Does India need a new Constitution?

A recent article by Bibek Debroy, Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister (EAC-PM) underlines the need for a new constitution for India if it is to become a world power by 2047. The author highlights issues such as the ideal number of states for effective governance, the need to examine the Seventh Schedule, judicial reform, the role of the all-India services, the relevance of the Rajya Sabha, and whether we need Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) at least in its present form. There is little doubt that it is his position as Chairman EAC-PM that has heightened interest in a subject that had till now lain on the back burner. The crux of Debroy’s argument for a new Constitution is that the present one closely parallels the Government of India Act 1935. Nearly 250 of the present 395 Articles in our 1950 Constitution have nearly exact equivalents in the 1935 Act, which was drawn up, in the end, by a colonial power and not by an independent sovereign State. It is not appreciated that the bulk of the present document was drafted not by B R Ambedkar but by B N Rau an ICS bureaucrat, who had drafted similar documents for the British in 1946. Ambedkar was, to be frank, just the chairman of the Drafting Committee, which contained many heavyweight legal luminaries. He was the first among equals. It was nearly inevitable that the common features in all these prior documents literally defaulted India into its present mode of governance with its federal structure, distribution of powers between the Union and the States, a bicameral legislature (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha), three wings of government (executive, judiciary, legislature), the separation of powers between them, the roles of the President and the state Governors, emergency provisions, setting up of an Election Commission, the Union, State and Concurrent Lists, and above all, the parliamentary form of government with a first-past-the-post system of elections. In short, the Constitution we chose in 1950 adopted several administrative structures and procedures from the Government of India Act 1935, mostly I suspect to ensure a smooth transition from colonial rule to democratic governance. But today, I ask the question, do we need this kind of evolutionary constitutional development? India is becoming Bharat today, and this is not an evolutionary change. It is a fundamental tectonic movement. We seem to finally know who we are. We are not the Indians of 1947 but the Bharatiyas of 2023. Does the 1950 Constitution, even given the steady guidance it has given us for 75 years, do full justice to us today? I think not. The current constitution does not reflect the rich cultural, spiritual, and dharmic heritage of India. India is a very diverse country. Diversity is our strength. This diversity of Indian society and its deep-rooted spiritual traditions are not captured in a constitution that was so strongly influenced by colonial legal frameworks. Retaining the present Constitution, by invoking a blind worship of the past, overlooks the opportunity to enshrine the unique spiritual and cultural essence of India in our Vision Statement that is the Constitution. A document that incorporates Bharat’s cultural and spiritual dimensions would more explicitly reinforce a sense of inclusivity and unity among its diverse population across religions, castes and languages. A constitution that reflects our civilisational values would certainly reinforce a stronger sense of national identity. This is especially true today when the whole world is recognising that we are a civilisational state and not a nation state. Proponents of retaining the present constitution might argue that its foundations have allowed for India’s democratic and secular evolution over the years. They might believe that rather than replacing the entire constitution, it might be more practical to amend it strategically to better reflect India’s cultural and spiritual dimensions. I refute such arguments. The word ‘secular’ itself has been fully discredited in India today, and by ‘democracy’ we should be enshrining our Bharatiya version of it rather than the Western liberal model, which we have been saddled with since 1950. Still other questions remain apart from those pointed out by Debroy. Is a parliamentary democracy the best form of governance for us? Is first-past-the-post better than proportional representation? Should there be a complete separation of legislative and executive wings in other words, the American system? Would 75 small states work well in the latter situation? Can the Rajya Sabha be scrapped? Constitutionally, we are at an inflection point today. The time of “soothing and baffling expedients, of delays” brought about with amendments and adjournments, is long since gone. “In its place we are entering a period of consequences,” to quote someone we all love to hate, Winston Churchill. Drafting a new Constitution will be a new exercise for us. It can be initiated only by the three wings of government, but having done so, they would then need to surrender a major part of their sovereignty to a Constituent Assembly that would need to be formed with care and concern. The 1946 Assembly was remarkably free of partisan rancour, possibly because at least 30 per cent of its membership consisted of apolitical figures drawn from various segments of public life. A Constituent Assembly is a sovereign body that stands apart and higher than Parliament, as Parliament cannot influence the drafting of a new Constitution. The judiciary cannot, by definition, have any role in reviewing the merits or otherwise of a new Constitution. But above all, and this would be paramount, the Executive wing should play no role at all in the drafting. Constitutions are written to stay around for some time. They should not reflect the immediate electoral priorities of political parties. The problems with our 1950 Constitution mostly arose because a generally reasonable document became distorted with the amendments during 1950-1980. These amendments were such that they suited the political preferences of the Congress Party, in particular Jawaharlal Nehru (after the Avadi meeting in 1955) and Indira Gandhi. I am glad Debroy has brought up the matter of a new Constitution. A number of articles and podcasts have quickly surfaced in past weeks, including one featuring this author. More will emerge soon. This is because a new Constitution is an idea whose time has come. The writer is the author of ‘Bharat: India 2.0’. He can be reached at gautam.desiraju@gmail.com. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .