Articles
New Constitution for Bharat ?
Dt: 26/3/24
New Constitution for Bharat ?
Dr T .H. Chowdary*
Sri Ananta Kumar Hegde Minister in Sri Modi’s cabinet is denied the BJP ticket for election to the Lok Sabha in 2024 for saying that, “ there would be a new constitution for India”. Is a publicly expressed thought or view that Bharat needs a new constitution so subversive as to disqualify a public figure from contesting for membership of the Lok Sabha ?
2. Dr Ambedkar is extolled and lionized as the author of the Constitution of India. It is therefore appropriate to recall his views in this regard. While speaking in the Parliament on Andhra state bill in Oct 1953, Dr Ambedkar said: “ Sir, my friends tell me that I have made the constitution. But I am quite prepared to say that “I shall be the first person to burn it out. I do not want it. It does not suit anybody. ……”
3. While speaking at the last session of the Constituent Assembly in 1949 he said, “What I do say is that the principles embodied in the Constitution are the views of the present generation, or , if you think this to be over statement , I say the are the views of the Constituent Assembly. …” He further said, “Jefferson, the great American statesman who played so great a part in the making of the American Constitution, has expressed some very weighty views which makers of the Constitution can never afford to ignore. In one place, he has said : “ we may consider each generation as a distinct nation , with a right , by the will of the majority , to bind themselves , but none to bind the successive generation more than the inhabitants of another country”…… “The earth belongs not to the dead but to the living…” ( Pages 97 & 98 : The Makers of Indian Constitution: Myth and Reality by Seshrao Chawan, published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan with foreword from Js H R Khanna and Preface by Dr L M Sanghvi both distinguished and eminent jurists )
4. On another occasion Dr Ambedkar observed in the Constituent Assembly : “The workability of a constitution, is not a matter of theory. It is a matter of sentiment. A Constitution like clothes must suit as well as please . If the Constitution does not please, then however perfect it may be it will not work . To have a constitution which runs counter to the strong sentiments of a determined section (of people) is to court disaster if not to invite rebellion”. (Source: Page 365 ; Pakistan or the Partition of India of B R Ambedkar)
5. When the Zamindari Abolition Acts were thrown out by the Supreme Court Article -31 of the constitution was amended, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru while writing to the Chief Ministers observed , “A Constitution must be held in respect, but if it ceases to represent or comes in the way of the spirit of the age or the powerful urges of the people, then difficulties and conflicts arise. It is wise therefore we have not only stability and fixity of purpose but also a certain flexibility and playability in a Constitution”.
6. The Constituon of India has been amended 103 times since it came into force in Jan 1950. The constitution of the US which is about 240 years old has so far been amended only 26 times. We are having to amend our Constitution because of changing aspirations of the people in our increasingly becoming effective democracy . People’s aspirations over a wide spectrum - economic and social justice , cultural renaissance, minority i.e, Muslims resolve to overwhelm Hindus by the votes of their furiously increasing population to the detriment of the interests of the majority i.e, Hindus. Unfortunately, our Constitution is being increasingly worked to appease the Muslim minority. That is why the awakened and imperiled Hindu majority is wanting to bring about changes in the Constitution. Hindus’ detractors, mainly the self-styled “left-liberal-secular”- Muslim-appeasing persons accuse the Hindu intelligentsia of trying to replace the “Ambedkar Constitution” ( repudiated by Dr Ambedkar himself in 1953) , already amended more than hundred times.
7. In a paper “ Essential Amendments to our Constitution” I have referred to the articles which are facilitating the anti-Hindu working of the Constitution. These are Articles - 30, 25,26,27,28 and 51A. Also the words “ socialist” and “secular” in the preamble deserve to be omitted as they mean differently to different people at different times. The directive Principles in part-IV of the constitution are sufficiently socialist and fundamental rights as proposed to be amended are sufficiently secular. ( 1,178 words)
END