Isn’t It Time We Abolished “Fundamental Duties”?

One thing has bothered me no end about the Indian Constitution – the concept of fundamental duties. Every Indian I know takes it for granted that because we have “fundamental rights”, we should have “fundamental duties”. As if one is a counterbalance to the other. As if we require a certain moral responsibility to counteract the privilege of receiving certain rights.

"Rights" do NOT have to be earned!
"Rights" do NOT have to be earned!

These so-called “fundamental duties” occupy a curious position in the Constitution. They are not laws in the normal sense of the word. There is no punishment or penalty for violating them. Many of them are ridiculously vague such as the injunction to “strive for excellence”. Suppose I don’t want to strive for excellence? What if I’m perfectly content the way I am and with the way my life is going? Am I less of a citizen of India? Should I leave the country? What the hell does it mean?

This dangerous concept of fundamental duties has poisoned the minds of Indians. It has made  them feel that the state is doing them a favor by giving them a set of fundamental rights. Indians do not feel entitled to their rights. They look on them as privileges at best – something that must be paid for through a kind of moral obligation.

Think for a moment how absurd the concept is. Suppose you and I have a contract. The terms of the contract are quite specific laying down what I’m supposed to do, what you’re supposed to do and what consequences will arise if either of us violates the agreement. Now imagine that I come up to you and say “This contract is all very well. But guess what? You also have a moral obligation to do this, and this, and this! It’s not there in the contract. There are no penalties or consequences for you not doing them. But I’d like you to do them any way!”

Wouldn’t you laugh in my face?

As citizens of India, we have a contract with the state. The state guarantees our fundamental rights like freedom of expression etc., provides us with facilities such as a police force, printed currency, and certain public amenities. In return we agree to pay our taxes and follow the laws. Nothing else. We have no other obligation. There is no other “moral duty”.

And yet, many Indians will trot out the standard dialogue of “with freedom comes responsibility” as if we are not already paying the price with our taxes and by following the law. Let me be clear here – I have NO moral obligation to India or to any other country I live in other than the bare terms of the social contract. I do not view my fundamental rights as privileges. They are RIGHTS. I pay for them. And I demand them. Don’t come to me and try and tell me that I have to exercise my rights “responsibly” from a legal point of view. I might indeed choose to restrict the use of my rights – but that is my choice and my choice alone. No one, least of all the government, has the right to claim otherwise.

So what do you think this absurd concept of fundamental duties means? Isn’t it time we got together and abolished them? To my knowledge, no other free country has such a nebulous, and purposely vague set of injunctions meant to make a population of citizens feel guilty and privileged. Why should we have it?

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (5)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (1)
  • You're an asshole (0)

52 thoughts on “Isn’t It Time We Abolished “Fundamental Duties”?”

  1. “Suppose I don’t want to strive for excellence?” Besides won’t, ‘striving for excellence’ be different things to different people?
    BTW I had almost forgotten about the fundamental duties which I had read in my text books so far back, till this blog brought it to my notice once again.

    Reply

    • In reply to Shail

      Indeed, it could very well mean different things to different people.

      The fact that no one gives a damn about fundamental duties is yet another indication that they need to be dumped. They do nothing but foster an unhealthy mentality making people feel grateful to the government for “allowing” us to have fundamental rights.

      Reply

  2. I don’t care on what goes on in INDIA it has nothing to do with me and could care less.I only care on what goes on in my COUNTRY.
    INDIA what ever happens,happens they want to change it’s up to them good luck to them.I will say this every person has rights and don’t have to earn them.It’s automatic

    Reply

  3. You’re right. It is ludicrous to suggest that we owe any country anything. Penn Jillette once wrote about JFK’s ask not speech: “It’s half right.” I agree. Your owe your country nothing. Your country owes you nothing but liberty and protection. This is classic paternalistic nanny-state policy: telling people to strive for excellence.

    Reply

    • In reply to liberalcynic

      The problem is that the government/country views its citizens as its property. Not as individuals who have their own goals and ends in life separate from any that the country may desire.

      One of the reasons why I will never join the military.

      Reply

  4. Wow! I don’t even remember studying about this in school. It must have been one of those questions for which “any vague thing goes” ;)

    The last added fundamental duty : “to provide opportunities for education by the parent the guardian, to his child, or a ward between the age of 6-14 years as the case may be”
    I would think this should be a law. Why is a moral obligation? It should be something “parent/guardian should do it or in case of financial inability, they should make arrangements for the state to do it – by law”.

    But overall, the set of duties seem to stem from our grand old Sanskruti/Parampara. Duties to one’s parents include never disobeying them, duties to your long dead ancestors include having a minimum of one son and performing periodic rituals etc etc etc. Anything that can be used to arm-twist people as per one’s convenience.

    Interestingly, Ambedkar’s constitution did not have these duties.. It was added during the emergency period. No wonder it is ridiculous!

    Reply

  5. I have had this conversation and similar arguments with my friends for so many years… it is strange everyone things of duties before rights!
    Fundamental duties sounds very socialist era..

    That said in India we hardly have the concept that the state exists to protect our rights and not the other way around….

    Reply

    • In reply to Aditya

      It kind of does sound socialist yes. In the idea that we all exist as part of the state and that the state is greater than the people who live in it.

      Constitutionally, what India has is a system where the individual is more important than “society” or even the state. Someone must have found such a notion offensive and therefore introduced this “duties” concept which doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Actually from a pragmatic point of view one person cannot be more important than the state or society – rather it is not practical to enforce it. But unfortunately that apparent pragmatic need has been pushed into ‘individual rights’ vs popular opinion.

        Rights are more important than someones opinions, is a concept that is slightly alien in India. The idea of duties is pretty similar to that dreadful word called ‘sentiments’ or ‘offensive’.

        Reply

  6. maybe they wanted to fill in a few pages and decided to add duties…
    Or
    Maybe they want you to “strive towards excellence” so that large groups of people don’t spend their entire life in a drug fueled purple haze looking into the “middle distance”.

    they look more like common sense guidelines…

    Reply

  7. People seems to assume that our current state of nature was always been like this and will be. Well it wasn’t. You won’t be able to enjoy your so called rights, if it weren’t for community. Community is based on mutual understanding. Without mutual understanding there is nothing like rights and duties. In fact you are constantly struggling for survival. You are always under constant threat or fear. That State of Nature is highly inconvenient and full of uncertainty.

    The people must realize that the fundamental rights they are enjoying are privilege. That privilege is mark of human dignity and civilization. We won’t be able live our life with dignity, if we do not live in community. The life in State of Nature is without dignity and full of uncertainty. That is why we become a member of community to live with dignity. But by becoming member of a community you have to give up certain behavior or submit to certain ethical principle set by community in return for living life with dignity and certainty.

    Only by living in community that we live with dignity.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fenil

      Agreed – we have to have a certain behavior.

      As mentioned in my post, that behavior is simply following the laws and paying taxes. Nothing more.

      I don’t agree with your “ethical principle set”. And I don’t live in a community. I live as an individual and have business with a lot of other individuals. I hardly know them personally at all.

      The idea of a “community” died when we moved out of villages and into cities.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        The meaning of community here is society.

        And my points was that whatever we able to do is because of cooperation between individuals. Without which we simply won’t be able to live. Therefor, our survival simple depends on survival of our other individuals. Say, for example, A, B, C and D are four individual comprising a society. They have come together to form a group which is working for a mutual interest. IOW, now there survival is depended on each other or say there self interest lies in the self interest of others. While, therefor, transacting with each other one should not undertake the activity which is detrimental to the interest of others. Because in doing so one is acting against his self interest. Therefor, it is kind of tacit contract where we agree to do not work against each other interest. That is like having ethical principle.

        Our today’s society is not comprise of 4 persons. It is much larger than that. Therefor we are simply not able connect our self with each other. However we all are connected. We all buy services of another by offering our services. Also, there is also no need to know each other personally. Therefor one should follow a ethics for their own survival and living life with dignity. That ethical principle would be not to work against each others interest.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        I agree. Certainly we must follow rules for the survival of others- those are the laws of the land. Like not murdering, robbing, raping, cheating, physical assaulting etc. Like paying our taxes. These are the only rules.

        My point is that the laws of the land already spell out everything we have to do in order to cooperate. There’s no need for anything “extra”. No need for dubious things like “duties”. No need for any extra “ethics” that are imposed by the state.

        Just the laws. That’s the agreement no?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I got your point. You are assuming that everything is taken care by law.

        Well, that is not the case. What would you say about a person who can go to any extent to satisfy his wants, or achieve his goals or ambitions?

        Reply

  8. Why one should not go to any extent even without breaking the law?

    This is what I was trying to explain during all this time. This narcissists attitude makes the case for following the ethics principles for two reason.

    Firstly, Our whole existence hangs in the balance of society. Balance of the society will be disturb, If we do not consider interest of the society and work in narcissist way.

    Secondly, law is not capable of restraining every behavior of human nor it is capable of punishing each culprit.

    Reply

    • In reply to Fenil

      What we call “society” is just a collection of people – nothing more. Society doesn’t exist as a separate concept. There’s no need to “keep society together”. Everything will be fine if we just follow the laws.

      I think I will be better able to understand what you’re saying if you provide me with an example where a person is not breaking the law and whose behavior still needs to be regulated by the government.

      In my opinion, we don’t need to care about society. Just follow the laws and everything will be ok.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        The base of the lies in ethical principle.

        In our daily action we do not think whether it is legal or illegal rather it is right or wrong. Following a law in itself is a moral responsibility of citizen.

        I am trying to formulate a example for you.

        Meanwhile, can you enlighten me more on what fundamental duties you are opposed to?

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        * The base of the law lies in ethical Principle.

        In our daily action we do not think whether it is legal or illegal rather it is right or wrong. Following a law in itself is a moral responsibility of citizen.

        I am trying to formulate a example for you.

        Meanwhile, can you enlighten me more on what fundamental duties you are opposed to?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Referring back your earlier argument, you might have seen the cases where people are trying escape the law. They know they have done wrong yet they try to mold the law. Try to take benefits of loopholes. It is not fault of the law that it is weak. It is just that it is difficult to spell every incident and capture them into law. It leaves the scope for narcissists people to take advantage of that. That when you wish people to have a moral sense of their action.

        Moral duties are like social norms we follow, which can not be forced by law but need to followed by person responsibly for his as well as society’s betterment.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        It’s true that we generally do things without thinking of the law.

        That’s because all laws are centered around one fundamental principle which comes naturally to us – don’t injure other people. Don’t cheat other people.

        Any law that goes beyond that basic principle we either don’t follow properly or forget. So in reality we don’t even need the laws. All we have to do is keep to ourselves and not injure anyone else.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        In past there weren’t any law for releasing chemical waste of industry into river and for pollution. As time passed by we came to know about negative effect of pollution on human life and danger of it on future generation. We enacted law to prevent these situation. Despite this we know that people or corporate always go out of way for short term gain. They are doing it as if they do not the consequences of that. This is where we need to have strong moral sense of our action.

        For this to happen one must have conscious sense of moral responsibility. People must know they have some responsibility towards society, irrespective of how many people they know personally. This is only possible when people know how their interest are interconnected in society and how society is working in their own interest.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        But there’s no need to invoke morals here. Once we know that toxins etc are harmful, then merely following the laws is enough. Again, if we apply the basic principle of “don’t injure anyone else”, everything will be fine.

        The principle of “don’t injure other people” is about as far as I’m willing to go to acknowledge “ethics” in this matter. Certainly not things like “respect the flag”, or “strive for excellence” or any other of the many so called “fundamental duties” in the Indian constitution.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        We have to have strong moral sense prevailing in society. That is what binding us together, which is otherwise is not possible. Because once you loose that grip, which is kind of happening today, man will behave like a animal. Therefor at anytime we must not pronounce that there is nothing like a ethics.

        We may not like these, but as I said, we should not publicizes this. All this have meaning after that. It is like there are no moral laws yet we need it. We got to define them. Above duties give the sense of unity.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        I don’t agree that without a “grip”, humans behave like animals. We’re perfectly capable of regulating ourselves without an external force.

        Take me for instance. I don’t believe in “society” etc, but still I behave kindly towards other people…not because I have to, but because it feels good.

        So we don’t need the government to tell us or lecture to us. Just leave us alone and everything will be ok.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        That is true for you and me and people like us. But that is certainly not true for mass population. Mass population has always needed guidance from authority.

        Whatever we are able to do or talk or think is all because society. Without society we would never have reached at the state which we are living.

        Reply

      • In reply to Fenil

        If you treat people like children, they will remain children. It’s arrogant to think that the masses “need guidance”. They don’t. They can (and have to) take care of themselves.

        The state is not a father or mother figure.

        When we stop treating people like children, they will become self reliant. Otherwise people will not behave like adults. They don’t need protection or “guidance”.

        Reply

  9. “….I pay for them. And I demand them….”

    Dont know if this came up already in the comments, but you dont buy rights. They are yours already. Richer people dont (or at least shouldnt) get more rights than poorer people. If a homeless person who has never paid a paisa in tax gets into a scrap with you, she should have exactly the same rights as you.

    thanks
    Jai

    Reply

Leave a Comment