India’s basic constitutional values need eternal vigilance
We must illuminate the Constitution by understanding the idea of India
If, as Abraham Lincoln said, “The most reliable way to deal with the future is to create it”, our faith in our Constitution must be reinforced on its 75th birthday, since it has served us so well in the past.
India appears to be the sole, shining exception of a continuing vibrant democracy, emerging from the yolk of imperialism along with 30-40 other nations between the 1930s and 1960s, while the wrecks and ruins of failed constitutionalism litter the constitutional landscape across Asia, Australasia, Africa and South America. Part of that secret sauce, apart from the jugalbandi of Gandhi and Nehru or the trinity of India’s GNP (Gandhi-Nehru-Patel), must be shared with the vision of this basic document.
Secondly, our Constitution operationalises several institutional and non-institutional pillars. The much-abused secularism conveys a sense of co-ownership of democracy, a sense of attachment and belonging of each Indian to a part of that document amidst the salad bowl or melting pot of pluralism and diversity which must be the guiding polestar for planet earth’s most diverse spot.
Thirdly, secularism is ably cross-fertilised and reinforced by the pillar of ‘Fraternity’, conveying the essence of positive coexistence, not merely insipid tolerance. Fourthly, federalism, not found anywhere in the world’s longest Constitution, has unprecedentedly been held to be a part of our basic structure, acting as a vital valve, a special pressure cooker, to channel dissent, discomfort, and dissatisfaction by quarantining conflicts at local decentralised spots instead of allowing explosions at the centre. A unitary or, at best, a quasi-federal constitutional design by our founding fathers has transformed itself through inadvertent and accidental federalism. Major facets of this are the huge federating and decentralising influences of fiscal & linguistic federalism, Panchayati Raj, municipal self government, delicensing, economic liberalisation and vigorous judicial review of takeovers under Article 356.
Other pillars, conceptualised by our founders and nurtured and promoted assiduously by Gandhi and Nehru, acting as bulwarks against undemocratic adventurism, include the CAG, the Election Commission, the Indian Parliament and the Armed forces.
Some critical features need emphasis. Firstly, we institutionalised democracy, giving one man, one woman, one vote in a poor and unequal country, something which even the UK and US got only in the1920s. Secondly, while our founders creditably created a remarkable charter of fundamental rights amidst a carnage of ‘fundamental wrongs’, the interpreted & operational Constitution promoted both political and social democracy, with a dynamic interpretation of Directive Principles of State Policy, whose interplay with Fundamental Rights was synergically harmonised.
We have journeyed from 173 million voters (with a population of 361 million in 1951-52) & a literacy rate of 18.33% to 642 million million voters in 2024, (out of a 1.4 billion population) and literacy rate hovering above 80%. Poverty reduction has brought us to 25% below that line per the Rangarajan Committee, and to only 7.2% in rural areas and 4.6% in urban areas, if the more controversial and current multidimensional poverty definition is to be believed.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court has interpreted constitutional text and exponentially enlarged it with context. Its power of judicial review is humongous and would make Marbury vs Madison blush and Dicean theorists cringe. It has been used as a tool of constitutional transformation of democracy: political, social, and economic. The Basic Structure theory is the pride of India and the envy of the world and public interest litigations have attacked diverse malaises from environment to corruption to custodial deaths and endless others.
In its diverse evolutionary phases, the apex court acted as a consolidator with a firm focus on individual rights in the 1950s and 60s, followed by a greater focus on social and economic rights from the late 1960s to the 1970s after Indira Gandhi’s pushback. In its third phase, during the Emergency, the court became a positivistic court, excessively deferential to the executive, and in ADM Jabalpur, it had its infamous Liversidge and Dred Scott moment. From the 1980s onwards, the court emerged in a vigorous post-emergency quest for legitimation, and in its fifth phase, entered the new millennium, focusing more on issues of equality, transparency, social justice, civic amenities and so on. In its current sixth phase, the Supreme Court continues as a dynamic, forward-looking, liberal organ, trying, though not always succeeding, in speaking truth to power.
All of the above comes with cautions, caveats and conditionalities. Firstly, a climate of fear, divisiveness, and distrust is the antithesis of the special values underlying this special document. Secondly, undermining institutions (e.g., ECI or CAG) or misusing agencies (e.g.; IT, CBI, and ED) can only remind us of BR Ambedkar’s warning “If the Constitution fails, it is not because it is not good, but because man is vile.” Thirdly, undermining the steel frame of bureaucracy to convert it into an instrument of servility, irreversibly weakens governance in India. Fourthly, ambitious and motivated anchors, pre-committed participants, verbal terrorism, visual extremism, and biased reportage may mark the end of the media as the fourth pillar of democracy. Fifthly, our historical good fortune of avoiding vendetta politics (except historically in some states), being replaced with an increasing trend to the contrary, will make us indistinguishable from our neighbours who have suffered doom by forgetting that magnanimity is the biggest jewel in the democratic crown. Sixthly, unbelievable expenditures in parliamentary and assembly elections skew the level-playing field and therefore, erode democracy and hence the Basic Structure. This is without counting the excessive skewing of fund availability in favor of the ruling party by a factor of 1:50, if not 1:100. Seventhly, the scourge of defections, frequently encouraged by the use of incentives and the obscene amounts spent on elections, is one of the greatest threats to Indian democracy and the Constitution. Eighthly, condemnable assaults on federalism, by converting several gubernatorial incumbents into agents of the central government in Opposition-ruled states, bode badly for the future.
Ultimately, we have to embellish and illuminate our Constitution by understanding and practising the idea of India. That is neither uniformity nor homogeneity, nor unity upon diversity, but unity in diversity. India is not about control , but about letting go, so the kite flies higher and higher. Pulling it unduly will make it snap. The future is bright and sunny and we all need to walk fast, but above all, to walk together and maintain eternal vigilance for our basic constitutional values.
Abhishek Singhvi is a fourth-term MP; former chair, parliamentary standing committees on commerce, law, and home; member, Congress Working Committee; former additional solicitor general; senior national spokesperson, Congress; chair, Congress department on law, human rights & RTI; and author. The views expressed are personal.
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
