India’s Constitution is often called a miracle document: the world’s largest democracy born from chaos, partition scars, poverty, and incredible diversity. On January 26, 1950, we gave ourselves a framework for governance that has endured wars, emergencies, insurgencies, and seven decades of elections. Yet as ordinary citizens looking back in 2026, many of us quietly feel that it should have been built tougher with stronger guardrails when we see our democratic rank as per V-Dem to 100, rank in fundamental rights 103/143.
This isn’t about blaming Dr. B.R. Ambedkar or the Constituent Assembly. Ambedkar himself warned that no constitution is foolproof if the people running it lack “constitutional morality.” He bet on future generations to fill the gaps with wisdom, education, and restraint.
But even looking at data available at their disposal then that bet was highly optimistic looking nothing short of miracle. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51 while defending the U.S. Constitution:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
Madison’s realism cuts to the heart: **guardrails exist because humans are not angels**. We are ambitious, flawed, sometimes greedy, sometimes fearful—capable of great good but also of abusing power when unchecked. For a civilization-state like India—ancient layers of language, culture, faith, region, and inequality stacked together—checks and balances need to be deep and interlocking, not just hopeful.
Five key design choices from 1949 stand out as missed opportunities for greater resilience. None is a magic fix, but together they would have made slow erosion far harder.
**1. True Federalism – Respecting the Civilization-State Reality**
India is civilization state with rich diversity which is its strength not weakness. It was not nation state requiring central power as supreme.
Democracy is about checks and balances. Federalism brings that extra layer of checks and balances. And federalism does not mean right of cessation to any state.
And military, currency, foreign affairs, still stay with central government but states are better to understand needs of their polity which are critical for large country like India. And federalism had proven to work even in 1860s USA, its toughest test ever.
**2. Fundamental Rights Protected by Due Process of Law**
Article 21 says no one shall be deprived of life or liberty “except according to procedure established by law.”
This is narrower than the American “due process” clause or German constitutions’ totally non-neogiable after
learning from systematic collapse of fundamental right seen in Weimal republic and rise of Hitlers Third Reich.
Germany still holds top 5 position in democratic rights difficult for large countries.
**3. Rigorours Amendment Procedure**
Constitution gives guarantees for citizens for generations and centuries. Fundmantal principles governing nations dont change for centuries. So amendments should only be done after very careful considerations involving all the constituents. USA had 27 amendments over 235 years of constitution, Germany 60 in 75 years and and 104 in 76 years. Article 368 allows changes with relative ease: special majority in Parliament for most, plus half the states for federal matters—but often just “present and voting,” not total membership This flexibility has produced over 100 amendments,some profound. A more rigorous process—say, two-thirds of total membership in both Houses plus three-fourths of states for core change would have locked in essentials like federal balance, secularism, and democracy. The basic structure doctrine (a judicial invention in 1973) wouldn’t have been needed as a patch; the text itself would have been harder to chip away.
**4. A Genuinely Independent Judiciary from the Start**
Judicial appointments began executive-heavy, later evolving into the collegium via court rulings. Proposals existed for an independent commission assessing needs and requiring supermajority ratification
(two-thirds in Parliament). An arm’s-length commission with parliamentary oversight would have insulated judges from political pressure earlier. Fewer battles over control, stronger checks on executive excess,
and less risk of institutional capture. Even US suffeed on judicial front where simple majority of Senate
was considered enough. And so Germany went for 2/3 majority. Independent judiciary does not only attract best talent but
would also ensure that adequate budget is made avaiable for speedy delivery of justice.l
***5. Voting as an Explicit Fundamental Right**
Universal adult franchise was revolutionary, but kept statutory—not in Part III as a core right. Parliament decides rules, disqualifications, and mechanics via ordinary law.
Making voting a fundamental right (protected from easy dilution) would have hardened the electoral foundation. Changes to voter ID, funding transparency, or representation would face stricter scrutiny, reducing the temptation to tweak the rules of the game.
These aren’t radical ideas—they were debated or available in global models by 1949.
The Assembly chose flexibility and central strength to osteinably hold a wounded nation together.
But as future events showed Indian unity was held more due to civilization intertia than these choices.
For example our neighbour Bangala Desh separated since they did not get decentralization they wanted like non-imposition of Urdu, more powers and so on.
And it has come at serious costs, use of AFSA to stablise and ever declining democratic and judicial ranks.
The failures we see aren’t bugs; they’re features of a design that trusted future wisdom more than ironclad locks—precisely because, as Madison reminded us, men are not angels as hostory had shown world over from France, Germany which made their constitution regarded best in the world today on promulgated on 23rd May 1949 full 5 months before we adoped our constitution
on 26 November 1949.
As citizens, we inherit both the miracle and the vulnerabilities. The question isn’t rewriting history—it’s whether we can strengthen these shields now:
devolve more fiscally, tighten amendments where it counts, enshrine due process-like protections, insulate the judiciary further for speedy justice, and elevate voting to untouchable status.
India’s democracy is still precious. It deserves armor worthy of a civilization-state.
What do you think—where should the next push begin?