Reaffirming the Bedrock of India

India, its vanity of celebrating its 73nd years of the great republic, when our first constitution was out in 1950, many critics and applause was faced, as we know, Indians are more sectarian by their own identity as religion and are more unified by their political identity. such unification only came up with certain doctrines, which simulate fraternity, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equality before the law. Absolutely, by the release of our constitution on January, 26th such concept of doctrine came true.

Implicit Gift!

 In earlier times, our country was dragged under a government that is more anarchy by its character and stem. Our ancient government which was despotic by its nature was faced great transmission to democratic nature.
Our constitution, which is keeping both flexibility and rigidity, that the rules can be amended by both simple and strong majorities. Our constitution is something that is the bedrock for our social norms, which embeds both Hindus and Muslims under one umbrella while it keeps an imaginary line of mutual relation of unity for those who are keeping the incorporation by castes, creeds, colours, costumes and customs. It was the constitution that implicitly transcended all those identities which are defined and divided by their birth.
While our fore generations were suffering from the lack of stern democracy and freedom, we, by enacting of great democratic characterized constitution gain great freedom of speech, religion, and scrutiny for our government. While our pre generation implicitly suffered from the lack of spirit of transparency, democracy, we, by the sacrifice of great intellectuals had gained absolute so-called democracy.
Our India suffered from the evil of partition, genocides, and riots gained bedrock for hegemony by the constitution. It was India, were ground for autocracy, which turned out the plat for democracy, after 1950.
Where ancient history was not free from free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, it was a gift from the constitution for freedom of such trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India.

Criticism for constitution

There are more critics for our constitution, first among the eye-striking criticism, is the fundamental rights provided by the constitution are illusory. But we have to consider that courts that were safe guided by the constitution have acted more enthusiastic in the matter of enforcement of fundamental rights. Being both is guarded against constitution eminent politicians are considering this as vague.
Secondly, the Indian constitution was being produced by eminent lawyers and intellectuals. So, apparently, such doctrines that are subjected to be dictum has been designedly and deliberately made as bristle with difficulties in interpretations. Absolutely, it is a demerit for our institution. If a common man, who is going to read such difficult doctrines, he would get no more. Dr. Jennings, the lawyer and politician who has renowned in his field, had endorsed such criticism in his words: “As a lawyer, I cannot raise an objection to this practice, though it must be confessed that there danger in it, for the lawyer politician, whether the dominance of the constituent assembly by the lawyer politician has been good for India, must be left for history to say that, what can a present be said is that it has had to complexity of constitution”. Such criticism can be answered that constitution has had a value, that no one has. Such a value only can stand by such deeds. B. R Mishra, in his book Economic aspect of the Indian constitution (1952) had come up with more criticism.

One spirit of many

As stated before, Indians are divided by their birth. In the colonial era, if an Indian was born as SC, his identity will be lost among others. He would not have any chance for clearness. Dr B. R Ambedkar, who had witnessed such differentiation, had brought social inequality as his theory. In parliamentary debate, he intensified his own viewpoint by replying to some bigotries, on his words “I do not want our loyalty, whether that loyalty arises out of our religion, out of our culture, I want all people to be Indian first and last”
By his theory, he viewed that our sectarian society only can be unified by one character, it Is India. Fanaticism on religion will absolutely form a group of depressed class, epitome lays along with our country, where SCs and STs are still under the poverty line.
B.R. Ambedkar, being his long sight on Indian society, hat cultivation democratic fruits are still impossible, he learned for harvest for reservation and hegemony.
Such dreams are being collapsed after their completion. As democratic support for, it is to agitate, if not constitution will be mitigated, will be misinterpreted, so doing so, an era of darkness will be repeated.