Surge in Interest in the Constitution

Starting from a little before the 2024 national elections, more and more politicians and a lot of common folks seem very interested in the Constitution. But when you hear them speak on the topic, it is hardly inspiring, as Nitin Pai points out.

 

One set of Opposition parties equates the Constitution to reservation policies. Pai hits the nail on the head when he says:

“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.”

It is also a slippery slope, he says. Very quickly, anyone who opposes reservations will be branded anti-Constitution!

 

Then there’s the word “socialism”. It was added to the Preamble during the Emergency. The timing of that amendment should make one squirm, but in a polarized country, that’s not what happens. And few remember this:

“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.”

I totally agree with Ambedkar. A Constitution is (and should be) a document of “what”, not a document full of “how” to achieve things. Social equality (or at least reduced social inequality) is a “what”, whereas socialism is a “how”.

 

Increasingly, both the Left and the Right brandish the Constitution as a holy book. On matters that suit them. Although it should be obvious:

“It is not holy. It is clearly not the immutable word of supernatural providence. It is, in fact, a social contract framed by humans… It is amendable by popular consent.”

 

Are both the Left and the Right moving us into dangerous territory?

“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.”

Besides:

“In any case, a holy book for a secular state is a contradiction in terms.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more