By Angry Anonymous
I didn’t write it. I didn’t sign it. I didn’t pledge allegiance to it.
How can a document whose creation I had absolutely no say in, be said to be mine. Of, by and for me.
If I didn’t write it, or sign it or pledge allegiance to it, how can it be mine? How can it be binding upon me?
If I am bound to it and by it without my consent then surely I don’t live in a free country.
My Constitution? Nope.
A constitution is meaningless unless the people to whom it applies were active in its drafting. Or its signing. Or at the very least, are active in its renewal, every few years.
A document, unconnected to those to whom it applies and whose lives it seeks to direct, is meaningless.
This is not my constitution. It is not applicable to me.
If a document I did not sign, a contract I did not consciously enter into, an arrangement I did not pledge my allegiance to, is applicable to me automatically, and is binding upon me by sheer accident of birth, then it is nothing short of enslavement or captivity.
Any bond that is binding upon man without his consent is immoral. Much like the relationship between a child and its parents.
All kidding aside.
One is not an Indian (and the implications of that term are a separate issue) because the state says so – instead, the state exists because people bring it into being and will it to exist.
Or at least that is the theory of it.
However, I did not constitute this state or its laws. How can they apply to me?
I did not constitute this union. How can I be bound to it.
The Constitution in its original form – as well as its amendments – is for the most part the work of people whose ideologies, such as Scientific Socialism, and modes of thinking are terribly outdated. It is the product for the most part of an entity, the Congress Party, whose ideology I most certainly do not subscribe to. And frankly find quite abhorrent.
It must stand to reason that if I reject its ideology I also reject a document born of that ideology.
To make matters worse, when the dictator, Indira Nehru, added the words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’, it sealed the deal on the unacceptability of the Constitution. For someone who does not accept the tenets of either secularism or socialism as those terms are commonly understood, this document, assuming for the sake of argument that it was once acceptable, upon the addition of those two words, became thoroughly unacceptable.
However, even this brief rejection of the Constitution is unnecessary because the document can be refuted on the basis of its own stated aims.
If a document claims ‘X’ and it can be logically shown that its own text is in violation of ‘X’, then it must follow that the document is null and void.
The Constitution in its original form intended to be ‘secular’ in spirit, and after the infamous amendment, became ‘secular’ in letter as well. This being the case, any aspect of it, a single article, which violates the tenet of secularism – which is taken to mean the absence of government support for, or favour to, or accommodation towards, any religion or religious body – renders it null by agency of self-contradiction. This constitution, containing within it as it does, article 30, which explicitly grants a privilege to certain religious groups, under the moniker of ‘minorities’, thus voids itself through its own text.
Whereas the text cunningly includes both ‘religious’ and ‘linguistic’ minorities within the gamut of its intended beneficiaries, so as to convince the reader that it is not merely religious minorities who have been granted this privilege, since Hindus – a group which as per the Constitution includes Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains – were not a minority at the time of writing of the Constitution, and are not a minority now, they are automatically barred from this privilege.
Thus being discriminated against.
Therefore it can shown that the Constitution explicitly favours certain religious groups while implicitly discriminating against others.
This one article alone I believe causes the Constitution to void itself. This is not to imply that were it not for this article the constitution would be acceptable to me. As explained earlier I am of the belief that the constitution cannot rightly be binding upon me, and any attempt to bind me to it, or impose it upon me would constitute, an immoral act.
Constitution or New Constitution. Or … No Constitution
Democracy cannot and does not work in and for, large heterogenous groups. It is only workable, if at all, in and for, small homogeneous groups or societies.
A small homogeneous group is far more likely to draw up a document well-suited to its needs, than is a large, diverse group.A small homogeneous group, being necessarily of like culture, mores, thinking and tastes is more likely to draw up a system of social organization acceptable to most of the number within its ranks. This was originally the case with the American experiment. In the case of India however, it was a handful of men, disconnected for the most part from the majority of the people, drawing up a document to accommodate a large and impossibly diverse mass.
Either stick to the letter and the spirit of the original. Or trash it and write a completely new one.
For the United States, the original document might work when applied to and used by, a much smaller, homogeneous group. It cannot and does not work in its present state.
In India, the original never worked to begin with and works even less now. The addition of the words Secular and Socialist rendering it even more meaningless than it originally was.
However, like the American document, it might conceivably work if applied to and used by much smaller, homogeneous group, such as the faculty of the Jawaharlal Nehru University for instance. Even though I am of the opinion that unlike the American document this one has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Although, the very act of constituting, is to me an act which curtails freedom and individuality. By its very nature it draws together and binds together a disparate mass.
Living and/or Current, as possible solutions to the validity conundrum, are only helpful to a certain extent.
A living document is one whose original tenets can be amended and to which new clauses can be added. This however still requires the original text to be accepted for the most part as is.
A current document is one which is brought up for vote in its entirety every generation and is either accepted or rejected.
The latter is a slightly more sensible method of having, using and applying a constitution. To keep renewing it, in its entirety, every few years, so that every individual in the here and now has willfully chosen the document for himself. Or not.
If the system that was put in place at the end of the British occupation is so rigid and narrowly focused that I cannot reject certain of its core espousals, then the document upon which that system was founded is deeply flawed.
If one counters by suggesting that such freedom does not exist or is not possible … that one can only question thus far and no further, and that the supposed foundational principles are off-limits no matter how flawed, then that leaves me with only one option. Revolution.