During his visit to Patna, Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar was asked about his views on chief minister Nitish Kumar’s decision to ban the sale and possession of alcoholic drinks. The poser should have been anticipated because despite being an icon of anti-Bharatiya Janata Party forces, the chief minister’s decision has not gone down well with several sympathisers who see the decision as an infringement of rights. Because the JNUSU leader and Mr Nitish Kumar are on one side of the nation’s political divide, it was justifiable to query if they were also on the same page on this contentious policy.
Junior Mr Kumar was a tad unprepared as his please-all response demonstrated. He endorsed the state government’s decision but added that, nationally, prohibition would violate democratic rights of people. “One’s principled position in view of our Constitutional rights would be that those wishing to drink should be allowed to drink. That’s why I say nationwide prohibition will violate people’s freedom of choice”, the JNUSU leader said. Unmistakably, he was pleasing both constituencies that prop him up — hardcore political practitioners and urban liberals. The chief minister did not take to this kindly and gave the young man a lesson in political science. Drinking alcoholic products, the senior Mr Kumar asserted, is not a fundamental right. The chief minister drew attention to Article 47 of the Indian Constitution which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. These objectives of the state account for Articles 36 to 51 in the only “Holy Book” of the Indian democracy. For those who missed this exchange, Mr Kumar Sr. was responding to a query during his weekly “Janta Ke Durbar Mein CM” programme.
It’s worth recalling Article 47: “The state shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the state shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.” When Mr Kumar drew attention to the Directive Principles, the often forgotten and ignored tenet of Indian constitutional democracy, he reminded me of the discomfort I’ve felt whenever references to these cropped up while reading or listening to a debate. I recalled what our civics teacher in school said when the chapter on this came up. I paraphrase because remembering words verbatim after several decades is a tall order: “These goals were set by our constitutional makers. But because they are almost impossible to achieve, they were kept on the target list and not on the list of rights that citizens were entitled to.” His description of the Directive Principles as “impossible to achieve” has stayed with me and I am sure this would be the case with most.
By invoking the Directive Principles to justify his decision to ban liquor, the Bihar chief minister stepped in treacherous territory. Henceforth, every advocate of ban on cow slaughter too can use the same argument and justify the demand — in the eye of a storm since last year. Article 48 of the Constitution makes demand for such a ban justifiable because it states: “The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
So far none of the votaries of the Sangh Parivar have taken the support of the Directive Principles because they framed their demand within the framework of Hindutva. But hereafter, there will be no contesting them if they resort to such tactics. Granville Austin, American historian and undisputed authority on the Indian Constitution, termed the fundamental rights and Directive Principles as its “conscience”. While labelling the Constitution as a “social document”, he noted that the fundamental rights and Directive Principles were firmly rooted in the freedom struggle. The problem, however, is that because fundamental rights are justiciable while Directive Principles are not, the latter became what T.T. Krishnamachari said in disdain: “A veritable dustbin of sentiment... sufficiently resilient as to permit any individual of this House to ride his hobby horse into it.”
What could not be constitutionally guaranteed became an objective! The Directive Principles were based on the Karachi Resolution or the resolution on Fundamental Rights and Economic Policy adopted by the Indian National Congress in 1931. Consequently, the initial draft of the Directive Principles as prepared by a Constituent Assembly sub-committee, headed by Acharya Kripalani, reflected socialist and nationalist thought. Two more streams of thinking emerged as pressure groups when fundamental rights and Directive Principles came up for finalisation.
The first of these argued that Hindu thought and practice were not sufficiently accommodated, while the second group campaigned for greater inclusion of Gandhian principles and teachings. The group campaigning to constitutionally safeguard Hindu sentiments demanded that cow slaughter be included in the sections on fundamental rights. The latter wanted liquor and drugs to be proscribed.
Putting an end to cow slaughter once Independence was achieved was the cornerstone of Hindu revivalism for decades and they were unwilling to relent on this. They harnessed support successfully across party lines. Eventually a compromise was struck — the state would work towards ending cow slaughter, not to protect Hindu sentiment but to modernise agriculture! Poor Bacchus (Greek god of wine) had few to support his cause during the stormy debate on November 24, 1948, but when a member aimed to add “tobacco” to the wishlist of items that the state must strive to ban, his amendment was negatived!
The other objectives listed in the Directive Principles (including better working conditions, maternal benefits, workers’ participation in management, free and compulsory education, protecting monuments, separating judiciary from executive, etc.) are part of a huge wishlist.
Most people, if they Google for Directive Principles and go through the directives for the state, will conclude that these were listed more by romantic notions and not by practical considerations. There is also the politically contentious Article 44, which lists adoption of Uniform Civil Code as one of the targets but debate on this opens a completely separate Pandora’s Box. We must examine if a new consensus needs to be evolved on the Directive Principles. Unless we exhibit boldness and debate whether compromises of the past need to be carried forward ceaselessly, different political parties will continue to selectively use these tenets for petty political gains and to justify immediate goals while losing sight of greater objectives.
