Why basic structure of the Constitution should remain intact?
Once again, I would like to make it clear that I try my best to adopt scientific approach as far as I may traverse to understand any anything of this world. So this question is just like a hypothesis.
The students of science are aware that everything in this universe is relative to some other thing and nothing is static. Everything of the universe is changing its position at all times. Thus, it can be said that change is inevitable. Change is the rule of the nature. If it is so then why have we stuck to the view that the basic nature of the Constitution should not be charged?
We know that when the Constitution was in the process of making, the world was the same as it is now. The law makers were not so much aware of the world as they are aware to day. They were not so much aware of the demographic structure, socio- economic conditions, regional disparities of India as they are aware today. Our Constitution was then mainly designed on the basis of the study of the Constitutions of the many countries. At that time, we had no opinions except to derive matters from the Constitutions which were extant at time in the world. There was no time with us to explore India, obtain views of the Indian people who were at gross root level. At that time there was almost no means of communication. Today, however, the world has become a village because of social media. It can be discussed at length about the efficacy of our Constitution. Input can be obtained not from residents in India but even from the NRIs who have spread all over the world.
By the way, with passage of time, anything that was strong initially, loses it strength. It applies to our Constitution too. It cannot be said it is as strong and efficacious now as it was initially.
If we don't change water, it would stagnate and stink. Therefore, it is my personal opinion that this matter should be debated freely . Why do I so feel. I observe that in fifties, the center was strong. There was almost one party rule at centre as well as in the states. Regionalism did not pose any problem to the unitary nature of our country. It is however not to day. States are becoming stronger so much so that they try to even dictate the center in foreign policy. One state passes derogatory remarks against the people of another state. There are so many things. Therefore, my personal opinion that each provision the Constitution needs to be debated freely not on TV Channels but in social media. Come on. Let's discuss it for the sake of our country.
Once again, I would like to make it clear that I try my best to adopt scientific approach as far as I may traverse to understand any anything of this world. So this question is just like a hypothesis.
The students of science are aware that everything in this universe is relative to some other thing and nothing is static. Everything of the universe is changing its position at all times. Thus, it can be said that change is inevitable. Change is the rule of the nature. If it is so then why have we stuck to the view that the basic nature of the Constitution should not be charged?
We know that when the Constitution was in the process of making, the world was the same as it is now. The law makers were not so much aware of the world as they are aware to day. They were not so much aware of the demographic structure, socio- economic conditions, regional disparities of India as they are aware today. Our Constitution was then mainly designed on the basis of the study of the Constitutions of the many countries. At that time, we had no opinions except to derive matters from the Constitutions which were extant at time in the world. There was no time with us to explore India, obtain views of the Indian people who were at gross root level. At that time there was almost no means of communication. Today, however, the world has become a village because of social media. It can be discussed at length about the efficacy of our Constitution. Input can be obtained not from residents in India but even from the NRIs who have spread all over the world.
By the way, with passage of time, anything that was strong initially, loses it strength. It applies to our Constitution too. It cannot be said it is as strong and efficacious now as it was initially.
If we don't change water, it would stagnate and stink. Therefore, it is my personal opinion that this matter should be debated freely . Why do I so feel. I observe that in fifties, the center was strong. There was almost one party rule at centre as well as in the states. Regionalism did not pose any problem to the unitary nature of our country. It is however not to day. States are becoming stronger so much so that they try to even dictate the center in foreign policy. One state passes derogatory remarks against the people of another state. There are so many things. Therefore, my personal opinion that each provision the Constitution needs to be debated freely not on TV Channels but in social media. Come on. Let's discuss it for the sake of our country.
No comments:
Post a Comment