The Constitution of India or the supreme law of the nation was drafted after rigorous debate and discussion over each and every article until there was no dissenting voice among the constituent assembly.
Thereafter, the constitution-makers, by the powers vested by the people of India ( all people, not the majority), enacted the law of the land. This way, our founding fathers laid an unwritten yet basic principle to our democracy. The principle was that every voice matters, every dissenting opinion should be discussed and debated, in order to withhold this great nation’s unity in diversity; so that the lawmakers of future carry forward the same empathy and values as our founding fathers.
Today, after 73 years of independence, the importance of Debate, Discussion and Dissent are mere subjects of speeches and books. The law enactment is dependent solely upon the majority, instead of the unanimity.
So, basically, a law is drafted from the standpoint of ‘majority of the people of India’ instead of ‘We the people of India’. There are people in support and people against almost all laws and orders and instead of finding a common ground and addressing each and every dissenting voice, the focus is shifted on proving the other person wrong. That challenges the idea of dissent and creates a distinction and divide among people.
Legislation in the present time is basically enacted through the brute force of majority, betting one section of society against others. The hunt for right or wrong has left no middle ground, no grey space. If people choose to go against any legislation/order, their dissent isn’t considered dissent. Instead, their dissent is considered to be the voices of the opposition party, country etc. who have financed and ‘misled’ the people against the government, as if they have a PhD on how to mislead people.
The grundnorm to every law enacted, in the past and future, was and will be drafted and implemented with a view of to unite the diverse India, where no voice will be unheard, and no dissent will go unaddressed. But today it’s not possible to get a unanimity over any law unless it’s related to remuneration/allowance of the people’s representatives. It’s actually impossible to bring legislation. The word ‘majority’ was inserted by the constitution-makers for a reason but when people oppose any act or government order, instead of addressing their issues, the system indulges in name-calling and creating a division among people by betting the aggrieved people against the people who are in favour of it.
Isn’t it the basic duty of the lawmakers to uphold the unity of diverse India, or is law-making just a tool used by the majority against the minority?
Isn’t it the basic responsibility of people to learn, from the past and present, that a strong government is inversely proportional to a strong democracy?
Questions are many, answers not enough.