Here I try to nit-pick certain phrases of the constitution, to provide a different interpretation which might strengthen the initiative of a more democratic society. Let us come to the Preamble.
I have the following selections of phrases that I would like to give another re-interpretation.
1. Equality of Status and of Opportunity: Don't you think that Equality of status is a more radical thing which has not been stressed upon much. All the affirmative actions are in equality of opportunity phrase. But achieving an equality of status should have been an outcome of Equality of opportunity. Now, why equality of status is not a common thing is because there exist non-legislative sources of law, like Customs and culture which are intrinsically unequal.
2. Liberty of Faith: I always wondered why faith was included in the constitution. And of course, I know the reason. Freedom includes the freedom to be stupid as well. If someone wishes to believe in non-scientific (Can never be proven) and not yet proven things, He is allowed. But We have also mentioned in our constitution, Scientific temperament and how it is the duty of every citizen to spread it. You know, the problem is in the contradiction in the present and future visions of what the society that constitution makers had in mind. In present, you have stupid people whose right to liberty of faith is to be protected, however stupid it may sound, and it is. In future, you want individuals who think rationally and not abide by stupidity. This is a fundamental contradiction. Rationality and scientific temperament cannot be spread if people are allowed to dwell in their imaginations of the false as being true. You need to cut down this liberty because this is a pseudo-liberty.
I recall, Hegel's Phenomenology of spirit, where he mentions how children, after going to school lose a certain creativity in order to learn something. But Hegel interprets it as a creative destruction of creativity itself. Because, what good is chaotic creativity with no outcome but barbarianism. Similarly, the faiths of people however provide a sky of imagination, it needs a creative destruction of this creativity itself, in order than a more ordered creativity takes birth within individuals.
3. Economic Justice: I believe, Economic justice has always been pushed aside giving way to Political and Social. I know this was done as a reaction to Marxist Economic interpretation of history, in the Ambedkar's spirit of primacy of social. But this has created a predicament. Legal measures cannot bring justice in society in its intents. You can provide justice only as a reaction to the prevailing injustices. In other words, Injustice cannot be curtailed by legal social justice. You need a social upheaval, a social awakening. and the most material form of this social is economic justice. Land redistribution and land reforms were effective. I believe, a pseudo-materiality is created by legal measures. What else is the philosophy of a law itself? Just to create concretization through words. I believe any measure, any law which does not entail economic changes in society cannot have material effects and will remain pseudo.
4. Dignity of the Individual: What is this word? KM Munshi said, it not just material betterment and a democratic setup, but Personality of each individual is sacred. But let us closely look at his choice of words. Saw something? he was doing a deliberate attempt to reduce it to some ideal version. The phrasing of it sounds like he is belittling the material aspects and democratic set up of it, and also, saying that personality of a person being sacred is something bigger than the democratic setup itself. You might call me a nitpicker, but you do not know who KM Munshi was. He was the right winger of time, trying to get a small breathing space when the democratic socialism was the triumphant ideology of the times. Critiquing him is the way today because, his comments are now the winning ideology today when the left has no breathing space. So, I believe, trying to create a space for the ideal, the sacred here in a material document is intrinsically flawed. Nothing sacred about personality. Then What is this Dignity of the individual? A naive way of putting it might be, not to behave with the individual animalistically. But A radical redefinition of dignity is required in these times. Dignity of the individual should be defined as following, "Anything which can experience pain, whether physical, emotional or mental, should not be caused pain and treated with a bare minimum respect and might be tried for love". This might be tried for love is deliberately written in order to keep in mind that humans have limited capacity for love. You should not be obliged to love everyone. Love some, respect every, hate some but do not unnecessarily harm any. Although harm should only be induced by state and not by individuals, it is in this definition, a gap should be given for harm. That is the real fraternity. Where you can harm the non-fraternal and get punished by the State.
5. Ernst Barker's remarks about the preamble: I like how he said, he appreciates the makers of the constitution to cherish the values of constitution which we, here, call western in the west but they are a bit more than merely western. That should precisely be a title of a book today. The western values are today at attack for being western. To counteract the hegemony of ideas, the post-colonial discourse has applied a "You west You bad" approach. I believe the post-colonial countries should come to protect the western values which are worth saving. Just because something is western and colonial, it is wrong, this is a flawed way of looking at polity. Democracy is worth saving, and so are some western values. The jungle of Asia might be spiritually attractive, but the western values are objective and have merit and deserves to be saved.
If a woman was raped once and got a child as a result, which reminds her of the trauma of the experience, what should she do with the child who is already old enough to be considered alive. Kill it? abandon it? leave it? No! However, it is a reminiscence of horrible experience, the sheer attempt to get rid of it will always remain with her. She should re-interpret the child. Make the child the best human she can make. Yes, this might sound very politically incorrect, but this analogy is accurate. I think the colonial legacies should not be left but embraced under a new interpretative philosophy. Because the sheer attempt to get rid of it is reminiscence of the legacy and will always live. I end here. will add more to it in next blog. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment