In the previous post on this blog dated 15 March 2010, it was pointed out that decline in political morality, corruption in public life, impoverishment and economic disparity as well as social unrest and insurgency have been increasing in the republic of India since day one irrespective of various political parties having been in power or various leaders heading governments. In the flush of freedom and fires of its freedom fighter leaders, India's decadence was far from apparent in the initial years of the journey of the republic of India. It became progressively more discernible until it is loud and clear now. It was also indicated in the previous post that the worsening of the situation with an increasingly faster pace is primarily and dominantly attributable to the Indian Constitution which adopted essentially the same system of governance as given in Govt. of India Act 1935, which was designed and used to exploit the colony of India; which was perceived by Mahatma Gandhi to be the main culprit for destitution and degradation of India; and for the abolition of which the Congress, the vanguard political party fighting for India's freedom, had consistently campaigned. As this amounts to a negation of India's freedom struggle, an anti-thesis of the precepts and preachings of Gandhi - the architect of this freedom, and a betrayal of the masses of India who suffered and sacrificed in the struggle for freedom at the inspiring call of their leader, it is worth examining how and why it happened.
After the Indian territories in possession of the East India Company were brought under direct control of the British Government in 1858 as a sequel to what was described as the Indian Mutiny by the British historians and as the first war of independence by the Indians, Acts were passed by the British Parliament called Government of India Acts from time to time ostensibly to provide 'good governance', which is an euphemism for efficient and orderly exploitation of the resources of the colony under the Crown. As all the affairs of British India were to be carried out under various provisions of the Govt. of India Act in force at that time, these Acts may be called as ‘constitutions of colonial India'. Changes and modifications were made in these Acts from time to time in response to emerging situations keeping the primary purpose of governance in tact, and were replaced by new Acts incorporating these changes and modifications. The Government of India 1935 was the latest which was to be replaced by a constitution to be framed by the Constituent Assembly in free India. This Constituent Assembly was set up as per the British Cabinet Mission Plan which visited India a little more than a year before India's independence as a prelude to, and in preparation of, transfer of power. As per this plan, the Constituent Assembly consisted of 229 members indirectly elected by the members of the legislative assemblies of the provinces of British India who were themselves elected in a limited franchise in the election in which only 28% of the population had voted, and 70 members nominated by the rulers of the princely states of India. The total number of members of the Constituent Assembly was fixed on the basis of population (roughly one per million). While the seats to be elected by the provincial assemblies were divided among the principal communities, classified for the purpose as Sikhs, Muslims and General (all except Sikhs and Muslims), no criteria or conditions were enforceable regarding members to be selected by the rulers to represent the population living in their princely states.
A Constituent Assembly so constituted was in contrast to the one elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage which was all along advocated by the Congress. Gandhi had written in 1939 that only such a “Constituent Assembly can produce a Constitution indigenous to the country and truly and fully representing the will of the people”. This Constituent Assembly no doubt comprised many outstanding leaders and personalities of that time. There were, however, large number of members who came from more or less privileged sections of the Indian society and there were many who had special interests to guard, had vested interests in the existing dispensation and were fearful of any fundamental break with the past. Members who really represented the toiling masses of India living in the villages and their aspirations as well as their dreams of their vastly improved status and conditions as free citizens were few and far between. In particular, grass roots leaders of the masses, whose views were moulded, formed and fashioned by the preachings and ideals of Mahatma Gandhi and were inspired by them during the non-violent freedom struggle were missing in this Assembly. Gandhi himself was conspicuous by his almost total non-involvement in this most important and crucial exercise of constitution making for an incipient nation making a transition from a colony to a free nation. In the initial periods of this exercise, while Gandhi seems like a lonely man trying to bring peace and sanity among the people driven by communal frenzy and to provide succor to the wounded persons and bereaved families in distant places in the communally charged nation, the constitution makers seem to have forgotten about him and his teachings in their deliberations. While Nehru did mention about him in his remarks in the inaugural meeting of the Constituent Assembly on 9 December 1946 in these words," but I have no doubt that his spirit hovers over this place and blesses our undertaking”, Gandhi’s guidance does not seem to have been sought while he was still around. Even this possibility ceased to exist with his assassination on 30 January 1948. As indicated earlier, members having grounding in and commitment for Gandhian thoughts were at best in silent minority in the Assembly. Consequently while the Constitution which emerged at the end of the day had all the trappings of a modern constitution ‘for a democratic sovereign republic', the system of governance which is the intsrumentality and driving force to make it a reality remained the same ‘business as usual’. In that sense, the Constitution of India proved to be just another modified Govt. of India Act of the colonial era. Freedom for which the freedom struggle was waged under the inspiring leadership of Gandhi; and the freedom of Rabindra Nath Tagore’s imagination, " Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high …, into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake” did not dawn on India either on Independence Day, 15 August 1947 or on Republic Day, 26 January 1950. The Indian Republic arose but the ‘Village Republics' in terms of which Gandhi saw free India did not see the light of the day. And thus, the Indian Republic started on its off-track journey with all this baggage of the colonial past rather than on the vigor and momentum of its own genius and indigenous values.
