In the previous part, I discussed how the Indian Constitution survived a civilizational assault attempted through electoral means. Here, I want to explore how this survival reshapes the fundamental conflict that produced the assault in the first place.
The civilizational assault emerged from a deep-rooted tension—what I call the core conflict—between the ancient worldview and the modern ethos of the nation. As this conflict intensified and approached a breaking point, one side attempted to resolve it by challenging the constitutional order itself.
But because the Constitution ultimately withstood this pressure, the very nature of the core conflict has changed. What was once a raw, force-driven contest must now operate strictly within constitutional limits. The confrontation is no longer about exerting unrestrained power; it must now function through rules, regulations, and democratic safeguards.
This shift has an important consequence: the older terms of the conflict are effectively neutralized. Previously, there existed a loophole—using a two-thirds parliamentary majority to dismantle or radically alter the Constitution. The Constitution’s survival has closed that loophole in practical terms. While the existential threat may remain theoretically possible, it is now functionally and technically neutralized.
In that sense, it is good news for humanity that the Constitution endured. Its survival has altered the rules of the conflict and rendered the earlier threat hollow. To put it bluntly, slogans like “abki baar 400 paar” no longer carry the same existential implications.
The party involved in this civilizational conflict may still attempt to reshape the constitutional framework through amendments or reinterpretations. However, the prospect of dismantling the Constitution via supermajority—once a genuine risk—seems unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment