A RE C ONSTITUTIONS S TATIC ?

A RE C ONSTITUTIONS S TATIC ? It is not uncommon for nations to rewrite their constitutions in response to changed circumstances or change of ideas within the society or even due to political upheavals. The Soviet Union had four constitutions in its life of years ( , , and ). In , the rule of the Communist Party of Soviet Union came to an end and soon the Soviet federation disintegrated. After this political upheaval, the newly formed Russian federation adopted a new constitution in . But look at India. The Constitution of India was adopted on November . Its implementation formally started from January . More than fifty-five years after that, the same constitution continues to function as the framework within which the government of our country operates. Is it that our Constitution is so good that it needs no change? Was it that our Constitution makers were so farsighted and wise that they had foreseen all the changes that would take place in the future? In some sense both the answers are correct. It is true that we have inherited a very robust Constitution. The basic framework of the Constitution is very much suited to our country. It is also true that the Constitution makers were very farsighted and provided for many solutions for future situations. But no constitution can provide for all eventualities. No document can be such that it needs no change. France had numerous constitutions in the last two centuries. After the revolution and during the Napoleonic period, France underwent continuous experimentation about a constitution: The post- revolution constitution of is called the period of the first French republic. Then commenced the second French republic in . The third French republic was formed with a new constitution in . In , with a new constitution, the fourth French republic came into being. Finally, in , the fifth French republic came into being with yet another constitution. It seems to me that constitutional changes are very closely linked to political developments.