Thoughts on Constitution of India

There are several problems with the Constitution of India, though some agree and many do not. The main issue is that those who dislike the Constitution often fail to present their arguments effectively. I would like to take on this task and put forward my arguments.

Arguments in Favor of the Constitution

Supporters of the Constitution often highlight the freedoms, liberties, and fundamental rights it bestows upon citizens. Some also give emotional reasons, such as its creation by freedom fighters.

My Contention with the Constitution

My main contention with the Constitution is not that it is copied, insufficient, or lengthy. My primary issue is that the Constitution of India should not contain certain provisions. In my opinion, the Constitution should include provisions till the Directive Principles of State Policy, that is from Article 1 to Article 51 and the remaining parts—such as the powers of the President and Governors—should be placed in a separate act called the Government of India Act.

The Role of the Constitution

The Constitution is the law of the land; it must protect its citizens from harm and clearly establish the role of the government in society. However, our Constitution tries to regulate everything in the country. It describes how the taxation system must function, along with various other provisions that need not be in the Constitution. Supporters argue that India's diversity necessitates these provisions, but ask yourself, "Is the system actually working efficiently?" The argument that the Constitution is bulky due to our population and diversity does not hold up, as the same diverse and populous country was ruled by powers without a constitution. We cannot dismiss those colonial powers as inefficient since we still use their systems. So, what steps have we taken to create a good Constitution for ourselves?

The Case for Rewriting the Constitution

In my opinion, it would be best if the Constitution of India were rewritten. The Constitution should primarily contain the rights given to the people, while the legislature should decide the form of government. Currently, one must win elections to become a cabinet minister. The problem is that competent individuals often cannot win elections because doing so requires significant resources. Those focused on building their competence are working in their core fields and cannot concentrate on winning elections. India, in my opinion, should have a presidential form of government like the USA, or we could have another Constituent Assembly to decide the Constitution's structure. The Constitution is ultimately a mechanism in democracy and can be criticized. I have observed that when this subject is broached, people often jump to defend the Constitution with weak arguments.

Limiting the Scope of the Constitution

The Constitution should not interfere in all matters; some should be left to legislative acts. The need for constant amendments indicates a problem. Imagine amending the Constitution to change the state's taxing structure when we could simply scrap an act and introduce a new one as needed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Constitution of India, while a significant document that has shaped our nation, requires critical evaluation and restructuring to better serve its purpose. By limiting the scope of the Constitution to fundamental rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy, and addressing other aspects through separate legislative acts, we can create a more efficient and adaptable governance system. A reformed Constitution will not only respect the diversity and complexity of our nation but also ensure that the government functions effectively and competently, reflecting the true spirit of democracy.