At the time of Independence Day, we look back, not in anger, but in wonder at what has been accomplished since 1947. The past now blends seamlessly into the present and the present blends into the future. Partly, one abjures the colonial past, and the three recent Bills on criminal justice are examples.
Partly, one reclaims our forgotten heritage; Sengol is a metaphor for that. Present India has handled covid and a recovery from it remarkably well, and our macro fundamentals are robust and strong compared with many other countries. In the medium-term, a real growth rate of 6.5-7% is not something to carp about. Carpe diem is also about the template and trajectory for Amrit Kaal as we head for 100 years of independence.
Horace’s complete quote was sceptical about the future. That’s not for India, where the future is laced with pride, optimism and the aspirational goal of becoming a ‘developed’ country by 2047. ‘Developed’ has no precise definition, unless one means membership of the OECD. There is the aggregate size of the economy, measured in official exchange rates or purchasing-power-parity terms, and there is per capita income, also measured either way.
There are other indicators of human development: the human development index (HDI), multi-dimensional poverty index (MDPI), and so on. Depending on assumptions about real GDP and population growth, inflation and the exchange rate, there are various projections for 2047, all suggesting a transition to upper middle-income status and a transformation in the nature of poverty. (Witness recent changes in the old BIMARU states.)
Everyone would like these changes to be Citius, Altius and Fortius (faster, higher, stronger) and there are agendas for change reflective of reforms. These, depending on the prism, encompass various aspects: factor markets (land, labour, capital), tax reform, re-prioritization of government expenditure and a relook at the role of government, infrastructure (physical and social), rust removal from the steel frame, decentralization and devolution, formalization of labour markets and enterprises, better urbanization, and legislative and judicial efficiency. One can add to this list, but let’s keep 2047 in focus.
For me, the bedrock is the Constitution. Everything else follows. We no longer possess the one we inherited in 1950. It has been amended, not always for the better, though since 1973 we have been told its ‘basic structure’ cannot be altered, irrespective of what democracy desires through Parliament; whether there is a violation will be interpreted by courts. To the extent I understand it, the 1973 judgement applies to amendments to the existing Constitution, not a fresh one. University of Chicago Law School did a cross-country study of written constitutions and found their average life-span to be just 17 years.
This is 2023, 73 years after 1950. Our current Constitution is largely based on the Government of India Act of 1935. In that sense, it is also a colonial legacy. In 2002, there was a report by a commission set up to review the working of the Constitution, but it was a half-hearted effort. As with many aspects of law reform, a tweak here and another there won’t do. We should start with first principles, as in the Constituent Assembly debates. What Constitution does India need for 2047?
Much else follows. How many states do we need? Governance is about providing public goods and there is an optimal level at which these can be provided. Above a threshold of population size or geographical area, a state is sub-optimal, as today’s configuration of states is. The State Reorganization Commission in 1955 enunciated these logical principles, but state formation has followed anything but that. In similar vein, what about the Seventh Schedule and local bodies?
If development is correlated with urbanization, why have we set up these rural-urban silos, exemplified in the 73rd and 74th amendments? A major component of governance is law and order and swift dispute resolution. The three recent Bills address the criminal side, partially. The broader aspects of addressing a backlog have been discussed ad nauseam. But what’s the Supreme Court’s role and how much supervisory control does it have over high courts?
Little, if we go by the Constitution. What about judicial appointments? What about the Governor’s role?
The state’s three organs are the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. There are articles in the Constitution that impede executive efficiency, at least for all-India services. What about electoral reform and the Rajya Sabha’s role? Should one subject specific geographical areas to special laws, thereby never mainstreaming them? (This isn’t only about Article 370 as there are others.)
If reforms are about markets and a refocused and reduced role for government, what sense do we make of the Directive Principles of State Policy? This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and my questions are rhetorical.
Much of what we debate begins and ends with the Constitution. A few amendments won’t do. We should go back to the drawing board and start from first principles, asking what these words in the Preamble mean now: socialist, secular, democratic, justice, liberty and equality. We the People have to give ourselves a new Constitution.
-By Bibek Debroy
(The article was published on Livemint.com on August 14, 2023 and has been reproduced here)
