After the decline of the ‘Nehruvian Consensus’, elections in India were fought on issues related to identity. Religion, region, and caste emerged as the major factors dictating electoral outcomes. It is usually thought that issues like environmental degradation that resonate less with the masses have little chance to mould the electoral prospects in any significant manner.
However, this reductionist analysis got a reality check when in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections the ‘Constitution’ became the rallying point of the opposition’s election campaign. Copies of the Constitution became the symbols of protest. The accusation, that the BJP would change the Constitution if voted to power again, became one of the most important factors which led to a revival of Congress and the stopping of BJP’s electoral juggernaut, which got reflected in the latter’s decreased seat share.
Uniqueness of 2024 general election
The 2024 Lok Sabha Election was the first time in the electoral history of India that the Constitution and its defence became an electoral issue. It was taken out from the confines of court premises, chambers of lawyers and libraries of law schools, and placed amidst the masses. Now, the Constitution was not merely the touchstone of ensuring free and fair elections but the subject of election campaigns itself.
On Friday (December 13), during the scheduled debate on the Constitution in the Parliament, treasury and opposition benches are most likely to use the opportunity to attack each other. The debate’s quality can be enhanced only if public representatives try to revisit the history of Constitution-making. This can be a great opportunity to remind oneself what the vision of the Constituent Assembly members was, and also their hopes and fears.
Arguably, no one encapsulated these feelings better than BR Ambedkar in an address in November 1949 to the Constituent Assembly, popularly known as ‘The Grammar of Anarchy’, on the eve of the Indian Constitution coming into force.
People matter more than ideas on paper
Ambedkar cautioned against turning the Constitution into a dead document by ignoring the role of people who are entrusted with the responsibility of realising its vision. He said: “I feel, however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it, happen to be a bad lot. However bad a Constitution may be, it may turn out to be good if those who are called to work it, happen to be a good lot.”
He added, “The working of a Constitution does not depend wholly upon the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution can provide only the organs of State such as the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. The factors on which the working of those organs of the State depend are the people and the political parties they will set up as their instruments to carry out their wishes and their politics.”
This history of post-independent India bears testimony to the fact that he was right in his analysis. There were people in the highest constitutional offices, including Presidents, Prime Ministers, Supreme Court judges and others, who strengthened the institutions they were helming and made efforts to enforce the ideas of the Constitution in letter and spirit.
In ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla (1976), four out of five Supreme Court judges bowed down at the whims of the government but one, Justice Hans Raj Khanna in his dissenting opinion, rose to the occasion and stood for civil liberties, to safeguard democratic tradition and constitutional values even though it cost him Chief Justiceship. There were other instances when the people occupying the high offices showed utmost independence and integrity and adhered to the Constitution. However, there were occasions when they chose to denigrate the prestige of the office through their partisan conduct.
On Indian civilisation and democracy
Ambedkar reflected profoundly that democracy was innate and intrinsic to Indian civilisation and culture. He said, “It is not that India did not know what is democracy. There was a time when India was studded with republics, and even where there were monarchies, they were either elected or limited. They were never absolute. It is not that India did not know Parliaments or parliamentary procedure. A study of the Buddhist Bhikshu Sanghas discloses that not only there were Parliaments — for the Sanghas were nothing but Parliaments — but the Sanghas knew and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedure known to modern time…”
He also delved into the most important question that bothered many Indians, which was whether India would be able to sustain its democracy or not. On this, he said, “I do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India — where democracy from its long disuse must be regarded as something quite new — there is danger of democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much greater.”
Substance matters more than form
He another pertinent point. He said: “If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form, but also in fact, what must we do? The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.”
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
