It has commissioned a "Background Paper" from a set of mediocre academics and lawyers. Going by reports, this document demands a wholesale review of diverse issues like fundamental rights, political stability and judicial accountability, and puts on the agenda a Presidential form of government and a uniform civil code.

Neither the paper nor the government make out a half-way convincing case for the review. But, the government is going ahead with this, despite President K.R. Narayanan's sagacious advice to the contrary. One can only hope that the government's move does not receive even indirect endorsement from respected jurists.

The ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) lacks anything remotely approaching a mandate for a Constitutional review. Without the support of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), it does not command even a simple majority in the Lok Sabha, leave alone the two-thirds required for a Constitutional amendment, much less ambitions than a "review." And the TDP has opposed any "review." The government's review obsession betrays an anti-democratic attitude.

The pro-review groups have advan-ced arguments focused on political instability, corruption, growing crime-politics nexus, and the many weaknesses of justice delivery. On Jan. 27, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee even contended that a review is necessary for faster "development," to "quickly remove regional and social imbalances" and "benefit the poorest and the weakest."

Some of these maladies are undeniable, for instance, corruption. But there is no causal connection between them and the recommended remedy. The pro-review groups misconstrue the Constitution's purposes and impose upon it a role that it cannot, and should not, perform.

It is not the Constitution that has created instability. Rather, such instability has become endemic to India because of many social processes (including politicization of caste and regionalization of politics) and because of structural causes. Amending the Constitution to suppress differences and create artificial stability, is no solution to political fragmentation. Nor is there a strong link between political stability and economic growth.

All post-1984 Lok Sabhas have been hung, but average gross domestic product growth has exceeded the "Hindu" rate. True, income and regional disparities have dangerously worsened over two decades. But that is a function of dualistic policies and hierarchical social structures, along with excessive reliance upon the market.

The President emphasized the dangers of "unabashed, vulgar... conspicuous consumption by the nouveau riche" while "the underclass" seethes "in frustration," and called for "safe pedestrian crossings in our three-way fast lane of liberalization, privatization and globalization."

Yet, he convincingly argued against reviewing the Constitution. The crime-politics link is growing. But the remedy is electoral reform, better crime control and democratization of political parties - not wholesale Constitutional alterations.

One of India's gravest failures lies in justice delivery. However, it is not the Constitution, but hopelessly outmoded procedures (e.g. adjournments) and unfilled vacancies in judicial cadres that are the culprit. The government refuses to fill over 1,000 vacancies in the subordinate judiciary and a quarter of the 618 high court posts.

So, 73 percent of those lodged in jails are undertrials. Narayanan advises us to "consider whether it is the Constitu-tion that has failed us, or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution." This is eminently sensible, as is his statement that parliamentary government is best suited to India's variety, diversity and size.

The issues NDA leaders are raising were debated in the Constituent Assembly, not casually - as Law Minister Ram Jethmalani wants a small panel to do within three months - but over four years, at length. The Assembly chose the parliamentary system because "it preferred more responsibility to stability which could slip into authoritarian exercise of power."

Empirical evidence supports this proposition. "Problems of Democratic Transition And Consolidation," (Johns Hopkins, 1996) an international study by two outstanding political scientists, Alfred Stephan and Juan J. Linz, shows that Presidential systems tend to be authoritarian and unrepresentative, like in Latin America, where they do not even provide stability.

Better performing Presidencies, like the American, require elaborate checks through Senates and procedures to prevent abuse and over-concentration of power. The generic case for parliamentary government is infinitely more powerful than for a Presidential system.

In India, this case acquires additional force because of our Constitution. The Constitution is not a "thin" statute primarily concerned with governance procedures. Rather, it is a programmatic text embedded in political and ideological values. It is like a manifesto, a vision of the India we must build.

The Constitution is not a passive expression of existing practices, but an exhortation to create new values. As Granville Austin - who wrote a definitive book on the Indian Constitution in 1964 - says, this is one of the world's most advanced statutes. It uniquely combines national unity, democracy and progressive social change. It is imbued with an enlightened vision. Its "spirit" matters as much as its "letter."

The Constitution has survived 79 amendments (one every nine months) without losing its unique identity, character or basic structure. Indeed, it is India's most egalitarian, forward-looking, consensually produced, text. Despite the many frailties of our legal system and the discrediting of the political leadership, the spirit of the Constitution has endured.

It is dangerous to tamper with the Constitution. Those who wish to do so betray either communal prejudice, or a peculiar elite frustration at instability and frequent elections, wrongly seen as caused by a handful of "selfish," "opportunist" and "parochial" politicians.

At work here are two trends: A yearning for a two-party system, for stability at any cost, including authoritarianism, itself driven by suspicion of politicians, coupled with glamorization of the business elite; and secondly, Hindutva's hostility to our secular, egalitarian, statute.

This goes way back to M.S. Golwalkar and Deen Dayal Upadhyaya who condemned the "alien" Constitu-tion for not recognizing "Bharat Mata" or Hindu primacy. The agenda of the Sangh Parivar - the extended family of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliates, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which heads the NDA - is to abridge religious freedoms and impose authoritarian, over-centralized, majoritarian, rule. The BJP's 1991 manifesto explicitly called for Presidential government. Today, it is re-opening the issue through the back door. This agenda is profoundly undemocratic. It must be opposed.