Is the Constitution in danger, as some Indian politicians and social media influencers argue today? Will it be in danger if the Bharatiya Janata Party wins the Lok Sabha election for the third time in a row? Even some BJP leaders have said that if the party wins with a thumping majority, it will change the Constitution.
But such an argument falls on two counts.
First, over the last decade of ruling the country, the BJP has done no harm to the Constitution, has been less prolific in amending it, and is least likely to do so if it comes to power again this year. Second, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been a big beneficiary or labharthi of India’s constitutional democracy and electoral system and thus has a vested interest in their preservation.
A wonder of Indian democracy
Modi does not belong to any political or business family. In the social order, his caste, Modh Ghanchi, falls into the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category in the Gujarat and the Union lists. It is not even a dominant OBC caste like Vokkaliga, Yadav, Thevar, Kurmi, or Lodhi. There’s nothing elite in Modi’s entire bio-data — he studied in a Gujarati-medium school. Still, he managed to lead the BJP and reach the top of the Indian political hierarchy, which is no mean feat.
I can’t imagine Modi reaching such heights if India wasn’t an electoral democracy. The BJP chose him as its prime ministerial candidate in 2014 because of his vote-garnering capacity. Remove the electoral process, and we will find him vanished from the political scene and the BJP leadership too. He certainly adds something to the Hindutva party; otherwise, someone else would be leading the BJP today. And that ‘something’ is his ability to connect with the voters. I don’t see any reason why he would dismantle the electoral democracy and the Constitution, which made his ascent possible.
Neither do I see any motivation in Modi to go for dictatorship.
Also read: LK Jha to PN Haksar & PK Mishra, how PMO became India’s power hub
A third term in power – so what?
One may say that a party winning elections three or more times might not be a great thing for the health of democracy, but it can’t amount to the country entering into an era of dictatorship. The Congress won all general elections between 1952 and 1972. It ruled the nation for three decades with no disruption, and no political scientist ever called the Nehru-Indira era a dictatorship. The Left Front ruled West Bengal continuously for 34 years, and that wasn’t dictatorship either.
Leaders like Ram Manohar Lohia became impatient with continuous Congress rule at the Centre and gave slogans like “Jinda Kaum 5 Saal Intezaar Nahin Karti (A living community does not wait for 5 years)”. He always had faith in the democratic and electoral process. Only the fringe Left elements, known as the Naxalites, tried to topple the Indira Gandhi dictatorship through violence, though their quest was not to restore democracy but to establish the absolute rule of the proletariat. They failed in their endeavour miserably.
Indian democracy came closest to dictatorship during the Emergency (1975-77) when Indira Gandhi suspended fundamental rights and civil liberties and cancelled the elections. That was a bad memory, a one-time bitter affair in the life of the nation. She lost the 1977 general election, and democratic rights were restored. Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, again through the electoral process.
Also read: Everyone says ‘aayega to Modi hi’—some with a drumroll, many with despair
Constitution can be amended
As far as the current National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government is concerned, it came to power through the electoral process in 2014 and improved its performance in 2019. The nation is now in the process of electing the next government.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is a living document capable of adapting to new situations. Its makers themselves made provisions (Article 368) for amendments to the document, with no restriction to amend any part. They did not want to rule the country from their graves. Later, the judiciary stepped in and recognised the basic structure doctrine, which bars Parliament from amending certain parts of the Constitution. I don’t agree with the basic structure doctrine, but at this moment, that is the law of the land, so I am not venturing into that debate.
Anyway, the point is that most of the articles of the Constitution can be amended by the majority in Parliament. Very few articles — like the ones related to presidential elections, the extent of the executive power of the Union and the states, and provisions concerning the Supreme Court and high courts — need a two-thirds majority in Parliament and endorsement by half of the state assemblies. The Constitution has been amended 106 times to date, and there is every possibility that it will be amended in the future. An amendment made through due process is not a threat to the Constitution; rather, most of the time, it only strengthens it.
Modi govt’s 8 amendments
A comparison can be made between Modi’s and Indira Gandhi’s rule. Between 1966 and 1977, the Constitution was amended 25 times. In the 42nd Amendment, as many as 41 articles were amended and 11 were added. During the past decade, the constitution was amended only eight times; all amendments were made with the support of the Opposition parties. They are mentioned below.
- Restoration of the original position of the Constitution in judges’ appointments and abolishment of the collegium system in 2014: This amendment was later nullified by the Supreme Court in the NJAC judgment in 2023. The Modi government hasn’t attempted to amend it again.
- Introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017.
- Granting of constitutional status to the National Commission for the Backward Classes (NCBC) in 2017.
- Introduction of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) reservation in 2019.
- Amendment of provisions related to the Finance Commission and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution in 2019.
- Extension of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) reservation in the Lok Sabha and assemblies for 10 more years; amendment was passed in 2019.
- Granting of power to the states and Union territories to change their own OBC lists in 2021.
- Introduction of women’s reservation in Lok Sabha and assemblies in 2023.
One may agree or disagree with these amendments, but no one can say that these changes are ushering in dictatorship.
To say that “Modi is a danger to the Constitution” is simply a bogey, as significant amendments were made with various purposes, indicating stability and adaptability rather than jeopardy.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)