Former prime minister Inder Kumar Gujral on the Constitution review.

I K Gujral remains cautious about the National Democratic Alliance government's plan to review the Constitution. He has expressed his concerns about the panel headed by former Justice M N Venkatachaliah.

In an interview to rediff.com's Amberish K Diwanji, he voiced his apprehensions.

Why are you worried about the government's plan to review the Constitution?

The review committee is being set up but it sounds very vague because the government has not made up its mind on what it wants to review. They have only said that the 'basic structure' will not be touched, which means that the Preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles will not be touched. So what is that remains to be reviewed?

The government has said that besides retaining the parliamentary form of government and the basic structure, everything else can be reviewed.

Does this mean that the government wants the review committee to look at fundamental rights? Do they want the directive principles of state to be revised? What do they want revised? It is for the government to spell out. It is not for me to do so.

The government has said it is looking at the 'working' of the Constitution.

They have not said so. This is a construction by the media. No statement from the government has specifically said that. As a matter of fact, the working of the Constitution is a broad definition. It has a very wide meaning, and can open up many Pandora boxes.

Any reason why only the ruling parties want to always change the Constitution? Earlier it was the Congress and now the NDA?

I don't want to attribute motives but I think they have been affected by the fact that the governments have changed twice. It was the President who said the instability of the government is not instability of the Constitution. Those problems have to be sorted out politically. Such instability is bound to occur when there is a change from a single-party polity to coalitional polity. Thus, parties have to face elections frequently, and I don't know how the Constitution can safeguard such a system.

If any laws have to be changed to bring about stability, such as the anti-defection law or something, then these are legislation that Parliament has to change, not some committee of experts.

As a politician, do you see a political motive in this exercise?

Again, I don't want to attribute motives, but I think the Bharatiya Janata Party was badly affected by the fall of their previous government by just one vote. Hence, I think they were concerned with ensuring a secure five-year term for their next government. But it won't work because any changes in the Constitution to ensure stability raises other questions and issues.

A complaint is that our Constitution has been amended too many times -- 79 -- while the much older US constitution has had far fewer amendments.

It is to the strength of our Constitution that it is so flexible and could be amended 79 times. It is not a grievance, particularly in a society like India that was transforming from a colonial to a modern state. And in a large, diverse country like India, as we develop, we come across problems that require changes in the Constitution. The ability to amend the Constitution proves that it is elastic, it is not rigid, yet at the same time it is also provides guidelines to the people.

The Constitution has sustained India for 50 years and I don't know what the committee will tell us.

What do you perceive as being the weaknesses of our Constitution?

The weaknesses are not of the Constitution but of the system and of the State. I don't see why we should transfer these weaknesses to the Constitution. If we are not able to implement the Directive Principles, if we cannot send all our children to the school, then these are not the weaknesses of our Constitution. Our Constitution has declared that all children must be sent to school and the weakness is our failure to implement these directives. Why blame the Constitution?

So in your opinion there is no need to review the Constitution?

I don't think the setting up of a review committee is the best way of doing it. Whatever changes are required, we have the system of Parliament to make the needed changes. Parliament can discuss and by a two-third majority implement the changes needed to help make the Constitution more effective.

Second, this type of freebie is very strange because the panel can take up any issue, in fact much more than it can solve. There are certain promises that our society has kept under the carpet and chosen not to bring up. If the panel brings up such issues and yet provides no answers on how to solve them or implement them, then we will create more discontent than less and more friction.

If the government had applied its mind, it would have told the review panel what areas and subjects exactly to review, but it has not done so. It has asked the review committee to find out the areas of review and change. Then what are the terms of reference for the Constitution?

Another point is that if at all the government did want to review the Constitution, it could have moved a motion in Parliament and Parliament could have set up a review panel.

Or set up a constituent assembly?

Exactly. Also, the type of persons who will comprise this review committee remains important because in our country, unlike several other countries, our Constitution was given by the Constituent Assembly and not by the experts. Some countries had experts prepare their constitutions.

I think it was in 1941 that Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in a book in which he said that the Indian Constitution will be prepared by the constituent assembly. That is why our Preamble says, 'We the People of India give to ourselves this Constitution...'

Now would you rather that the judges give us a new Constitution?

So are you suggesting a constituent assembly?

I am not saying that. What I am stressing is that the government should have come to Parliament to set up a review committee, and given specific terms of reference mentioning what exactly should be looked at. Parliament could have set up its own Constitution review committee.

You are suggesting a parliamentary committee. Yet, many Indians despise politicians and don't trust them the least?

So you want to bypass Parliament now...

But you have to admit that people are disillusioned with politicians.

Do you want to bypass Parliament and go the Musharraf way? And what can the judges do with the people's disillusionment with the politicians? If we want to sustain democracy, then definitely politicians will be there. Parliament will be there.

Tell us what you think of this interview