ADDRESS
TO THE NATION BY SHRI K.R. NARAYANAN, PRESIDENT OF INDIA, ON THE OCCASION
OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA FROM THE CENTRAL HALL
OF PARLIAMENT
NEW DELHI, THURSDAY,JANUARY 27, 2000
Hon'ble
Vice President of India,
Hon'ble
Prime Minister of India,
Hon'ble
Speaker of the Lok Sabha,
Hon'ble
Members of Parliament,
It
gives me great pleasure to be here amidst you at this function to mark
the Golden Jubilee Celebrations of the birth of the Indian Republic and
the commencement of our Constitution. The establishment of the democratic
Republic of India was obviously, a significant and glorious event for
India, for the freedom and welfare of the hundreds of millions of its
people. But it was also a world event of far-reaching significance. People
talk about the triumph of democracy in the world against other forms of
Government. For that triumphal outcome, democracy in India has had a meaningful
part to play not in the way of taking part in the ideological cold war,
but in the sense of setting an over powering example to the world.
What
Sir Anthony Eden, the Prime Minister of Britain, said at the time of the
emergence of Indian Republic is relevant in this context. He said "Of
all the experiments in government, which have been attempted since the
beginning of time, I believe that the Indian venture into parliamentary
government is the most exciting. A vast sub-continent is attempting to
apply to its tens and thousands of millions a system of free democracy...
It is a brave thing to try to do so. The Indian venture is not a pale
imitation of our practice at home, but a magnified and multiplied reproduction
on a scale we have never dreamt of. If it succeeds, its influence on Asia
is incalculable for good. Whatever the outcome we must honour those who
attempt it."
Even
more meaningful was the opinion expressed by an American Constitutional
authority, Prof. Granville Austin who wrote that, what the Indian Constituent
Assembly began was "perhaps the greatest political venture since that
originated in Philadelphia in 1787."
Mahatma
Gandhi had visualized the new Constitution of India in terms of universal
values applied to the specific and special conditions of India. As early
as 1931 he had written "I shall strive for a Constitution which will release
India from all thraldom and patronage. I shall work for an India in which
the poorest shall feel that it is their country in whose making they have
an effective voice: an India in which there is no high class or low class
of people, an India in which all communities shall live in perfect harmony.
There can be no room in such an India for the curse of untouchability.
We shall be at peace with the rest of the world neither exploiting nor
exploited. All interests not in conflict with the interests of the dumb
millions will be scrupulously respected whether foreign or indigenous.
Personally, I hate the distinction between foreign and indigenous. This
is the India of my dreams for which I shall struggle".
At
the core of our Constitution lies the essence of this Gandhian dream in
the form of social justice and social democracy. Prof. Granville Austin
has described the Indian Constitution as "first and foremost a social
document". He further explained that "the majority of India's constitutional
provisions are either directly arrived at furthering the aim of social
revolution or attempt to foster this revolution by establishing conditions
necessary for its achievement". The very same point was elaborated in
eloquent terms by Dr. Ambedkar and Pandit Nehru. What makes our Constitution
relevant to the conditions and the problems of India and the developing
world is, in fact, the socio-economic soul of it. Its uniqueness is that
it has combined this harmoniously with the liberal rights and freedoms
as conceived by the Western democracies.
It
is after deep thought and considerable debate that the founding fathers
adopted the philosophy and the form of Government for India. Speaking
on the draft of the Constitution Dr. Ambedkar claimed that "It is workable,
it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both
in peace time and in war time. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong
under the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution.
What we will have to say is that Man is vile". To-day when there is so
much talk about revising the Constitution or even writing a new Constitution,
we have to consider whether it is the Constitution that has failed us
or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution. Dr. Rajendra Prasad,
as President of the Constituent Assembly, had pointed out: "If the people
who are elected are capable men of character and integrity, they should
be able to make the best of a defective constitution. If they are lacking
in these, the Constitution cannot help the country". I believe these are
wise words which we should pay heed to.
The
form of Government, the parliamentary democratic form, was chosen by the
founding fathers after deep thought and debate. In the Constituent Assembly
Dr. Ambedkar explained that the Drafting Committee in choosing the Parliamentary
system for India, preferred more responsibility to more stability, a system
under which the Government will be on the anvil every day. He said that
accountability was still difficult to obtain from day-to-day. Thus the
Parliamentary system was a deliberate and well-thought out choice of the
Constituent Assembly. It was not chosen in imitation of the British system
or because of the familiarity with it that India had acquired during the
colonial period. Gandhiji while acknowledging our debt to Britain with
regard to parliamentary Government had observed that the roots of it were
present in India in the age-old system of the village panchayats. Dr.
Ambedkar explained in the Constituent Assembly that the Buddhist Sanghas
were parliamentary type of institutions and that in their functioning
modern parliamentary devices like resolutions, divisions, whips, etc.
were used. These elements in our heritage made it possible and easy for
India to adopt the parliamentary system of democracy. Besides, as Dr.
Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly the Drafting Committee chose this
system because they preferred more responsibility to stability which could
slip into authoritarian exercise of power. Another factor to be borne
in mind is the immensity of India, the perplexing variety and diversity
of the country, the very size of its population and the complexity of
its social and developmental problems.
In such a predicament described
by one writer, as one of "a million mutinies" there must be in the body-politic
a vent for discontents and frustrations to express themselves in order
to forestall and prevent major explosions in society. The parliamentary
system provides this vent more than a system which prefers stability to
responsibility and accountability. Our recent experience of instability
in Government is perhaps not sufficient reason to discard the parliamentary
system in favour of the presidential or any other system. In my opinion
we should avoid too much rigidity in our system of government as in a
very rigid system there is the danger of major explosions in society taking
place. The possibility and the facility of a change in government is itself
a factor in the stability of the political system in the long-term because
then the people will be more inclined to tolerate a political situation
they do not approve of or find difficult to cope with for long.
At any
rate as Dr. Rajendra Prasad said the shortcomings in the people entrusted
with running the system cannot be obviated by constitutional changes or
provisions. Amendments to the Constitution are a different matter. The
founding fathers deliberately made the amendment process of the Constitution
easy so that shortcomings or lacunae in the Constitution can be rectified
by the Parliament without too much difficulty. There are other changes
that can be brought about like changes in the electoral law or the functioning
of the political parties. Whatever we may do, and we have a right to bring
about necessary changes in the political and economic system, we should
ensure that the basic philosophy behind the Constitution and fundamental
socio-economic soul of the Constitution remain sacrosanct. We should not
throw out the baby with the bath water and like the tragic character Othello
in Shakespeare has to lament later "Like the base Indian, threw a pearl
away - Richer than all his tribe".
Thank you
|
