Title: Sixteen Stormy Days – The Story of the First Amendment to the Constitution of India
Author: Tripurdaman Singh
Publisher: Vintage, 2020 (First)
ISBN: 9780670092871
Pages: 268
When the newly independent India’s Constituent Assembly put up the new constitution for the nation’s approval, they had every reason to cheer. Their magnum opus contained the finest liberal notions guaranteed as inalienable fundamental rights to the new republic’s citizens. The world congratulated the Constitution-makers with a tinge of respect and amazement. However, the rulers who were tasked with the administration of the nation’s most sacrosanct document were pygmies in real stature even though with an expansive ego duly massaged by sycophants. Jawaharlal Nehru, who continued as the unelected, caretaker prime minister till the first general elections were held, found the Constitution constraining his party’s social policy. His ire was turned towards the fundamental rights, which Dr. Ambedkar had termed the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution’. Barely a year after January 1950 when the Constitution came into effect, the very makers of the Constitution railed against too much liberty granted by it. Nehru found the combination of fundamental rights, tenacious citizens, a belligerent press and a resolute judiciary determined to vigorously uphold fundamental freedoms as roadblocks on his path to continuation in power. Nehru’s solution was to bend the Constitution to his government’s will to overcome the courts and preempt any further judicial challenges according to his firm belief that wider social policy was to be determined by the government alone and neither the courts nor the Constitution could be allowed to stand in the way. This book tells the story of events that led to the first amendment of the Constitution and the stormy days in which it was hotly debated in parliament. Tripurdaman Singh is a PhD in history and is a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society. This enchanting book is an indicator of more to come in future from his pen.
Singh explains the reasons which goaded Nehru to curtail constitutional privileges in a well-planned and interesting way, like an absorbing movie script. Court rulings against press censorship, communal reservation and taking over zamindari property clashed with the Congress’ social reform agenda. Just fourteen days after 26 Jan 1950, the Bombay High Court struck the first judicial blow by releasing suspected communists who had been detained indefinitely. Nehru countered this by bringing in a central legislation two weeks later enabling the government to continue jailing people without charging them or presenting them in court, or even inform them of the reasons for their arrest. Three months later, the Patna High Court held the Bihar Management of Estates and Tenures Act null and void by infringing on the right to property and taking over assets without just compensation. Congress had initiated land reform legislation in UP and Bihar in a big way. This sought to appropriate land from zamindars and to distribute them among the landless. A differential compensation scheme was envisaged in which big landowners received lesser amount of cash as the size of the estate grew bigger. The Bihar judgement put the UP legislation also in disarray. Bihar politicians clamoured for the subordination of the Constitution to the Congress party’s election manifesto. But on this issue, the Opposition too sided with them. Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the Constitution be scrapped and a new one drafted. In July 1950, the Madras High Court set aside the state’s communal reservation order on the grounds that it discriminated against citizens. Two months later, the Madras High Court quashed the Criminal Law Amendment Act also as unconstitutional. The verdict alleged that the act was an illustration of naked arbitrary powers to ban organisations and imprison people in the name of ‘public order’.
The book neatly summarizes the autocratic tendency in Nehru after Sardar Patel’s death when he had unrivalled mastery over the party. Nehru was stung by adverse court verdicts and blurted out that ‘it was impossible to hang up urgent social changes because the Constitution comes in the way’. The First Amendment tabled by Nehru himself in Parliament on 12 May 1951 contained such profound and pervasive changes that legal luminaries called it ‘the Second’ or ‘Nehruvian Constitution’. The whole process was especially jarring as the Parliament itself was provisional and unelected. Moreover, this body had only the lower house. Nehru ignored these procedural niceties and quickly formed a 21-member select committee headed by himself and fixed a timeframe of five days to examine the proposed bill. Many Congress MPs were mentally against such shameful appropriation of power. While the bill was under parliamentary scrutiny, 77 Congress MPs presented a petition to Nehru asking for conscience vote on the issue. The cabinet was also split. Nehru sensed the danger and agreed to mellow the restrictions he intended to place on fundamental rights by introducing the qualifying term ‘reasonable’ before it. He then issued the whip and all Congress MPs promptly fell in line. On May 31, 1951, the resolution was put to vote and declared carried by 228 in favour, 20 against and 50 abstaining. Close on the heels of this far reaching change, sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code were revalidated. This brought back the British-made sedition law and any activity promoting ill-will between communities into major criminal offences. Parliament soon passed the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act penalizing the publication of material it did not like.
A detailed description of the damage done by the First Amendment is given in the book. Article 19 offered freedom of speech and expression which was curtailed only by considerations of libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court and undermining the security of the state. The new law criminalized anything the executive deemed to be upsetting ‘public order’ and jeopardizing the nation’s relations with a foreign state. This may seem surprising to us now, but what Nehru was seeking was to throttle criticism against his humiliating concessions to Pakistan which was highly disadvantageous to India and directed only to attract the Muslim vote bank to the Congress party and probably a Nobel peace prize for Nehru himself. The First Amendment also introduced the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as a repository of unconstitutional laws that put them beyond the purview of courts. Former Chief Justice and later Vice President of India, Mohammad Hidayatullah, caustically observed that ‘ours was the only constitution that needed protection against itself’. The Ninth Schedule contained a total of 284 laws in 2006!
The author analyses why the icons of our freedom struggle turned distrustful of its citizens within just a year of the establishment of the republic. As the sole inheritors of the British Raj, India’s post-colonial Congress leaders had assumed the same sense of entitlement to stifle dissent, to censor adverse opinion and muffle all opposition. But to their surprise, they realized that unlike their colonial predecessors, they could not do as they wished and would be forced to endure their opponents. Furthermore, they would have to submit to and be bound by constitutional restrictions. Having enjoyed disproportionate and unchecked power since 1947, they were reluctant to cede ground to democracy. It was the provincial high courts that ruled against Nehru’s agenda and here too they were not unanimous. The Bihar High Court turned down the state’s zamindari abolition act while the Allahabad High Court upheld Uttar Pradesh’s similar law. Nehru could have appealed to the Supreme Court for a ruling to clarify the legal position but instead of deferring to the apex court he made them follow his own commands by changing the Constitution.
Nehru’s personal beliefs on socialism might also have played a role in the shaping of things. The right to personal property was effectively curtailed. Article 31, which restrained the state from acquiring property except by the authority of law and on payment of compensation, was coolly swept aside. Articles 15 and 29 were diluted to allow reservation to backward classes in education and government employment. The Constitution had originally planned to extend reservation only to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST). The overall impact of the amendment is also examined in this book. Nehru provided a constitutional infrastructure for his successors to be unleashed on the country’s hapless citizens. This loophole was later frequently exploited to overcome court judgments. Nehru’s justification for the amendment smacked of a tyrannical bend of mind. He castigated the fundamental rights as obsolete remnants of the ideas of the French Revolution and argued for the superiority of the constitutional section on Directive Principles of State Policy over the chapter on Fundamental Rights. This truly deliberate strategic assault on the Constitution and fundamental rights tampered with the nation’s primary document to suit the transient whims of every clique in power for the time being.
The book is a delightful read. Rarely have I seen Indian authors handle English in such an appealing way. A lot of tasty and colourful phrases and idioms are included as adornment to the fine diction. The research that has gone into the preparation of the book is truly impressive.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 5 Star
Publisher: Vintage, 2020 (First)
ISBN: 9780670092871
Pages: 268
When the newly independent India’s Constituent Assembly put up the new constitution for the nation’s approval, they had every reason to cheer. Their magnum opus contained the finest liberal notions guaranteed as inalienable fundamental rights to the new republic’s citizens. The world congratulated the Constitution-makers with a tinge of respect and amazement. However, the rulers who were tasked with the administration of the nation’s most sacrosanct document were pygmies in real stature even though with an expansive ego duly massaged by sycophants. Jawaharlal Nehru, who continued as the unelected, caretaker prime minister till the first general elections were held, found the Constitution constraining his party’s social policy. His ire was turned towards the fundamental rights, which Dr. Ambedkar had termed the ‘heart and soul of the Constitution’. Barely a year after January 1950 when the Constitution came into effect, the very makers of the Constitution railed against too much liberty granted by it. Nehru found the combination of fundamental rights, tenacious citizens, a belligerent press and a resolute judiciary determined to vigorously uphold fundamental freedoms as roadblocks on his path to continuation in power. Nehru’s solution was to bend the Constitution to his government’s will to overcome the courts and preempt any further judicial challenges according to his firm belief that wider social policy was to be determined by the government alone and neither the courts nor the Constitution could be allowed to stand in the way. This book tells the story of events that led to the first amendment of the Constitution and the stormy days in which it was hotly debated in parliament. Tripurdaman Singh is a PhD in history and is a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society. This enchanting book is an indicator of more to come in future from his pen.
Singh explains the reasons which goaded Nehru to curtail constitutional privileges in a well-planned and interesting way, like an absorbing movie script. Court rulings against press censorship, communal reservation and taking over zamindari property clashed with the Congress’ social reform agenda. Just fourteen days after 26 Jan 1950, the Bombay High Court struck the first judicial blow by releasing suspected communists who had been detained indefinitely. Nehru countered this by bringing in a central legislation two weeks later enabling the government to continue jailing people without charging them or presenting them in court, or even inform them of the reasons for their arrest. Three months later, the Patna High Court held the Bihar Management of Estates and Tenures Act null and void by infringing on the right to property and taking over assets without just compensation. Congress had initiated land reform legislation in UP and Bihar in a big way. This sought to appropriate land from zamindars and to distribute them among the landless. A differential compensation scheme was envisaged in which big landowners received lesser amount of cash as the size of the estate grew bigger. The Bihar judgement put the UP legislation also in disarray. Bihar politicians clamoured for the subordination of the Constitution to the Congress party’s election manifesto. But on this issue, the Opposition too sided with them. Socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the Constitution be scrapped and a new one drafted. In July 1950, the Madras High Court set aside the state’s communal reservation order on the grounds that it discriminated against citizens. Two months later, the Madras High Court quashed the Criminal Law Amendment Act also as unconstitutional. The verdict alleged that the act was an illustration of naked arbitrary powers to ban organisations and imprison people in the name of ‘public order’.
The book neatly summarizes the autocratic tendency in Nehru after Sardar Patel’s death when he had unrivalled mastery over the party. Nehru was stung by adverse court verdicts and blurted out that ‘it was impossible to hang up urgent social changes because the Constitution comes in the way’. The First Amendment tabled by Nehru himself in Parliament on 12 May 1951 contained such profound and pervasive changes that legal luminaries called it ‘the Second’ or ‘Nehruvian Constitution’. The whole process was especially jarring as the Parliament itself was provisional and unelected. Moreover, this body had only the lower house. Nehru ignored these procedural niceties and quickly formed a 21-member select committee headed by himself and fixed a timeframe of five days to examine the proposed bill. Many Congress MPs were mentally against such shameful appropriation of power. While the bill was under parliamentary scrutiny, 77 Congress MPs presented a petition to Nehru asking for conscience vote on the issue. The cabinet was also split. Nehru sensed the danger and agreed to mellow the restrictions he intended to place on fundamental rights by introducing the qualifying term ‘reasonable’ before it. He then issued the whip and all Congress MPs promptly fell in line. On May 31, 1951, the resolution was put to vote and declared carried by 228 in favour, 20 against and 50 abstaining. Close on the heels of this far reaching change, sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code were revalidated. This brought back the British-made sedition law and any activity promoting ill-will between communities into major criminal offences. Parliament soon passed the Press (Objectionable Matter) Act penalizing the publication of material it did not like.
A detailed description of the damage done by the First Amendment is given in the book. Article 19 offered freedom of speech and expression which was curtailed only by considerations of libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court and undermining the security of the state. The new law criminalized anything the executive deemed to be upsetting ‘public order’ and jeopardizing the nation’s relations with a foreign state. This may seem surprising to us now, but what Nehru was seeking was to throttle criticism against his humiliating concessions to Pakistan which was highly disadvantageous to India and directed only to attract the Muslim vote bank to the Congress party and probably a Nobel peace prize for Nehru himself. The First Amendment also introduced the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution as a repository of unconstitutional laws that put them beyond the purview of courts. Former Chief Justice and later Vice President of India, Mohammad Hidayatullah, caustically observed that ‘ours was the only constitution that needed protection against itself’. The Ninth Schedule contained a total of 284 laws in 2006!
The author analyses why the icons of our freedom struggle turned distrustful of its citizens within just a year of the establishment of the republic. As the sole inheritors of the British Raj, India’s post-colonial Congress leaders had assumed the same sense of entitlement to stifle dissent, to censor adverse opinion and muffle all opposition. But to their surprise, they realized that unlike their colonial predecessors, they could not do as they wished and would be forced to endure their opponents. Furthermore, they would have to submit to and be bound by constitutional restrictions. Having enjoyed disproportionate and unchecked power since 1947, they were reluctant to cede ground to democracy. It was the provincial high courts that ruled against Nehru’s agenda and here too they were not unanimous. The Bihar High Court turned down the state’s zamindari abolition act while the Allahabad High Court upheld Uttar Pradesh’s similar law. Nehru could have appealed to the Supreme Court for a ruling to clarify the legal position but instead of deferring to the apex court he made them follow his own commands by changing the Constitution.
Nehru’s personal beliefs on socialism might also have played a role in the shaping of things. The right to personal property was effectively curtailed. Article 31, which restrained the state from acquiring property except by the authority of law and on payment of compensation, was coolly swept aside. Articles 15 and 29 were diluted to allow reservation to backward classes in education and government employment. The Constitution had originally planned to extend reservation only to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SC/ST). The overall impact of the amendment is also examined in this book. Nehru provided a constitutional infrastructure for his successors to be unleashed on the country’s hapless citizens. This loophole was later frequently exploited to overcome court judgments. Nehru’s justification for the amendment smacked of a tyrannical bend of mind. He castigated the fundamental rights as obsolete remnants of the ideas of the French Revolution and argued for the superiority of the constitutional section on Directive Principles of State Policy over the chapter on Fundamental Rights. This truly deliberate strategic assault on the Constitution and fundamental rights tampered with the nation’s primary document to suit the transient whims of every clique in power for the time being.
The book is a delightful read. Rarely have I seen Indian authors handle English in such an appealing way. A lot of tasty and colourful phrases and idioms are included as adornment to the fine diction. The research that has gone into the preparation of the book is truly impressive.
The book is highly recommended.
Rating: 5 Star
