July 29, 2024 ☼ The Intersection ☼ Constitutionalism ☼ public policy
The Constitution is neither about quotas nor is it a holy book. It would be dangerous to treat it as one.
This is from The Intersection column that appears every other Monday in Mint.
It was edifying to see the Indian Constitution occupy centre-stage during some phases of this year’s general election. Indian republicans—those who believe in upholding constitutional values and behaviours—have long been a beleaguered lot.
We have watched in impotent horror as both the left and the right have used the brute force of populism to ignore or circumvent constitutional norms. We have seen rulings of the Supreme Court that appear to side a little too readily with what is popular over what is constitutional. We have been derided in some of the public discourse as being impractical, even curmudgeonly, “like street dogs barking at passing cars”. It was, therefore, a delight to see opposition politicians waving the pocketbook edition of the Constitution and the government responding by announcing the celebration of its 75th anniversary on a grand scale.
I am happy that Indian politics has rediscovered the Constitution. Yet, I have been concerned about some of the motivations behind the newfound enthusiasm. In some places at least, the Constitution was conflated with India’s policy of reservations and people voted to preserve it. Now there is nothing wrong in voting for reservations. It is the equation of the Constitution with a specific policy—in this case education and job quotas—that ought to worry us. Social justice is one of the first objectives of the Indian republic, but a reservation policy is just one of several possible ways to achieve it. It is not hard-coded in the document. Indeed, if there are better ways to achieve social justice, then both constitutional and conventional morality require us to adopt them. The danger of equating reservations with the Constitution is that we will let that single policy hijack the entire enterprise. Then those who are opposed to reservations will needlessly become opponents of the Constitution.
When asked in 1949 why ‘socialism’ was not written into the Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar replied that it would be unwise to commit future generations to a particular policy, however desirable it might seem at the time. The same goes for reservations.
It is not just possible, we are actually enjoined to think of improving how we achieve the goals set out in the Constitution. The road to social justice does not end at quotas. As much as we celebrate the rekindling of political interest in the republic’s founding statute, we must be very careful not to devalue it by identifying with narrow causes and policies.
Citizens of a democratic republic should also be concerned when the Constitution is claimed to be a ‘holy book.’ It is not holy. It is clearly not the immutable word of supernatural providence. It is, in fact, a social contract framed by humans. As I have written elsewhere, “Instead of centralising power in an almighty God, it divides power among fallible humans. The Constitution is, ultimately, a product of reason and a framework for us to conduct our affairs using reason.”
It is amendable by popular consent. In interpreting it, we must be sensitive to what the framers intended, to present realities and precedents for the future. We must respect it, but it is unnecessary to attach holiness to a book in order to do so.
The risk of deifying or sanctifying a book is that it becomes possible to worship it while ignoring its content. Indian society has successfully raised the Buddha, Rabindranath Tagore, M. K. Gandhi and Ambedkar onto pedestals while forgetting the principles they advocated. The Buddha, it is often forgotten and records show, had a non-theistic religious persuasion. Tagore is included in the nationalist pantheon despite his rejection of the idea. Gandhi is frequently a statue, road or a pretext for prohibition. Ambedkar, who warned against hero worship, seems to be worshipped as a statue even as his ideas on constitutionalism and building a casteless society are ignored. We must not allow the Constitution to go the same way. In any case, a holy book for a secular state is a contradiction in terms.
Similarly, as the Chief Justice of India warned earlier this month, “There is a very grave danger when people say that the court is a temple of justice. It is a grave danger that we perceive ourselves as the deities in those temples.” The judge is a public servant bound by constitutional morality. We can stick with the convention of addressing judges as ‘My Lord’ or ‘My Lady,’ and accord them due respect, but without deifying the humans occupying a very human seat.
We should, therefore, neither diminish the Constitution nor worship it. More than book-thumping or worship, constitutionalism is about day-to-day conduct. The profound declaration “Dharmo rakshati rakshitaah” (dharma protects those who protect it) enjoins everyone to act according to constitutional values and norms. Remember Ambedkar’s words: “The first thing… we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives.” We have to do a lot better in this respect.
Tailpiece: The pocket edition of the Constitution of India is beautifully produced and I recommend that you buy one for yourself. It also makes a great gift. Its resemblance to a holy book is entirely coincidental.
There are many more The Intersection columns here
If you would like to share or comment on this, please discuss it on my GitHub
Previous © Copyright 2003-2024. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.