Constitutional Design

 "A constitution is an arrangement of magistracies in a state." These words of Aristotle gives us a brief introduction of what constitution is.

A constitution is a set of written rules which are acceptable to all, supreme and which carries the relationship between people and government. A constitution is more of degree of trust among people to ensure their rights and establishes the belief of equality. A constitution is like an anchor in a boat. It sets limitations on the power of ruler or elected leader. A constitution determines the right of the citizens of the respective land. Equality, justice, liberty, fraternity all these terms are usually subjective and it varies person to person but establishment should ensure all of it among the citizens of the land. So a constitution plays a vital role in this process.

Here one should also understand all countries that have constitution are not necessarily democracy, in other words all countries that have constitution are not necessarily democracy but all democracies will have constitution. 

Now if we specifically talk about India and the nature of its constitution, India being a colony of Britain, saw the unjust, inequality, disparities among citizens and society and the leaders of the freedom struggle had seen and felt the importance of the set of written rules i.e. Constitution.

The freedom struggle was not just the struggle for freedom but it was more of a social movement, the transition of politics and many more. India was partitioned on the religious basis, and the society was not even uniform. People of North were different from people of South, People of North east were different from the people of South west. Different cultures, languages, groups, tribes, religion yet a country. That was how India was and always will be. Now imagine a society of this kind without rules to ensure equality, rights etc. So, our leaders at that time formed a assembly to write the most diverse document in the history of mankind. The assembly took more than two years to write and draft the constitution. The assembly read almost every constitution, took the good things from it. There were many influencing factors of Indian constitution, such as working of British parliament, the American bill of rights, The French Revolt etc.

Now one can ask, Why should we follow some set of rules written by people who are not alive as of now? Why should we accept the rules and legislature? To understand why should we, we should look at the nature of the document which we are intending to deny. The assembly which drafted and wrote the constitution had representation of all the groups in India at that time, had appearance of all existing culture, social groups, ethnic tribes, different languages etc. So a document which has a spirit of inclusion of all and which intends and surely retains its spirit in terms of equality, rights, law, justice, liberty and fraternity, can be denied? Constitution is universally accepted in India by all the different sets of people, group, culture etc.

If we consider constitution just a set of rules to fixate the government or the degree of trust between people and establishment is also wrong. A constitution is surely more than this. A constitution plays very important role to arrange any kind of social, academic, political institutions. If there is a group of people which has some declared set of rules will surely sustain and will grow and will give productive result.

So, A system of government or institution is a boat then constitution is surely its rudder. 

(Constitutional Design, Class :- IX, NCERT) 

Democracy

"I am a person who is Democratic in nature. I prefer dialogue." These two sentences here are very common to hear in daily routine and we are used to it. Did we ever think what it means? What is Democratic System?

Whenever we hear this word Democracy we often recall a very famous quote by Abraham Lincoln "Democracy is “government of, by and for the people”. We can illustrate through this quote that Democracy is a form of govt., which the rulers are elected by the people.  Is this it ? that's all? No, Democracy in basic nature can be defined in this manner but democracy is much more than this. Democracy is a system of equality, Democracy is a system which makes the establishment accountable. Democracy is a way of life in which we understand and practice equality, we learn to understand the limitations. Democracy in a broader way is a form of government which is accountable to the people, have limitations and boundaries of Law and constitution.

There are many features of democracy through which we can identify that a establishment is a Democracy or not.

First feature states that the authority should always be in hand of the elected leaders by the people. In any condition authority should not be centralized to one group or to one person.

Second feature states that the election, which decides the power holders of the system, should be free and fair. Free and fare clearly means that there should not be any kind of prejudice in the electoral process.

Third feature states that in the election, one vote of one person is valued equally and voting right should be given to every person in given parameter of Law of respective land. There should not be any kind of prejudice involved.

Fourth feature states that the establishment chosen by the people should govern according to the law and should have imitations cited by the constitution of the respective land. Democracy clearly insures the rule is bound by law and have limitations of constitution.

Having this much good attributes in Democracy there are some arguments against it as well. Some say Democratic system is not a stable system. People may choose different leaders in different times to ensure their respective good or the common good, so a system which is not stable can not give efficient governance and the resources can not be used to provide result as required which is true to a extent. Even in India, their was a authority buffer between 1989 and 1999 as country saw 7 oath taking ceremony in just 10 years. Which is a legitimate concern regarding stability of government of Democracy.

Some often question Democracy in a form that it is just a struggle to power, there is no moral ground or the ideological stand of many operating bodies under Democracy, which is also to a extent, right. Because being an unstable system of governance, power is the only key to be safe in the struggle.

There are people who question Democracy on the basis of the Electoral competition, saying that the Democracy in real case is not a moral combat of power as every group just want to be in authority and keep it a ongoing struggle.

Whatsoever is said either in favor of Democracy or against it is all correct to a extent. It is a fact that Democracy is not a solution to every thing and it alone can not solve every problem on the globe. It is also a fact that given alternatives of system of Governance, Democracy is far more accountable, transparent system. Since the origin of Governance and the forms which we have seen, surely Democracy is not a solution of every problem but is solution of many problems.

(Summary: Democratic Politics, Class :- IX, NCERT)

Urban Naxals

"Congress, Urban Naxals are spreading this rumor about NRC and its discrimination of minorities among people ." Said PM Narendra Modi the other day in a public rally in Delhi. Here One can easily identify Congress member for sure, but one can not easily differentiate or classify an Urban Naxal. Who are they? Why are they Called Urban Naxals? What differentiates them? These are some questions which should be answered.

Urban Naxal is not a new word for the discourse. It has been used vividly many times in debates, Election Rallies, House of People and the list goes on and on and on. If we go back in 2004, when Communist Party of  India(Maoist) published a paper titled "Urban Perspective" discussing its plan to gain leadership in the urban areas of India. This paper became the base to coin this term among people. People who use this term "Urban Naxal", often refer to this paper as it gives an urban based road map to the Naxal movement of Red Corridor. If we look further, this paper largely discuss the mobilization of informal sectors, classes and communities.

Since there is no any defined perception regarding this Urban Naxalism, people use their sense and interpretation to illustrate it and thus it becomes a problematic term. Often People who follow Marxism, Leninism or shows interest in active left politics are labeled as Urban Naxals by critics or in the common narration. Is it correct?

In my opinion it is not correct, because what we saw in the Red Corridor was not actually communism, or the ideals of Marx or Lenin. But an abrupt form of  mixed ideologis like Marxism, Leninism, Maoism etc. Some people believe that the Naxalism (Urban) has a strong Left connection because Communist Party of India was a active political body in the region but CPI strongly opposed the idea of  its own opinionated leaders to curb the imperial and capitalist powers through military powers and the CPI separated on this very ideological conflict. And this can be the ground of  distinction of Urban Naxals in common narrative. Different practices of ideologies should be the ground to differentiate the left ideologue and the Naxals(Urban). Naxalism is indeed a potential internal security threat, and Establishment is working to curb the Naxalism in full wave. But on the other hand the way this term is becoming natural in general dialogue is problematic. Calling a ideologue a term which is not defined yet should not be done or the authority should give a concrete differentiation of Naxals(Urban) and a ideologue of  a particular thought school.