|
|
|
|
|
Fifty
and Fine Don't tamper with a perfectly good Constitution, treasure it
It didn't quite turn out that way. The emergency provisions were flagrantly exploited in 1975. A marked skew in Centre-state relations was evident each time Article 356 was abused. As the power of the executive grew, "cabinet dictatorship", to borrow a term from the textbooks, seemed to undermine Parliament. Today, a combination of legislation, court judgements and the political process has addressed even these angularities. However uncomfortable the ancien regime may be with them, the emergence of regional and sectional parties has lent resonance to federalism. Given all this and given the 78 amendments, the Constitution is as contemporary as it was at its birth. This is why suggestions that it be changed to ensure a fixed five-year term for the Lok Sabha or that a presidential system be introduced miss the wood for the trees. For a start, they seek to "protect" democracy by introducing measures that are, in essence, anti-democratic. Second, they ignore that the Constitution has not failed the people -- even if the people have sometimes failed to measure up to the expectations of November 26, 1949. Meeting Musharraf It is not SAARC's job to promote democracy in Pakistan
The larger notion of South Asian cooperation apart, an attempt to isolate Musharraf could prove counter-productive. After the dissolution of Pakistan's always fragile democracy, the general and his army represent the last interface between stable if not always agreeable governance and anarchy. To ostracise Musharraf would be to push him into a corner, maybe forcing him to capitulate to the Islamic fringe. That could, in turn, jeopardise not just SAARC the institution but all of South Asia. In seeking to coerce Pakistan into returning to an anyway nominal democracy, India and its friends are guilty of exerting the type of extra-national pressure they have often sermonised against. How would the mea react if the US sought Iraq's exile from the UN till such time as Saddam Hussain called elections? Principles are all very well but crucial to foreign policy is a sense of proportion. Hopefully, the mea hasn't lost it. |
||||
| Top |
 © Living Media India Ltd |
November 26 marks the 50th anniversary
of the adoption of the Constitution. Two months after this event, on January 26, 1950, the
document actually came into effect and completed India's transition from dominion to
sovereign republic. It would be stating the obvious to say that the Constituent Assembly's
exertions were the triumph of hope over experience. After all, in a land with an ancient
history of politics but a non-existent tradition of political science, there were simply
no precedents. The Constitution borrowed heavily from its cousins overseas. From Britain
came the Westminster model of governance, from the US the idea of fundamental rights, from
Canada the framework for federalism. Underpinning all this was the gentleman's agreement
that politics was all about fairplay -- and any grey areas would be clarified amicably. 
South Block's fit of morality with
regard to Pakistan's participation in the SAARC summit in Kathmandu later this month is
unwarranted. True to the Government's opaque ways the Ministry of External Affairs (mea)
has "neither confirmed nor denied" that it has sought a postponement of the
meeting so as to deny "legitimacy" to the military regime in Islamabad. To break
bread with General Pervez Musharraf, some have argued, would be to betray the process of
democracy in South Asia. Whatever else this bilge may be, it cannot be the logic of
modern-day diplomacy. It also goes against the very idea of SAARC, a body conceived to
make the leaders of this region talk to each other and work with each other unmindful of
other constraints. The first SAARC summit, held in Dhaka in 1985, was hosted by General
H.M. Ershad and attended by General Zia-ul-Haq. If India didn't object then, why is it
getting hot under the collar about coups now?