Why does the Indian Constitution have 'Directive Principles'? The first Burmese Constitution, drafted by Chan Htoon promulgated in 1947, was more Left wing. It had no such ornamentation.
The answer is simple. Ireland had adopted Directive Principles in 1937 so as to stop being a Dominion and to advertise that it was neither going to be subject to 'the Crown', nor 'Wall Street' (though, at the time, the City of London was more important) . Recall, only the Soviet Union had recognized the 1922 Republic. Furthermore, Catholicism was determined to show it could have its own brand of Socialism- i.e. Corporatism- without any coercion or further employment of 'Broy Harriers' type militias. The Israeli Histadrut is an example of how the thing could actually be implemented without any overt economic conflict. Catholic Ireland, like Jewish Palestine, was reinforcing its claim to a wider territory on the basis of a stable marriage between Left and Right. But Ireland's position was parlous indeed. De Valera was losing the Trade War. Guinness- that most Irish of institutions- had relocated its Corporate H.Q to London. In order to keep power, De Valera had his Constitution, with its Wedding Cake architecture supportive of purely ornamental Directive Principles, passed by plebiscite at the same time as the General Election.
One reason De Valera's gambit paid off was because, unlike India, the Irish Republicans had been successful in creating their own parallel legal system. In other words, the country had a track-record for creating viable legal institutions based on wholly indigenous ideas. Had Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in replacing British Courts with Congress Courts, India would have become very focused on the Constitution. What was written in it would mean a great deal to every Indian. However, because India completely failed to give itself either or parallel Courts or even a Federal Constitution despite umpteen Round Table Conferences, there was no tradition of having faith in, or paying more than lip service, to a Constitution most of which was based on what Westminster decided in 1935. The remainder reflected the Nehru report of 1928. But what Nehrus write, other Nehrus may rescind. This is Law as Command, not something autonomous and self-subsisting.
De Valera was a great friend to India. Sardar Patel's elder brother had spent much time with him and V.V Giri continued that tradition. India followed the Irish pattern- it adopted constitutional 'autochthony' and Directive Principles of a 'Corporatist' kind so as to send a signal that, like De Valera's Ireland, India would make haste slowly- i.e. would pay only lip service to the radical ideas it had used to gain popular support.
One reason Directive Principles were necessary was because it helped placate votaries of cow protection, common civil code, Khadi enthusiasts who wanted to ban Cotton Mills, and those who advocated complete prohibition.
After Gandhi's death, his 'Sarvodaya' followers were willing to accept conventional type of Governance at the Center in the belief that it was grass-roots work in the villages which would shape the future of India. Sadly, Sarvodaya turned out to be a delusion. Jayaprakash Narayan had been a happy camper in the Bhoodan movement. Then some Naxals threatened to kill Sarvodaya workers in Mushahari, Bihar. JP, with his usual courage, rushed there and remained long enough to see that bhoodan and gramdan etc. was a complete sham. This convinced him that the root of Injustice and Corruption was at the Center. He had been wasting his time wandering around the boondocks. JP helped launch the movement which caused Indira to amend the fuck out of the Constitution. He then, along with Kripalani- another guy who never got to fuck his own wife- made Morarji Desai P.M. This meant the Constitution was further amended- goodbye, right to property!- and the Nation learned that Parliamentary Democracy is no panacea. Put a cretin in charge and things turn to shit. Thus JP paved the way to a wholly Dynastic Congress Party which would rule us still- had Rahul not proved gun-shy.
However, Congress itself- like other parties- saw the expediency of kicking controversial matters into the purview of the Courts so as to delay difficult decisions. In that context, some- echoing Habermas- started blathering about 'Constitutional patriotism' and pretending that shite like 'Directive Principles' means anything. Since then, with the BJP firmly in power and Rahul not showing any signs of improving, the Bench- thinking of post-retirement sinecures- has come increasingly to disillusion those who, quite absurdly, used to swear by the Constitution and claim that Ambedkar had endowed it with magical powers.
This is the whole story about Directive Principles. De Valera & the legal scholar and diplomat, John Hearne, can take credit for its existence.
Ambedkar can't. The guy wasn't actually a cow worshipper. He didn't think the Republic of India should concentrate on fucking over guys who think cows are divinely- tasty.
Aakash Singh Rathore- the handsome husband of the beautiful Devyani Khobargarde- has written a book making a very different claim- viz. that Ambedkar was the author of the preamble. If so, Ambedkar believed that 'fraternity'- i.e. brotherliness- was based on maintaining the unity of the Nation. If you brother says 'let's give away this bit of territory to Pakistan because it is Muslim majority and the Muslims really don't want to be part of a mainly Hindu country'- you are obliged to say 'you are my brother no longer. Henceforth, we are at daggers drawn.'
Fraternity means cohesiveness. It means obeying the eldest brother. This does not mean you don't respect the dignity of your adversary. But, as at Kurukshetra, you smash his head in with your mace with vim and vigor. Rishi Bharadwaj respects the dignity of the Pani chief who helped him- perhaps because this was un-Pani (miserly) behavior. But a stalwart of the Purus he and his descendants remain.
A young Bharadwajya writes in 'the Leaflet'
the inclusion of the non-justiciable
which obtains pro tem, not de re. Who knows what a future Bench might say? If that bunch of jokers can claim the right to prevent a foreign Ambassador from leaving the country, who the hell knows what crazy shit they will pull off next?
Directive Principles of State Policy (‘DPSP’) into the constitutional text. Rathore suggests, “the main components of economic justice, and many of social justice were relegated to the Directive Principles (from Fundamental Rights) as they were considered too controversial for other binding sections of the Constitution.”
I think the Directive Principles were the things most people thought were crazy shit which one may have demanded when out of power but which it would be political and economic suicide to actually implement. Look at what happened to Tanguturi Prakasam, Premier of Madras Presidency, when he publicly declared his intention to ban Cotton Mills so Khadi might flourish. Mahatma Gandhi still forced him to resign though he did a good job suppressing the Communists.
There was nothing controversial about cow-protection or prohibition. Everybody paid lip-service to both. But implementing them would have been foolish- save where they would have been implemented anyway.
By telling us the secret history of the Preamble and the journey of Ambedkar’s life, Rathore exhorts us to make the Preamble and its story our own.
Yes. We should understand that 'cheap talk' does not have to be sincere. It just signals virtue without involving any actual effort or sacrifice. This is our own story. We struggle for the human rights of others by saying we do but not actually doing shit- unless we get paid lots of money to pretend we are doing shit.
However, Madhav Khosla in his book, “India’s Founding Moment”, says that the primary purpose for including DPSP was to prevent legislators from exercising powers without a conception of socioeconomic welfare.
Why not add a Directive Principle to encourage Science so that legislators can't exercise powers without a conception of String Theory?
He writes, “The codification of the directive principles would expose both the ruler and the ruled to the proper exercise of power.”
How? India then and India now is a place where extra-judicial killing preserves 'dignity' and 'integrity' and other such shite. I suppose the same could be said of any other country- save the US under the 'Warren Court'. But Earl Warren made his bones as a Red-baiter.
Thus, while Rathore holds inclusion of DPSP as a relegation of those rights
One might say that some rights of free speech etc were 'relegated' by various statutory restrictions. However, the Directive Principles don't give rise to any Rights. On the other hand, they may encourage the State to provide Remedies which in turn create Rights.
which could not be made fundamental or justiciable, Khosla claims DPSP to be a pedagogical experience, necessary to educate both, citizens and the State.
The true explanation is that, as in Ireland, the DPSP, was a convenient way to separate what could and would be done from what wouldn't be done even if it had been promised to be done.
No wonder Ambedkar dismissed his contribution to the Constitution as 'hack work'.
No comments:
Post a Comment