vote count only in 1971!!
Tomorrow the law will also state
Right to have access to the Internet as a fundamental right.
Right to live in a "Smart City"
Think of all the problem in the US constitution on Gun Control, an document that cannot be changed!!! or easy to be changed!!
If the law makers "YOU" elected passed a constitutional amendment or did not pass on a key change well is it mistake of the document?
Right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is still there as a constitutional right. Think of all the problems Government had, when it had to lay the roads, the industries or any such initiative. This is what might have prompted the change.
You also need fantastic roads and services but would fight tooth and nail to have inalienable property rights?
I am not saying everything is perfect, it is a every changing landscape that would need continued correction, just appreciate for what it can do.. by changing you can correct a wrong, by not correcting it, you are making a great disservice to society.
Looking into the list of organizations that had a say in the review
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore
From this, we are clear , the BIRDS were given a chance to voice its views...
Is begging a constitutional right?
Does not ban, but it is the states responsibility to ensure that they can make a decent living. As always "nobody" defines decent.
I am not sure why any thing needs to be written in stone, accept to the fact that humans are fallible and need to correct, whether it is fundamental rights or any such document.
We can always argue , if Indian states wants self determination (I am not saying Kashmir) would the constitution allow for it? If it does not, and keeps the Union sacrosanct are we not denying a fundamental right of a set of people to have their own country and run their own systems?
On the same lines, I can say, Women who are 50 percent should get 50 percent of every job, service or participation in Government. Everybody will agree to this, take it to the next level, reservations for every possible 3200 odd castes and tribes identified.
It is always a balancing act and this can only be achieved with a flexible constitution that changes according to the needs of the time.
And the problem of digital divide is a serious problem, just like providing economic equality through equal opportunities, it is very important for the state to ensure that we provide connectivity to the rural and underprivileged sections to the Internet , it is a great leveler, it is as important to bridge the digital divide as any other problems confronting the world today.
http://www.weforum.org/news/global-information-technology-report-highlights-lack-progress-bridging-new-digital-divide?news=page
Should Kashmir be independent?
Personally I care very little about the constitution, it is just a guidance, if majority do not want it, just get rid of it and rewrite something afresh.
There is nothing that is permanent, we change, think of all the lines we have drawn across the world and call them countries. Is it representative. The British drew random lines across Africa and every African country today is in turmoil between different people.
If to secede is immutable, seceding from Britain to create India and Pakistan too was not right, so was the constitution of Pakistan against secession of Bangladesh.
We are not here to debate why a constitution is violated, my point it will always be and it does not matter, it is after all a piece of put together by some jurists. :-)
Change it with time
Count me as Plus one, It does not matter, to me the constitution is a piece of paper that was passed by the right people "At that time"
It is amendable, should be amendable and should change with time. It has provisions to do it and that is to be welcomed.
My point, is majority of people (Can be 2/3 or 100 percent) but then this is amendable too right should chose to vote away or keep the country together or add something to the fundamental right.
Trivializing what may not be considered a primary fundamental right today, will become so in the future, humans evolve, change and their needs will make it such that, just like "Right to education", Right to live under a concrete roof , As our politicians harped, Bijili, Sadak Paani, or Garibi Hatao, it is the milieu of the population or the political class at that point of time.
All I am saying do not make a rigid document and say everything has to be the way the document says so. If that was the case, we can still use Arthashastra or Manu's document as our constitution, they are just a few thousand years old.
It is simple, keep it flexible, change as required and it includes secession, transgenders, third genders, the various classes, and any thing living in this world.
Think of the world when the Moon gets colonized or Mars gets colonized, Right to move to any planet becomes a fundamental right. But the present world does not even allow you to travel between countries without a VISA.
If these changes were made by the law makers we elected, very well and good. What is wrong with that? Yes, we were forced into emergency, though I never had any real experience of that time, from stories it looked like dark days in India, but then there were changes made to ensure that such an emergency kind of situation is not repeated? Has the system been flexible enough to take into consideration such an eventuality.
We are still a democratic institution, does it not say something about its ability to survive a scare?
One thing is for sure, the Indian constitution is too large for me to take an exam on it and pass. :-)
A good part is the constitution of a body to look into the constitution. This was done exactly to address the weakness and there are public hearings too.
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport.htm
If the rigidity of the US constitution is its strengths, its flexibility is its strength when it comes to India. The problem with the US constitution is that it is taken as a "document" that cannot be modified or too sacrosanct that the founding fathers evolved it.
An US view of the Indian constitution. Good read, the so called problem is its strength, many a times is it not..
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/11/15/what-india-can-teach-america-about-democracy
As argues a few cases do happen like this, that is discussed earlier.
http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend24.htm
And check out all the amendments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_of_the_Constitution_of_India
Two views on the strengths/ Weakness
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/previous_seasons/shows/india/debate4.html
Power of the constitution to constitute a constitution body to review the constitution.!!!
All the people who commented on the constitution. If you did not participate , it is not because a window was not given....
http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-8.htm
So what does the report talk about
Why is the report a crap, when the inputs of so many have been taken into consideration?
We would take a western view as valid, where in work by so many of our eminent people is considered trash?
We need to change our viewpoint as to a cause and effect Western look at things to a more Indian view?
And do we think a person like Soli Sorabjee is incompetent? The author of this report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soli_Sorabjee
The panel members are
1. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Chairman, Law Commission of India
1. Justice Shri R.S. Sarkaria, former Judge, Supreme Court of India
1. Justice Shri Kottapalli Punnayya, former Judge, Andhra Pradesh High Court
1. Shri P.A.Sangma, former Speaker, Lok Sabha; and Member of Parliament
1. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General for India
1. Shri K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India
1. Dr.Subhash C. Kashyap, former Secretary General, Lok Sabha
1. Shri C.R. Irani, Chief Editor and Managing Director, The Statesman
1. Dr. Abid Hussain, former Ambassador of India in the USA
1. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni, former Member of Parliament, (Rajya Sabha)
The same Nehru said this
"The Constitution is after all some kind of legal body given to the ways of Government and the life of the people. A Constitution if it is out of touch with the people’s life, aims and aspirations, becomes rather empty: if it falls behind those aims, it drags the people down. It should be something ahead to keep people’s eyes and minds made up to a certain high mark…. Remember this that while we want this Constitution to be as solid and as permanent a structure as we can make it, … there should be a certain flexibility. If you make anything rigid and permanent, you stop a nation’s growth, the growth of a living, vital, organic people.”
This is a statement which makes lot of sense or you make the constitution into something like a "Bible" that is not changed irrespective of the idiosyncrasies that are proven beyond doubt.
“.. ..… we have in India a strange habit of making gods of various things, adding them to our innumerable pantheon, and having given them our theoretical worship, doing exactly the reverse. If we want to kill a thing in this country, we deify it. That is the habit of this country largely. So if you wish to kill this Constitution, make it sacred and sacrosanct – certainly. If you want it to be a dead thing, not a growing thing, a static, unwieldy, unchanging thing, then by all means do so, realizing that that is the best way of stabbing it in the front and in the back… A Constitution which is unchanging and static, it does not matter how good it is, but as a Constitution it is past its use. It is in its old age already and gradually approaching its death. A Constitution to be living must be growing; must be adaptable; must be flexible; must be changeable… Therefore, it is a desirable and a good thing for people to realize that this very fine Constitution that we have fashioned after years of labour, is good in so far as it goes, but as society changes as conditions change, we amend it in the proper way. It is not like the unalterable law of the Medes and Persians that it cannot be changed, although the world around may change.”
This is a visionary statement, Nehru might have had all the problems, he was after all human, but he was definitely a leader, many a times it is easier in hind sight to talk on the weaknesses or something , but in the context of time.. It is the best you had to live at that time.
Well what is fundamental today may not be fundamental tomorrow?
There is flexibility in everything, what is fundamental in 17th century is not applicable today or what is applicable today is not fundamental then.
For example:
Gay marriage - You would be killed for it, now it may become fundamental right - A clause saying "The state shall not differentiate in spite of the person's orientation"
Women equality: No one said it was wrong to disenfranchise women, for example Switzerland women vote count only in 1971!!
Tomorrow the law will also state
Right to have access to the Internet as a fundamental right.
Right to live in a "Smart City"
Think of all the problem in the US constitution on Gun Control, an document that cannot be changed!!! or easy to be changed!!
If the law makers "YOU" elected passed a constitutional amendment or did not pass on a key change well is it mistake of the document?
Right to property is not a fundamental right, but it is still there as a constitutional right. Think of all the problems Government had, when it had to lay the roads, the industries or any such initiative. This is what might have prompted the change.
You also need fantastic roads and services but would fight tooth and nail to have inalienable property rights?
I am not saying everything is perfect, it is a every changing landscape that would need continued correction, just appreciate for what it can do.. by changing you can correct a wrong, by not correcting it, you are making a great disservice to society.
So who did have a say in it?
Looking into the list of organizations that had a say in the review
Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore
From this, we are clear , the BIRDS were given a chance to voice its views...
Is begging a constitutional right?
Does not ban, but it is the states responsibility to ensure that they can make a decent living. As always "nobody" defines decent.
I am not sure why any thing needs to be written in stone, accept to the fact that humans are fallible and need to correct, whether it is fundamental rights or any such document.
We can always argue , if Indian states wants self determination (I am not saying Kashmir) would the constitution allow for it? If it does not, and keeps the Union sacrosanct are we not denying a fundamental right of a set of people to have their own country and run their own systems?
On the same lines, I can say, Women who are 50 percent should get 50 percent of every job, service or participation in Government. Everybody will agree to this, take it to the next level, reservations for every possible 3200 odd castes and tribes identified.
It is always a balancing act and this can only be achieved with a flexible constitution that changes according to the needs of the time.
And the problem of digital divide is a serious problem, just like providing economic equality through equal opportunities, it is very important for the state to ensure that we provide connectivity to the rural and underprivileged sections to the Internet , it is a great leveler, it is as important to bridge the digital divide as any other problems confronting the world today.
http://www.weforum.org/news/global-information-technology-report-highlights-lack-progress-bridging-new-digital-divide?news=page
Should Kashmir be independent?
Personally I care very little about the constitution, it is just a guidance, if majority do not want it, just get rid of it and rewrite something afresh.
There is nothing that is permanent, we change, think of all the lines we have drawn across the world and call them countries. Is it representative. The British drew random lines across Africa and every African country today is in turmoil between different people.
If to secede is immutable, seceding from Britain to create India and Pakistan too was not right, so was the constitution of Pakistan against secession of Bangladesh.
We are not here to debate why a constitution is violated, my point it will always be and it does not matter, it is after all a piece of put together by some jurists. :-)
Change it with time
Count me as Plus one, It does not matter, to me the constitution is a piece of paper that was passed by the right people "At that time"
It is amendable, should be amendable and should change with time. It has provisions to do it and that is to be welcomed.
My point, is majority of people (Can be 2/3 or 100 percent) but then this is amendable too right should chose to vote away or keep the country together or add something to the fundamental right.
Trivializing what may not be considered a primary fundamental right today, will become so in the future, humans evolve, change and their needs will make it such that, just like "Right to education", Right to live under a concrete roof , As our politicians harped, Bijili, Sadak Paani, or Garibi Hatao, it is the milieu of the population or the political class at that point of time.
All I am saying do not make a rigid document and say everything has to be the way the document says so. If that was the case, we can still use Arthashastra or Manu's document as our constitution, they are just a few thousand years old.
It is simple, keep it flexible, change as required and it includes secession, transgenders, third genders, the various classes, and any thing living in this world.
Think of the world when the Moon gets colonized or Mars gets colonized, Right to move to any planet becomes a fundamental right. But the present world does not even allow you to travel between countries without a VISA.
No comments:
Post a Comment