The parliamentary debate on the Constitution turned out to be yet another occasion of intense diatribe between the ruling alliance and the Opposition. While both sides agreed on the supremacy of the Constitution, now in its 75th year, each accused the other of undermining it. The debate could have been an opportunity to explore a new common ground for a sharply polarised polity, but, unfortunately, that is not how it played out. Speakers from parties in power, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Opposition speakers led by the Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, railed against their political opponents and used the Constitution as a facade for their partisan politics. Mr. Gandhi views the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Mr. Modi as disloyal to the Constitution, and sought to connect it all to the Hindutva ideology. Mr. Modi singled out Mr. Gandhi’s family, starting from his great-grandfather and the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, for a no-holds-barred attack — that it has undermined the Constitution through acts of omission and commission. Both sides used facts selectively and the statements of past actors to exaggerate the point that their opponents did more harm to the Constitution than they themselves. Such an approach may work as a propaganda strategy but can do little in terms of constructive engagement on the question.

The Constitution, understood as a living document, provides the foundation and the framework for a fairer social, political and economic order for the country. Constitutionalism is an evolving project, and any discussion on it must account for this dynamism. History is a good teacher, but litigating the past endlessly is not a helpful learning technique. There have been many dark moments in the 75-year history of the Constitution, including the imposition of Emergency, but the brighter and bigger picture is that it still offers the strongest possible ethos for a secular, pluralist and progressive nation. The BJP and the Congress calling each other names is akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Both sides say they are for strengthening the unity of the country, but accuse each other of dividing the country. What emerges from the debate is that there is a lot of blame to go around; what were missing were introspection and self-reflection. Mr. Modi is right in saying that the Constitution is a unifier of the nation, and cited his government’s push for a uniform civil code as an example of the commitment to advancing this unity. Uneven demographic and economic trends will require close and unified attention by the political class in the decades ahead to reimagine the constitutional scheme. Sadly, little time was spent on these questions.