The past fifty years have revealed both negative as well as positive developments. On the positive side, it is indeed remarkable that republican institutions have been survived, despite attempts to undermine them. This is in sharp contrast with developments in our neighbouring countries and the other newly liberated countries, where democratic institutions have come under constant attack and been the subject of marauding attacks.

The Constitution also enunciated fundamental rights and popular elections, though in essence it embodied the rule of the bourgeois-landlord alliance. It gave freedom and liberties that were not available under colonial rule. Despite restrictions and violations of democratic rights later on, adult franchise, elections, formation of elected ministries, served to draw millions of people into the democratic struggle, raising their consciousness.

Seeing it as a good instrument enabling it to perpetuate its class rule, throughout these years the bourgeoisie saw to it that the basic structure of the Constitution and the republic was maintained. But, with discontent rising, disillusionment rapidly increasing, and the masses growingly and unmistakingly expressing dissatisfaction with the major political parties (reflected in the series of fractured electoral verdicts), spokesmen of the ruling class have begun calling for changes in the Constitution, which, while fine-tuning the structure to meet the new situation, would still continue to ensure perpetuation of their class rule.

Adoption of the republican Constitution, in itself was a reflection of the aspirations of the various streams that constituted the freedom movement. Gandhi’s arrival on the scene had brought about a radical change in the freedom movement by involving the masses, which till then, the Congress leaders had been refraining from.

It is necessary here to recall that though the bourgeoisie had assumed the leadership of the freedom struggle, the communists and various other revolutionary groups before them, viz., the Anushilan, the Yugantar, Gadhar heroes the groups of Bhagat Singh and his colleagues and various groups in different parts of the country had played an important role. Of no less importance was the part played by the organisations of the working class, the peasantry, radical students and youth, in galvanising the masses. It was the Communists who had been the first to raise the slogan of Complete Independence at the Ahmedabad session of the Congress in 1922.

The post-Second World War upsurge had seen the masses get increasingly galvanised with the soul-stirring incident of the naval ratings turning their guns against the British masters, and the working class of Bombay coming out in solidarity and support for their action. The naval ratings in revolt had raised the flags of the Congress, the Muslim League and the Red Flag – reflecting the main streams of the national movement. It was but natural that the urges and aspirations that these movements represented found expression in the Constitution adopted fifty years ago.

The Directive Principles of the Constitution laid down the perspective:

1. that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
2. that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve the common good;
3. that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
4. that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
5. that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength;
6. that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment."

"Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases -- The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want".

"Living wage, etc., for workers -- The State shall endeavour to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other way, to all workers, agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities and, in particular the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an individual or co-operative basis in rural areas."

"Provision for free and compulsory education for children -- The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years."

"Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections -- The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation."

Apart from these aspects, the Constitution guaranteed fundamental rights, adult franchise, an elected parliament, freedom of conscience, right to speech and organisation. The Constituent Assembly, though elected on a restricted franchise on the basis of the earlier British Constitution, could incorporate such measures in the Constitution which were very radical at that time, given the fact that capitalism had not yet developed substantially and feudal relations predominated. Inspite of being elected on restricted franchise, the members of the Constituent Assembly did represent the victorious national movement and were meeting in the background of an unprecedented upsurge throughout the country. They could not therefore ignore the goals of independent capitalist development and the democratic outlook that they themselves had championed during the freedom struggle.

Dr. Ambedkar had to warn the members of the Constituent Assembly against the cult of hero worship which is the anti-thesis of democracy. He said:

"This caution is far more necessary in the case of India than in the case of any other country. For in India, Bhakti, or what may be called, the path of devotion or hero worship, plays a part unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be a road to salvation of the soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero worship is a sure road to degradation and eventual dictatorship."

FEDERALISM & SECULARISM

Federalism and secularism also became basic tenets of the Constitution, reflecting the unusually diverse nature of the country being sought to be united under the Indian Union. It is a different matter that both these tenets have faced increasing attacks during the past 50 years. There have been increasing assaults on the federal spirit and the rights of the states. In fact, the first violation took place in the very first general election in 1952, after the Constitution was adopted.

The Congress party which was at the helm at the Centre, intervened misusing the office of Rajpramukh and the Governor, to prevent the formation of non-Congress ministries in the then state of Travancore-Cochin and Madras, in which the Communists would have become major partners. To avoid this the heads of State in these states, invited leaders of the minority Congress party to form governments. This was also to set the trend for defections.

In the state of PEPSU, the majority party, the Akalis, were permitted to form the government, but within months the Centre dismissed the Akali ministry. After the mid-term elections the Congress broke the Akali party and inducted many Akali MLAs into the Congress party. What happened in PEPSU was set to be repeated in Kerala in 1959, and from then on Article 356 has been misutilised on innumerable occasions. When however, the monopoly of power of the Congress party came to an end in 1967, the question of the relationship between the Centre and the States came to the fore.

The DMK, having come to power in Tamilnadu in 1967, set up a committee in 1969, presided over by Dr. Rajamannar, to "examine the entire question regarding the relationship that should subsist between the Centre and the states in a federal set-up, with special reference to the provisions of the Constitution of India, and to suggest suitable amendments to the Constitution so as to secure to the states the utmost autonomy". Together with this, the DMK for some time, had also been demanding separation of the south from the rest of India to form a Dravidian homeland.

The CPI(M) had a different approach. Going to the root of the problem the CPI(M) had stated that while it was opposed to the drive of the ruling classes for centralisation, denying autonomy, at the same time it was opposed to all disruptionist and secessionist movements. The Party adhered to policy of preservation and promotion of the unity of the Indian Union on the basis of real equality and autonomy to the different nationalities inhabiting the country. It advocated mutual cooperation in the economic, political and cultural spheres, between the constituent states, and between the peoples of different states; and called for rendering financial and other assistance to the economically backward and weaker states and regions to help them overcome their backwardness.

It was not till October 1983, however, that an all India perspective and consensus on this issue emerged at the Srinagar Conference of Opposition parties. While initially, there were differences with major regional parties like the DMK, TDP and the National Conference who wanted that the Centre should have minimum powers and functions, at the intervention of the Left, and democratic forces, a united view, opposed to the original views of both the Congress as well as the major regional parties, ultimately emerged. This called for restoring and strengthening the autonomy of the states and striking a proper balance between the powers of the centre and those of the states, so that the "character of our multi-religious, multi-lingual and multi-cultural country is preserved".

In the background of the unity fostered during the course of the freedom movement, and seeing how the policy of divide and rule had been used by the British, care was taken to incorporate Secularism as a basic tenet of the Constitution. At the same time, however, the strong Hindu revivalist outlook in a section of the Congress leadership also forced the inclusion of cow protection in the Directive Principles. This initial compromise with obscurantist forces, was, in the later years, extended to dangerous lengths, and in its extreme form found expression in the permission granted for "shilanyas" at Ayodhya by the Rajiv Gandhi government; and later, the inaction of the Centre during the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, behaving as a mere spectator This has been in addition to the permissiveness of the existence of the anti-Muslim bias within the police and administrative set-up all along. The later assumption of power at the centre by a rank communal party like the BJP, was a natural corollary of this compromise.

GROWTH OF SEPARATISM

Linked to this has been the emergence of various divisive, fissiparous and separatist movements - the direct result of the failure to assimilate the religious and ethnic minorities, coupled with the neglect of regional aspirations. The movements for the creation of a separate homeland for the Sikhs, the growth of Muslim fundamentalism, the separatist movement in Kashmir or the North-East -- all are the outcome of this breach. Similarly the movements for Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, etc., are the outcome of the transformation and ruination of certain compact regions inhabited by tribal people who have their own distinct languages, culture and traditions to which they remain stronly attached. These above-mentioned movements express the new consciousness generated among them.

THE PRESENT CHALLENGE

The ascendancy of the BJP to power at the Centre poses new challenges. The BJP is opposed not to just certain tenets of the Constitution; it is opposed to the very aspirations that the freedom struggle brought to the fore. Its whole outlook is based on the concept of a theocratic state, with its staunch advocacy of greater centralisation of powers. Democracy, secularism, a federal structure, etc., have no place in this concept. About its secular credentials, little needs to be said.

Therefore when the BJP talks of a review of the Constitution, misgivings and doubts naturally arise. The CPI(M) recognises the progressive nature of the Constitution, given the fact that it was adopted in the background of the national movement. We are opposed to a revision as sought for by the BJP, because it will strike at the very progressive tenets on which it is founded.

During its fifty years of existence the Constitution has been amended 84 times. But now the sole objective of the BJP is to maintain itself in power

Demands for authoritarian powers have a long history. Mrs. Indira Gandhi made the first attempt in 1975 with the imposition of Internal Emergency. Later on Vasant Sathe during Rajiv Gandhi's regime, and Shivraj Patil, Speaker in the Narasimha Rao government, initiated discussions on changing over to a presidential form of government. The former President R. Venkataraman is also an advocate of proposals like National Government, etc. All these demands are responses to certain situations. Mrs. Gandhi imposed Emergency when her regime was threatened in the wake of the verdict of the Allahabad High Court; Vasant Sathe saw the Congress losing grip under Rajiv Gandhi as did Shivraj Patil for Narasimha Rao; R Venkataraman's proposals come in the midst of fractured verdicts being delivered by the people. These are the outcome of the growing instability born out of the disenchantment of the people with the policies being pursued.

WHY POLITICAL INSTABILITY

Disenchantment of the people cannot be addressed by concentrating more powers in one individual, as the presidential form of government would do. Those who advocate changing over to the presidential form should only look at the example of Srilanka; it switched from the parliamentary system to the presidential form, and now the alliance with Smt. Chandrika Kumaratunga heads, has committed itself to switching back to the parliamentary system. Fifty years of functioning of the parliamentary system has shown that it is the most suitable option, particularly so in a multi-linguistic and diverse country like India.

The votaries of political stability see it merely as stability of governments. The demand is essentially a class demand advocated by big business to perpetuate its rule. Such a stability has no concern whatsoever for the rights of the people or its interests. The BJP of late, has also began the talk of ensuring a compulsory five-year term for the Lok Sabha. This would mean that even if any party or coalition fails, cannot command a majority, still a government will have to be formed. This would lead to a situation where governments are formed by disparate parties forces cobbling together a coalition just to sustain the life of the Lok Sabha. Devoid of ideological affinity, common programmes, as any political morality, such governments will only benefit opportunists and power-mongers and bypass the people.

Instead, what the Left has been advocating, is the need to bring about electoral reforms that would ensure proportional representation. The people must not be deprived of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Those championing the change over to a presidential form of government, or a review of the Constitution, ensuring a five-year fixed term for the Lok Sabha -- all have in mind the perpetuation of the rule of the bourgeois-landlord class. But the people have not expressed their disenchantment with the system, they have only expressed themselves against the policies that are being pursued by the ruling classes. Whatever be the frequency with which elections have been held, the mass of the working and toiling people have come out in large numbers to cast their votes. This is an indicator of the people's faith in the parliamentary system.

The present instability only reflects the people's growing disenchantment with the present situation and regime. If stability of government is imposed through ‘freeing’ government from parliamentary control, the results can only be disastrous. It would in fact mean freeing the government from control by the people's will, i.e., imposition of an authoritarian system. It is necessary to keep in mind that this same Constitution has insured a really very long spell of political stability in Independent India.

Those who are arguing for changing over to a presidential form want us to forget that our Constitution makers had considered in detail the US system of a directly elected President and also the French system, considered as a midway house, and favoured the parliamentary form for independent India. Why? Because as Fali S Nariman wrote some time back, they thought that "elected parliament is the only public expedient by which a degree of self- government control could be exercised with the organisation of a nation state." It is now commonsense that parliamentary democracy ensures accountability in governance on the basis of multiple institutional checks over misuse of power, while presidential systems tend to become presidential dictatorships. Nixon's Watergate is an example of what a president can do.

And what is the experience of other post-colonial countries that adopted a presidential form of government? Peron, Batista, Marcos, Bao Dai, or Aayub, Bhutto, Zia, Ershad, Jayawardhene in in neighbouring states, are some of examples of a presidential system. And, as we mentioned earlier, Srilanka actually has been shuttling between the two without any success in solving any of the major problems it faces.

Talk of an effective and strong state is being misused only for confusing people. In the reality of India, prime ministers have not lacked in power. In fact they have centered more and more powers in their hands. Actually this has increased the centralisation inherent in our constitutional scheme. The presidential form with a directly elected president strikes at the root of our kind of federal structure which recognises the identity and equality of federating units.

The BJP's parent organisation, the RSS, has always been in favour of a unitary authoritarian state structure in the image of it's own organisational structure, based on the principle of "one leader', all the rest working as followers. It considers the presidential system and reducing parliamentary control as steps in same direction. The BJP wants to use the ruling classes’ fear of the present instability to push this agenda. But matters will not end here only. The BJP also echoes it's parent organisation’s demands for derecognising minorities as such. All this may not be immediately on the NDA's agenda, but the door will be opened for moving in that direction also. This will constitute a grave threat to the federal structure. From their efforts to impose a committee for review of the working of the Indian Constitution, it is quite clear that the BJP is in a hurry. Not leaving anything to chance, they want to pack the review committee with people committed to the RSS world view.

What is needed is decentralisation of more powers -- both from the centre to the states, and from the states downwards to the panchayat level. Changes however are required to strengthen the secular base and the federal structure, ensuring protection of the rights of the minorities and their institutions; devolving more powers to the states and a more equitable distribution of funds.

Presenting the Draft Constitution for adoption in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had warned: "However good the Constitution may be, it is sure to turn bad if those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot".