India After Independence: 1947-2000 by Bipan Chandra Page A

person cannot be imprisoned for not paying his debts. This is not to say that these rights are not violated, often with impunity, but that the institutional mechanism for their redressal exists and can be leveraged, and that the movement has been in the direction of expanding the scope of rights in the direction of a more just and caring society.
    The Constitution has proved sufficiently flexible in the matter of amending itself. Article 368 which contains the provisions for amendment of the Constitution specifies that an amendment bill can be introduced in either house of parliament and must be passed by a clear majority with two-thirds of members present and voting. However, in case of amendments in Article 368 itself or in articles dealing with the election of the President, the extent of the executive powers of the Union and the state governments, the judiciary, the distribution of powers, and the representation of the states in the parliament, the amendment bill must also be passed by the legislatures of at least half the states. This has ensured that while amendments are not so difficult that the letter of the Constitution becomes a barrier to social change, yet it is not possible to make changes unless a real consensus has been built up. Again, while Article 368 does not exclude any part of the Constitution from the scope of amending provisions, the Supreme Court has in effect placed limits on the amendingpowers by means of the doctrine of ‘basic structure’ or ‘basic features’ of the Constitution. While it is possible to argue that this is not envisaged in the Constitution itself, yet it cannot be denied that the doctrine may well act as a healthy check on the ambitions of amendment-happy governments with big majorities.
    Many suggestions have emanated from diverse sources over the years about changes required to, be made in the Constitution. Some want introduction of the Presidential system, others want proportional representation in place of or in addition to the first past the post system, still others want that winning candidates should have to secure at least fifty per cent of votes, as in many other countries. A relatively recent addition is the proposal that a vote of no-confidence which brings down a government should include a vote of confidence in an alternative government-a proposal clearly inspired by recent rapid changes in governments and resultant fears of instability. Despite considerable opposition, the BJP-led NDA government has appointed a Constitution Review Commission in 2000. The overall feeling is that most parties and most people, even when they seek important changes, are quite content to seek these within the given structure of the Constitution. We cannot lay our failures at the door of the Constitution; where there are failures, as indeed there are many, it is not the Constitution that has failed us, it is we who have failed the Constitution. As Rajendra Prasad said at the time of the framing of the Constitution, a Constitution can only be as good as the people who work it.
    It is also significant that even those commentators, who are very sharply critical of the Indian political system, and pessimistic about its future prospects, have little criticism to offer of the Constitution. It is necessary to emphasize that at a time when most other institutions of governance have suffered greater or lesser erosion of legitimacy, the Constitution has continued to command respect. This is not a small gain for a country with such diversity and complexity. In the turbulent times that perhaps await us in the new millennium, the Constitution may well be a much-needed anchor of support. Its unambiguous commitment to a democratic, secular, egalitarian and civil libertarian society should help greatly in keeping the ship of state tied firmly to its moorings.

7
Consolidation of India As a Nation
    A major problem, perhaps the most serious one, that India has faced since 1947 has been of national unity