GS Analyst: Daily Current Affairs

Context:

India's constitutional evolution, influenced by Gandhi and Ambedkar, prompts a discussion on adapting constitutional ideas to modern governance challenges.

Revisiting Constitutional Ideas

• Decolonization Efforts: India is undergoing a process of decolonization, evident in renaming and modernizing infrastructure.
• Gandhi's Vision: Mahatma Gandhi's 1908 vision for a swaraj constitution emphasized local governance, self-sufficiency, and a sense of duty.
• Gandhi's Constitution Challenge: Gandhi tasked Shriman Narayan Agarwal with drafting a "Gandhian Constitution," emphasizing moral codes over legal provisions.

Gandhi's Pragmatism and Ambedkar's Vision

• Ambedkar's Appointment: Gandhi pragmatically distanced himself from his own constitution and appointed B.R. Ambedkar to lead the drafting committee in 1947.
• Divergent Views: Ambedkar envisioned a strong state, economic management, and individual rights, while Gandhi advocated self-sustaining villages and personal transformation.
• Consensus Priority: Despite disagreements, Gandhi recognized the consensus around Ambedkar's ideas, allowing the adoption of a different constitution.

Articulating New Constitutional Ideas

• Current Context: India, in a state of flux, should focus on articulating new constitutional ideas building on both Ambedkar and Gandhi's visions.
• Gandhian Ideas: Incorporating some radical Gandhian concepts can address governance challenges without reverting to pre-modern ideals.
• Gradual Evolution: Constitutional change shouldn't happen overnight, but India should engage in a deliberative process to adapt to contemporary needs.

Context:

The trade-offs between development and populism in election promises has implications and there is a need for balance.

Development vs. Populism in Elections

• Election Promises: Politicians often prioritize development, especially visible infrastructure, as a key electoral promise to gain voter support.
• Narrow Definition: Development is frequently limited to physical infrastructure, ignoring environmental consequences and fiscal implications.
• Obsession's Dangers: Focusing solely on mega-infrastructure projects can lead to environmental disasters and long-term fiscal burdens, impacting future generations.

The Space for Populism

• Populism Defined: Populism is characterized by claiming to represent "the people" against perceived enemies or elites, often with a disregard for restraints on political and economic policy.
• Political and Economic Dimensions: Populism manifests politically through majority rule over minority rights and economically through resistance to policy restraints.
• Balancing Act: Striking a balance between rules and discretion is essential to curtail economic populism while preventing the concentration of power.

Rethinking Economic Growth and Populism

• Distribution Gap: Conventional growth models expected benefits to trickle down, but in reality, growth often leaves sections of the population as outliers.
• Government-Led Redistribution: Economic populism becomes necessary to reduce outliers and distribute growth benefits more equitably.
• Environmental Costs: Inappropriate infrastructure-led development imposes long-term environmental costs and constraints on future governments, contrasting with certain economic populism measures.

Context:

The Vachati judgment brings to a just closure the fight of a tribal people.

A Landmark Victory for a Tribal Community

• Historic Win: Recently, the Vachathi, a tribal community in Tamil Nadu, secured a historic victory at the Madras High Court. It marked the first time a state's might was challenged by a community of 655 Adivasis through the democratic and legal process.
• Background of Brutality: In 1992, police and officials accused Vachathi villagers of illegal sandalwood hoarding, leading to a brutal crackdown that included beatings, destruction of homes, poisoning wells, and other crimes.
• Long Legal Battle: Despite initial reluctance from the state to register a case against officials, the villagers pursued justice through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The legal battle spanned decades, with a trial court conviction in 2011 followed by a stay order from the Madras High Court.

A Warning to Elected Governments

• Judicial Assertiveness: The Madras High Court's judgment reaffirms the authority of the judiciary, serving as a warning to elected governments that they cannot act with impunity.
• Effectiveness of SC/ST Law: The case highlights the effectiveness of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in securing justice for marginalized communities, contrary to criticism of its ineffectiveness.
• Empowering Adivasi Rights: Vachathi's triumph represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for Adivasi rights, showcasing how civil society, dedicated lawyers, an independent judiciary, and victim determination can work within India's democratic and legal framework.

Democracy and Justice Converge

• Convergence of Forces: The Vachathi case demonstrates how a convergence of factors, including an active civil society, committed legal professionals, an impartial judiciary, and determined victims seeking justice, can effectively utilize India's democratic and legal systems.
• Autonomy and Governance: In a time when the judiciary has been at odds with the government over maintaining the autonomy of the three branches of governance, this case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding justice and the rule of law.
• Democratic Constitution in Action: Vachathi's victory serves as a testament to the resilience of India's democratic Constitution and the potential of the judicial system to serve marginalized communities and uphold justice.