Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
In a discussion on the experience of the working of our Constitution, three speakers took three different positions:
a. Harbans: The Indian Constitution has succeeded in giving us a framework of democratic government.
b.Neha: The Constitution made solemn promises of ensuring liberty, equality and fraternity. Since this has not happened, the Constitution has failed.
c. Nazima: The Constitution has not failed us. We have failed the Constitution.
Do you agree with any of these positions? If yes, why? If not, what is your own position?
उत्तर
Any answer supported with argument or explanation would solve the purpose. It is strongly recommended that you prepare the solution on your own. However, one sample solution has been provided for your reference:
a. The position of Harbans is correct. The constitution has succeeded in creating a framework of democratic government within which people exercise their choice while electing the government. Elections are conducted regularly at all levels of government and institutional arrangements have been largely successful in preventing the subversion of Constitution.
b. The position of Neha is not correct. While it is true that the country is yet to entirely achieve the stated goals of liberty, equality and fraternity, it must be also remembered that these goals are not a static but dynamic process since society is always evolving. The inability to achieve these goals cannot be attributed to the constitution but rather to the individual shortcomings and weaknesses of the people who are in position of power and the nature of politics in recent years.
c. The position of Nazima is correct. The Constitution has adequate principles for proper governance of the country. The people who are responsible for executing and implementing the principles of the constitution have failed to do so because of their self-interest and dishonesty. The tendency to subvert democratic processes in pursuit of power has led to the state of affairs where elections are rigged, money and muscle power becomes important and political parties are run as family institutions without inner-party democracy. All this is responsible for the rampant rise in corruption as people who gain positions of power through money want to recover their expenditure.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Which of these is not a function of the constitution?
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitutions are written documents about formation and power of the government.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
A constitution gives its citizens a new identity.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitutions exist and are required only in democratic countries.
State whether the following statement about a constitution is True or False.
Constitution is a legal document that does not deal with ideals and values.
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution is Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
Constitution making did not involve any major decision since there was a general consensus among the leaders at that time about its basic framework.
State whether the following inferences about the making of the Indian Constitution is Correct or Incorrect. Give reasons to support your answer.
There was little originality in the Constitution, for much of it was borrowed from other countries.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution was made by credible leaders who commanded peoples’ respect.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution has distributed power in such a way as to make it difficult to subvert it.
Give two examples to support the following conclusion about the Indian Constitution:
The Constitution is the locus of people’s hopes and aspirations.
Why is it necessary for a constitution to place limitations on the rulers? Can there be a constitution that gives no power at all to the citizens?
The Japanese Constitution was made when the US occupation army was still in control of Japan after its defeat in the Second World War. The Japanese constitution could not have had any provision that the US government did not like. Do you see any problem in this way of making the constitution? In which way was the Indian experience different from this?
Rajat asked his teacher this question: “The constitution is a fifty year old and therefore outdated book. No one took my consent for implementing it. It is written in such tough language that I cannot understand it. Tell me why should I obey this document?” If you were the teacher, how would you answer Rajat?
