De Constitution

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.

Whose Constitution?

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for the most part the work of people whose ideologies, such as Scientific Socialism, and modes of thinking are terribly outdated.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.

26 Responses to “De Constitution”

  1. October 20, 2010 at 04:05

    *Huge round of applause*
    Wow. Where did this come from?
    Angry Anonymous is brilliant.


  2. 2 Sachin D
    October 20, 2010 at 04:47

    Terrific post, Angry Anonymous. Can we have another one?


  3. 3 Mangesh
    October 20, 2010 at 06:40

    I wonder if Nehru was a bigger fool than Gandhi.


  4. 4 Prachi Mehta
    October 20, 2010 at 11:22

    Too repetitive. Couldn’t finish reading it.

    This was just about the writing. I somehow feel the content too must not be making much sense. I doubt if he/she refuses to call his father ‘dad’ because momma didn’t ask about his/her preferences before fucking him. Ask the writer if he/she imports glow-in-the dark pink-polka underwear from some distant galaxy as it is not available on earth.

    Mehta, please stick to stuff written by you or Saurin.


    • 5 Angry Anonymous
      October 25, 2010 at 06:10

      First of all, I have never used the terms ‘dad’ and ‘mom’ to refer to my parents. Back when I use to address them I used ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ and when refering to them in the third person I use ‘mother’ and ‘father’.

      Now about the crux of your withering critique. You left out half the equation.

      Not only do I not call my father ‘dad’ because my mother did not take my permission before having sex with him, I do not call my mother ‘mom’ because my father did not take my permission before making sweet, sweet love.

      You see. It cuts both ways. I don’t discriminate.

      Look, the nature and wording of your comment are revelatory of your intellectual level. One must never punch above one’s weight class.

      I’m sure there’s some new gossip about Priyanka Chopra or Katrina Kaif that you need to get caught up on.


  5. 6 bird of prey
    October 21, 2010 at 12:43

    I didn’t understand this post.
    How does the Constitution affect the writer?
    Sorry, but I don’t get it.


  6. 7 Prachi Mehta
    October 22, 2010 at 03:30

    WTF! This is a dumb post and it is fetching even more stupid comments.
    Someone who says that the constitution doesn’t affect us is certainly unaware of what that word means.


  7. 8 jagger
    October 23, 2010 at 05:02


    fiery writing!……must hv been a lawyer…..lol


  8. October 25, 2010 at 05:53

    You may not like traffic rules my friend, but you have to follow them… and oh, you didn’t make them, someone with a lot more common sense did.

    Aditya, the next time you agree on a blog post, please exercise good judgement before posting it. I know this a place for open debate, but not in the form of this kind of immature prose. The person obviously suffers from some kind thinking disorder and warped frustration.


    • 10 Angry Anonymous
      October 25, 2010 at 06:08

      Kindly think things through before you say or write something. Do you seriously believe that you demolished my argument with your two line reply.

      Traffic rules themselves are not a monolithic thing. They are not even the same in every country. Stop at red and go at green is something that any reasonable human can figure out and accept but the government has no right to tell me to put on a seat belt. I’m not causing harm to anyone else’s person or property by not wearing a seal belt.

      Obey Rules. Don’t Question.

      This is precisely the kind of totalitarian reasoning that has produced our world of today.


      • October 25, 2010 at 06:41

        First of all, I am not trying to argue with you. I used the example of traffic rules as a metaphor to make a larger point. But you obviously haven’t go it.

        These rules are there for your safety and that of others and you simply cannot throw up your hands and say, I wont follow them because I don’t confirm to them, or they are not ‘my’ rules, I didn’t make them. They affect a larger group of people, they extend beyond you.

        For no apparent reason, you have single-mindedly sought to attack the Constitution on a whim. The Constitution is the ‘basic law’ of a country. The foundation for other laws to be enacted. Countries where regimes have suspended basic law, have descended into anarchy. Afghanistan, Somalia and Zimbabwe are examples to name a few. They are what is known as ‘failed states’.

        Not abiding to the ‘law of the land’ is a violation, dismissing it is stupidity.


        • 12 Angry Anonymous
          October 25, 2010 at 15:55

          ‘rules are there for your safety’ – This is precisely the kind of ‘state knows best’ attitude that I am arguing against.

          I didn’t say anything about not following the rules, but I must have a say in the formulating of those rules. And as long as my not following the rules doesn’t cause anyone any harm to anyone else, it should make no difference to anyone whether I follow them or not.

          The reason I used the seat-belt example is precisely because it is indicative of how the state intrudes upon the right of the individual. If I were to not wear a seat-belt that would not cause any harm to anyone else. If I were in an accident I would die but I don’t need the state telling me what is and isn’t good for me, or what I should and shouldn’t do.

          Of course the rules extend beyond me, that is the core problem of collective arrangements, even those who do not wish to be a part of the arrangement are roped in against their will.

          ‘For no apparent reason’ – The reason for going after the Constitution is precisely because it is the foundation for everything else that the State does. If I prove its illegitimacy, all else follows.

          Again, read, learn … before you say or write things.

          ‘Countries where regimes have suspended’ – what that does have to do with what I am saying. If a regime suspends the constitution but remains in place, it solves nothing. I am talking of legitimacy that the State draws by resorting to the Constitution. If a State suspends the Constitution it has devolved to a level even below the one I am addressing.

          You need to look up the meaning of anarchy. You seem to confusing anarchy with violence, and lawlessness. They are not the same.

          The states you mentioned are lawless states. That is not the same as the free market anarchy that I am advocating. Laws don’t come from up on high. They came from the individual.

          I don’t kill other people because I know it is wrong, not because there is a law that says I shouldn’t kill and that I would be thrown in jail or hanged if I did.

          It’s good that you want to debate these matters, but don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions.

          Here’s a little thought for you to ponder. We clearly seem to disagree on certain core ideas. Given this fact, imagine a scenario wherein I made the rules and you had to live under a system governed by those rules. Assume further that a majority supported my rules. Would that be fair to you? Would that be just?


  9. October 25, 2010 at 17:18

    “Again, read, learn … before you say or write things.”

    Right sir, as you say. I don’t know what I’m talking about. Any suggestions as to what I should “read, learn”?

    I never knew ‘anarchy’ and ‘lawlessness’ meant two different things. My English is so poor, I need to go back to school. And you are the next revolutionary I take it… the next Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler or Kim Il Sung… or maybe history will just know you as ‘Angry Anonymous’.

    It’s too bad you were not born when our Constitution was drafted… or shall I say it was just as well that you were not around.

    “It’s good that you want to debate these matters, but don’t be so quick to jump to conclusions.”

    Thank you very much. There is nothing to debate or conclude.

    “…imagine a scenario wherein I made the rules and you had to live under a system governed by those rules.”

    What if ‘You’ made the rules? Oh no! The thought is frightening.

    “Assume further that a majority supported my rules.”

    That, I am pretty sure, would never happen. I believe in God.


    • 14 Supernova82
      October 26, 2010 at 06:46

      I liked your posts on this blog, Dinkar, but you just lost all your credibility with these juvenile replies. Not even one of these is a comeback….and all of the above show you dont have the means to back up all your big talk.


      • October 26, 2010 at 11:43

        I can write a comprehensive blog post about the Constitution, but I’m not here to exhibit my knowledge of Constitutional law. You find my replies juvenile because there are intended to be such. Juvenile replies for a juvenile blog post. I’m not here to prove my credibility to anybody. I speak my mind. Nor am I here to please anybody.


    • 16 Ashlesha
      October 26, 2010 at 08:09

      Dinkar, sweety, however frightening the thought is, it surely will not kill you. And, darling, even if you are pretty sure about something because of your belief in God, making a harmless assumption to get another perspective will not kill you either.

      I, for one, am enjoying this debate. Mr/Ms Angry Anonymous, I like your explanation even better than your post. So far, AA remains the most convincing despite making the least noise in here.


      • October 26, 2010 at 11:44

        AA has no perspective in his rambling blog post. He’s unhappy with the way things are going, he’s disillusioned with his country like a lot of us. If you have a problem with a certain law which you think is outdated or acrimonious, you need to go to a court of law and argue. But I don’t suppose AA would resort to that, he doesn’t believe in it.


    • 18 Angry Anonymous
      October 27, 2010 at 17:13

      If you believe in God, then you believe in me. Because, wait for it … I am God. And so are you.

      This thing that we foolishly refer to as Hinduism, this Sanatana Dharma of ours is Monist after all. Other religions may be Monotheistic, but the Dharma is about as far from being Polytheistic as one can possibly get. While of course also being Polytheistic. Which is of course its beauty.

      I am God. You are God. The keyboard is God. And the monitor is God. There is no matter. There is only energy. But wait. There is no energy. There is only that potential which lies beyond. There is only Intelligence. There is only Consciousness.

      Aham sarvasya prabhavo, mattah sarvam pravartate
      Iti mattva bhajante maam, bhuda bhava samanvitah


  10. 19 Devdutt
    October 26, 2010 at 11:31

    Wearing a seat belt reduces the odds of you suffering a fatal injury. Not wearing one increases the odds of the common tax payer footing your medical bills, in case of an accident, through subsidised healthcare, all owing to your recklessness. You might have a case if you’re privately insured but in a country like ours, you’d be in the minority.

    The social contract that you enter into, by wit or through accident of birth, expects you to forgo your natural condition in lieu of certain privileges that the state accords you, be it protection from external/internal hostilities, an identity to assume in a world dominated by nation-states, the legitimacy to act as a representative of your state of birth, etc. Not following laws damages the contract, to varying degrees of severity and resultant repercussions.

    “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.”

    The United States is still around solely because of its constitution. But I’d love to see you bring facts to the contrary to my attention.

    Actually, I’m not sure what you were trying to say in your post. While I agree that democracy is a flawed system, I don’t see a way out of its morass. It’s all well and good to say that you want a say in the system and the constitution, to keep the constitution sussurrating. But how do you do that? And what about the countless others with their pet agendas and grievances? Who does the weeding out? Through representative politics again? I don’t have an answer that alleviates my dissatisfaction with the status quo while simultaneously appealing to my very liberal sensibilities. It would be nice if you shared your insight.


    • 20 Angry Anonymous
      October 27, 2010 at 16:20

      Firstly, thank you for your kind and considered comment.

      It is precisely because modern societies ‘socialize’ costs that we need individualism – individual liberty and even more importantly, individual responsibility.

      If I am reckless and injure myself because I didn’t wear a seat-belt, nobody else should have to pay for my negligence and stupidity.

      About the social contract. But that is precisely it. In democratic societies we are led to believe that there is this ‘Social Contract’ we enter into, but if there is such a contract at all, it is one that is imposed upon us. You are spot on in pointing out that this contract requires us to subvert our ‘natural condition’ as you so aptly put it. But doesn’t that right there point to the fact that something is seriously wrong with the way modern societies are organized.

      This era of nation-states is very new. This phenomenon is relatively recent and yet the vast majority of us have been conned into believing that the state is indispensable … that no other arrangement is possible or even imaginable.

      The constitution in the US has long since been torn to shreds, that the republic still stands is a miracle. When the American Empire collapses, and that day is nigh, it will in all likelihood take down the republic with it. And as someone who loves America I find that very sad.

      Democracy is not merely flawed, it has failed. It is the God that failed. Representative democracy for sure.
      Direct democracy is conceivable, again in a small homogeneous country, but even that would be terribly flawed.

      What we need is not another system to replace the current one. That is what we have been doing for ages, replacing one system with another – Monarchy, Feudalism, Imperialism, Communism, Democracy. what we need is do away with systems once and for all.

      How would that work? That of course is the entire debate. This is only the beginning.


  11. 21 Shivroop
    October 26, 2010 at 15:19

    Ehh. Stop being gentlemen and start a fight. Where’s all the swearing and name-calling?


  12. 22 Sidharth
    October 11, 2011 at 09:04

    Wow this thread is REALLY OLD! I hope AA sees my take on this though.
    The idea you have proposed is 100% legit in theory. Set your own rules, your own moral code and stick to it ferociously because its yours to practice.
    Buuuuuut. This is only acceptable in a wildly rational world. What we’re talking about is Spock-level rationale in EVERY citizen. We are perhaps hundreds,maybe thousands of years away from that stage of evolution.
    The peaceful, no boundaries, no ‘hammer-of-the-law’ or any fear-manipulated system kind of perfect World State shall be achieved (if we survive the Earth in decay) but not anytime soon. And trust me in that non-authoritarian state with no bully-tactics to tie people down, only a few of our kind shall remain.
    I cannot help but think of the Vulcans in Star Trek. That shall be our homo superio or whatever in the distant future.


    • 23 AA
      October 13, 2011 at 08:46

      Well guess what, I am here and I read you comment. Mostly cause, a couple more articles of mine have recently been posted here. The point in De Constitution is that we need not wait for a Utopian future when all of this may be possible. We need to basically move beyond trying to settle the issue of whether people are basically good and can be left to their own devices and basically evil and need to be controlled. Regardless of the fundamental nature of individuals we can still have a ‘society of laws’ and respect for law without government, and taxation, and regulation and all the other binds and strictures and that are a given in modern democracies.


  13. 24 aarav varma
    November 8, 2011 at 07:27

    thank you


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Member of The Internet Defense League

Follow Mehta Kya Kehta? on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog Stats

  • 1,201,068 hits
October 2010
« Sep   Nov »

%d bloggers like this: