[ It's a conversation between the father & a son. Father being a enthusiast of Economic & Political History, son a curious listener. It's a typical conversation, where, sometime, father would go on without pause. And son wouldn't ask for a break. It's a story of seven Decades of India, where son is witness to only two.]
PART 2
It was sunny day. Father was still occupied with Prajavaani and son wanted conversation to begin. For son, yesterday's crisp political history has invigorated a new taste towards understanding what went into making of India. His young mind was demanding more raw stories so that he could construct a narrative of his own. However, to build an inclusive nation such that, aspirations & dreams of none are left behind, was a challenging task. And those who took the responsibility knew how insurmountable it was. Though it was challenging, spirit of new freedom was enough for them to lay the road ahead for India.
Son, said father, how do we govern a nation? Some one has aptly remarked, that india is a nation of nations. And now some prominent political scientist are redefining ' nation - state ' , they are reluctant to use this term, instead they are contesting its application with ' state - nation ' which they believe is appropriate to describe india as a nation. Now, how do we know what are the aspirations of the masses- which is divided in great numbers on the basis of language, traditions & geography? Uniformity in the Indian context is absurd idea. There is no common chord that binds us all. Every tradition in this land is as old as the story of birth of Bharathvarsha itself. With such a diversity, making entire subcontinent bide by a common code in itself is an achievement unparalleled in the constitutional history of the world.
It was apparent, that countries which were independent had written constitution to govern themselves. Constitution in these Countries, had not only prescribed rights and duties of the citizens but also, dealt on the limits and functions of the government organs. In a nutshell, it's a text book which guarantees freedom of life, protection of natural rights - John Locke mentions them as life, liberty & property, and a moral guide to a social contract.
With declining power & resources after WW 2, Britain had little choice left to influence its stay in india. In 1946, cabinet mission came to India to assist and discuss transfer of power into the hands of Indian leadership from British government. Under this plan, elections to constituent assembly were held for the first time and its members were elected by provincial assemblies. Thus, the first task entrusted to constituent assembly, along with loosly governing the nation ,was to frame a constitution. This wasn't an easy task, for how could anyone speak for that section of people who had no representation in the assembly. Because, constituent assembly was elected by provincial assembly which were in turn representative of elite sections of the society such as, merchant class, landlords, educators, members of municipal and members of royal families. With this composition, it was highly unlikely that any form of representation on someone's behalf was acceptable. Also, there was constant change in numbers in the assembly, as members of Muslim League withdraw from participation. Thus, affectively, rendering Muslim dominated area having no representation. However, arrangements were made to substitute for those elected members who withdrew from participation in framing constitution.
Several committees were formed and each was headed by a very able chairman. The role of these committee was to file reports on various issues, formulating initial & detailed draft, and later these draft were put up for discussions, debates and amendments and and changes were accepted if required and later enacted to be become part of final constitution. With such a progress it took nearly three years to finalise a constitution, finally on 26 January, 1950, constitution came into force. However, there are several contesting theories to describe this constitution, but still it doesn't take away the fact that makers tried to make as inclusive as they could, knowing it was impossible. Some argue that, people had no participation in its process of making, as members weren't directly elected by them. And thus, the constitution hasn't included the voice and aspirations of people. Making it document of elites vision. Some have criticized it to be social document that governs everyday life of its citizens....
Criticisms apart, the constitution has helped building institutions of importance, has played role in protecting the rights of citizens and prevented government from acting recklessly.........
Son was breathless, he thought he couldn't get break this time, Because it seemed father was totally in lecturing mood. However, the time wouldn't allow us to continue further....
Comments
Post a Comment