In other words, the government can do whatever it pleases. The Supreme Court, the highest court of appeal in India, will keep expressing discontent, but they can't do anything either. Their hands are tied. They are just supposed to interpret the constitution -- not act as per righteousness. In such a scenario, I feel that the government is actually very very moral whenever it does anything. What else, if not morality, stops it from modifying the constitution to make amendments that ensure that the same party keeps winning every time? What else, if not morality, stops them from framing laws making their rule permanent? Nothing. Pure morality. All strong words like sovereignty, democracy, liberty, et al, combined don't have enough power to stop this -- and yet, we have the government performing at least some degree (+ve or -ve).
G B Shaw mused:What recently happened in my home-state, Bihar, raised similar demands for moral ownership. A "constitutionally elected" assembly was dissolved because the governor did not deem the majority party deserving enough. That was on 23rd May. Four months later, the Supreme Court wakes up (why??) to announce that the governor was wrong. It was constitutionally wrong, but nothing can be undone. Who owns the constitutional responsibility in this case? Oh, I see -- The can-always-be-blamed Mr Nobody. The opposition, unfailingly, has again renewed its demands for the government to own moral responsibility! And the prime minister, it seems, has agreed that he cannot disown moral responsibility. Oh, how cute. I love you. Please go to hell (on your own money).
Democracy is a device which ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
So hopeless is the nature of the holy constitution of the largest democracy of the world (yeah, it's India) that I wonder -- Isn't this collection of 395 articles no more than a huge and perfect crap-book? What's the use? I tried to reason out some possible uses of the bulky constitution.
-
Use as Toilet paper
-
Use for literature study
"Article 32 confers upon the citizens of India the right to constitutional remedies. ...."Ah, don't worry what this right is -- 'tis too impractical. This is the only place in my 22 years of life that I have seen the "confers upon" phrase being used, and I find it sweetly poetic. Perhaps the makers of the constitution mistook this exercise as an endeavor towards the Nobel Prize for Literature. They didn't get it -- and they died of shock. "We, the people of India, having solemnly ....." is another favorite and by-heart.
-
Use as a flare
-
Making Kites
That's it. No more practical uses of the crap called the Constitution of India. Sorry founding fathers. None that I can think of presently. And no -- it does not deserve the Literature Nobel, either!
7 comments:
Yes, my proposol would be -- the government is responsible for its mistakes. Balance the equation.
Seriously, do you call the Bihar incident an error? a mistake? A well-manouvred move cannot be labelled a mistake. What do all the experts in the country do? They do their work -- just that these politicians ignore their suggestions. Why should the country of 1 billion be governed by a bunch of irresponsible garbage-heads?
No, I don't think the PM should resign. Who wants another election?
Personally, I have an absolute zero faith in democracy. It's way too impractical. But let's not get into this now.
I seriously feel sorry for myself to have missed this post for so long time.
There is another way of looking at this. I completely agree with you when you say "the crap called the Constitution of India" , I honestly feel it is so. I am strong votary for the notion that there is nothing sacrosanct about Democracy and it is rather a poor way of governance for various reasons.
If we look back at how our Constitution was made, we shall clearly come to know that it was "Cut-Copy-Paste" of various Constitutions of the World, in fact it is a more or less true copy of the Constitution made by the Raj in 1935. A Constitution that suits India and its culture which gives highest priority to Morality and Ethics needs to be written. And this requires people of great honesty, truthfulness and determination.
Democracy has turned out to be a necessary evil in a certain sense over a period of time. If we are to deliver the best goods then the foundations of it need to be worked upon. It requires some triggering and the Rewriting of Constitution might as well be one.
Interesting article. In between, I'm unable to subscribe to your RSS feeds.
Rastogi, "the greater common good" is an interesting phrase, and a strikingly ambiguous one too. I'll elaborate on this when I get time.
Nice post, nirnimesh. I love you... ;))
Sagar, as far as the constitution goes, the idea I wanted to convey is that it is too impractical to be implementable. The judiciary and the executive form the cornerstones of the society; the constitution guarantees that they don't function properly -- one with lack of power, the other with lack of accountability.
You talk about justice being done to the Bihar incident! Has the court given a reason why the old assembly should not be brought back? It has realized that the Bihar incident was an error, a miscrepancy. This will go into the records and will be cited in future cases. On the contrary, in future, the inaction even after this miscrepancy will be cited. This simply means that even in future no one an ever be blamed for such miscrepancies -- it has been ignored once, it will have to be ignored at all future times as well.
The idea of greater common good is okay, but talk of democracy and such words to people who understand things. The bulk, I'm sure, doesn't even know what democracy is. In my home state of Bihar, people don't even expect progress -- because they don't know that they can! They don't know that they don't have to be ruled by rug-heads. The don't expect the govt to perform, to make roads and provide other minimal and basic civit ameneties. Lalu is the king there, an undisputed one. If this is what you claim democracy is, God forbid me, to hell with it.
You can talk of voting and democracy to people who are informed, and understand things -- not to people whose day begins as a fight for the day's bread and ends with just about having survived.
nirnimesh, will you marry me?
I thought ppl had a high probability of going gay when they were in IIIT
But after passing out ....
lol @ poor frustoos
Post a Comment