Our Constitution an ode to consensus
During times of peace, it is relatively easy to be democratic; the test arises when we are faced with social and political turmoil.
By the end of 1948, rocked by the Partition and the ensuing communal violence, anxieties about social fragmentation and separatism were tangible within the Constituent Assembly and outside it. In this demanding situation, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel set a new benchmark for what a democracy is and should aspire to be.
As the chairman of the special sub-committee set up to re-examine political safeguards for religious minorities, he said: “I was anxious that the representatives of the minorities on the Committee should have adequate time both to gauge public opinion among their people, and to reflect fully on the amendments proposed, so that a change, if affected, would be one sought voluntarily by the minorities themselves”, and “not imposed on them by the majority community”.
Patel’s words echoed the framers’ commitment to democracy. A high-powered committee, with Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, KM Munshi and BR Ambedkar as its members, had recommended the withdrawal of separate representation for religious minorities. The Sikh representatives were reluctant to accept this recommendation and wanted more time to consult and reflect on the proposed changes.
The political stature of the members of the sub-committee should itself have elicited compliance. But this did not happen. There was political urgency to settle the issue. Yet, Patel, along with the committee members, did not force a consensus. They heard and respected the wishes of even this small group of representatives. To give Sikhs more time, he adjourned the meeting.
The majority of the representatives, including members of other minorities, had accepted the recommendations of the special sub-committee. Even most of the Muslim representatives agreed that separate representation for religious minorities be abandoned. It was the need of the hour. Under these conditions, the sub-committee could easily have ignored a few Sikh voices. After all, numbers were on their side.
They could also have appealed to national interest. But this did not happen. Despite the extenuating circumstances and the weight of the numerical majority with them, Patel offered a political reasoning that defined what it means to be democratic. He did not want a major decision to be imposed upon a community.
This was a spectacular lesson in what democracy entails. Today, democracy is associated with elections and rule by elected representatives. For analysts, leaders and students of political science, elections are the peg around which democracies are anchored. A few other elements — separation of powers, rule of law, respect for human rights — are thrown in for good measure, but it is winning or losing elections that matters the most. Probably because we believe that winners decide the course of things to come: they determine the policies that will be formulated. The future rests in their hands.
Against this myopic vision of what democracy is, Patel and the leadership of the sub-committee presented a grand alternative. They did not simply espouse an ideal of deliberation, they stood by it and acted upon it; showed us that democracy requires the willingness to trust and walk the mile to meet those who disagree. The moral power of this gesture compelled the other side (the dissenting voices) also to take the committee’s reasoning seriously, and they too agreed to accept the recommendations. Eventually, the sub-committee on minorities voluntarily accepted the decision to withdraw separate representation for religious minorities.
The members of the Constituent Assembly functioned with exemplary patience in a situation of extreme political urgency. They listened to each other, to similar, and at times, the same arguments, being presented again and again, in a sub-committee, then in the larger body, when specific provisions were being discussed, and again when the entire draft of the Constitution was discussed. In doing so, they taught the world what it means to live in a democracy and live by the idea of democracy.
The issue before the special sub-committee was political safeguards for minorities. Hence, in his statement, Patel alluded to religious minorities. However, his reasoning addressed all of us: future generations of leaders, assemblies of representatives and each of us in our individual capacity and places of work and collective existence. Differences and disagreements are unavoidable, and if we stand committed to a democratic way of life, we need to make space for them, listen to them and work to build a consensus.
The Constituent Assembly left us with this thinking at a time when theories of deliberative democracy were not on the scene and ideas of a well-functioning democracy few and far between. America was seen at best as a polyarchy, and Carl Schmitt’s advice that real politics requires a distinction between friends and foes resounded in Europe. In this environment, the political leaders who shaped our republic and framed the Constitution stood alone and stood tall. They may have toured various countries and read their constitutions and laws closely, but they shaped the process of deliberation and decision-making in accordance with their convictions about the value of democracy.
Individual clauses and provisions were the product of negotiations and sometimes even compromise. In that too, they taught us that democracy requires this willingness to move away from our initial position and find a way to take everyone along.
Even though there have been several amendments to the Constitution, it still remains a precious document, reminding us that the process matters and it gives substance to the idea of democracy. As we celebrate 75 years of our republic, it’s for each of us to see if we have lived up to the standards the framers of our Constitution set for us and our democracy. They pursued the exemplary path of respectful listening and accommodating others. What better way can there be to remember them and commemorate the momentous event of giving India her Constitution than to follow their path.