Constitutional Choices at Independence

In Missing in Action, Pranay Kotasthane looks at how the concept of the nation called India evolved at independence. It had to be different from its (British) predecessor for multiple reasons. The predecessor form of government (1) answered to the British Parliament; (2) had limited powers; and (3) was elected by a small electorate. None of these attributes could be retained in independent India, obviously.

 

Several leaders at the time of Independence felt that society was too mired in regional identities, superstition, caste and religion. They felt that it was the responsibility of the state (independent India) to change society to move away from these tendencies.

“The modern Indian constitution in its intent… was fashioned to be a tool not just for an economic and political revolution, but a social revolution.”

 

One can certainly understand that intent. Inevitably though, the state became increasingly paternalistic – it knew what was good for society and the individual. Thus, terms like “secularism” and “socialism” were added to the constitution later. Trying to change society from outside is not only hard, it also risks aggravating many who don’t want their customs changed.

“The State was run by liberal-minded modernists who viewed the customs and traditions of Indian society as impediments to progress.”

 

It didn’t help that some in power took these kinds of measures not with the for-your-own-good mindset but for political gains only. The attempt early on to try and reform Hindu law, but leaving Muslim laws untouched by the reformist agenda of the state sowed deep suspicions in some, a minority then but the majority today. Today, says Kotasthane:

“The vilification of this Nehruvian consensus and the pushback against liberalism… are perhaps manifestations of this repressed angst.”

 

Another major decision at independence was to have a strong Center, and not have an overly federal structure. Yes, this was a deliberate decision that was baked into the constitution. Why? Because over 600 princely states had joined the union, not always happily.

“There was a lack of trust in their allegiance to the union, and any weaknesses by the union might have been exploited by them. The union had to be stronger at the center.”

To add to that, it was (rightly) felt that after the horrors and wounds of Partition, deliberate measures towards nation-building was badly needed. That, by definition, could only be done by the Center, not individualistic states. One more reason for this decision was the “early success of Soviet-style central planning”.

“The consolidation of power by the union has only strengthened over the years.”

 

As the author repeatedly says, events never happen in a vacuum. There is always a context and backdrop. History influences decisions in the present. Denying that is not just wrong but blinds our understanding of things.

 

Those choices, in turn, inevitably have many unintended consequences. For one, it set us off on the path of a “nanny state that interferes excessively in matters of personal choice, economy and society”:

“Because the State was overly concerned with reforming society, it miserably failed at the task it was supposed to be doing: upholding law and order, policing, or providing basic public services.”

 

Measures like food subsidy and employment guarantee expenses kept increasing – it was in line with what the Constitution called for plus, hey, it was a vote-winner. In a poor country with limited money, inevitably the focus on providing/improving public services fell even lower. Kotasthane cites the Right to Education (RTE) as a prime example of this – good in intent, aligned with the Constitution which calls for the State to reform society, but totally impractical when the State doesn’t have the resources for it. It also meant money diverted into yet another non-law and order, non-policing, non-providing basic public services endeavour. Calling it a “right” is part of the problem – once something is a right, the State has to provide it.

 

As that old saying goes, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions.