Why should there be a change of Constitution?

Can they change the Constitution of India? Why should they change it? Will they destroy democracy and the federal character of our nation?  During the current elections, the Constitution of India has been discussed in popular ‘narrative’, calling for either its retention or removal as the country’s basic statute.  It was never a ‘subject’ of campaign with the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress within the INDIA block.
In this context, Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on 11th May 2024 said: “If voted to power, the saffron party will change the Constitution”. She further said that it was an ‘idea’ that will be a sin and people of the country would not allow it. In the name of religion, dividing brothers, and sisters is a sin. It is sin to create confusion and mislead people in the name of religion. In the name of religion weakening democracy and people, and saying that they will change the Constitution is a sin.  This Constitution was written by our elders with their struggle and blood. This Constitution was not written by Modiji. People of this country wrote it”.
At least two serious attempts were made to ‘destroy the structure of the Indian Constitution. First it was during the Emergency — 1975-77, when the then Congress government almost created a ‘Mini-Constitution’ through a problematic amendment. And, now the BJP is talking about the Constitution and is finding it hard to deny allegations that it is set to change the country’s basic statute substantially if the party get 400 seats in the LS elections. So, this has become a major issue before the people of India. They apprehend a danger and see the need to fight to protect our democracy. For voters, this is the agenda now: vote to secure our Bharath Constitution as constructed by Ambedkar’s team during 1950.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh questioned recently: “I want to ask the parties promising religion-based reservation, why are you fooling people? I want to ask to Congress and RJD party that if you have courage then do not do politics by throwing dust in the eyes of the public, do politics by looking the people in their eyes.” He has assured people that the BJP government will never change the Constitution or end reservation. He asserted that there was no question of changing the Preamble to the Constitution.
Recently, BJP parliamentarian Anantkumar Hegde said that the party needs 400 seats to “change the Constitution” and “if the Constitution has to be amended — the Congress fundamentally distorted the Constitution by forcefully filling unnecessary things in it, especially by bringing in laws that were aimed at suppressing the Hindu society — if all of this has to be changed; it is not possible with this (current) majority.”
Quoting the PM, he said: “Ab ki baar 400 paar, why 400? … We have two-thirds majority in Lok Sabha, (but) in Rajya Sabha we don’t have two-thirds majority. We have a small majority. In state governments, we do not have an adequate majority”. This ‘guarantee’ has caused a serious controversy and apprehension among voters.
Changing the ‘social’ part of the Preamble
The 42nd Amendment changed the description of India from a “sovereign democratic republic” to a “sovereign, socialist secular democratic republic”, and also changed the words “unity of the nation” to “unity and integrity of the nation”. But it was changed in the 42nd Amendment. They added some more words to the Preamble. It was called a Mini-Constitution.
The 43rd and 44th Amendments repealed the 42nd Amendment’s provision that Directive Principles take precedence over Fundamental Rights, and also curbed Parliament’s power to legislate against “anti-national activities”. The 42nd Amendment also added a new section to the Article on “Fundamental Duties” in the Constitution. The new section required citizens “to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India, transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.”
B R Ambedkar was opposed to declaring India’s social and economic structure in the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, on Jan 2008, rejected a PIL plea that sought the removal of the word ‘socialist’ from the Preamble. In the plea, an NGO wanted the word to be struck off the Constitution, saying that it was not a part of the original Constitution that had been drafted by Dr B R Ambedkar. While rejecting this petition, the then Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said… “It is a facet of democracy. It has not got any definite meaning. It gets different meanings in different times.”
The petition also sought to strike down the RPA (Representation of People Act), according to which political parties were forced to swear fealty to socialism in order to be recognised. The petition also claimed that the addition of the word during the Emergency was tantamount to re-writing the Constitution.
The Parliament was given unrestrained power to amend any parts of the Constitution, without judicial review. This essentially invalidated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala in 1973.
People should
come to rescue
Whenever dictators sought to destroy the structure of Constitution and worked against democracy, people came to rescue.  Now the same need has arisen to fight dictators who have assumed absolute powers.
Justice Chandrachud (senior) said: “In other words, Parliament cannot, under Article 368, expand its amending power so as to acquire for itself the right to repeal or abrogate the Constitution or to destroy its basic and essential features. The donee of a limited power cannot by the exercise of that power convert the limited power into an unlimited one.”
Its again the duty of the voters and people of India generally including youth to protect our federation and unity. This is the question before people, voters in India now.