The Constitution forms the fundamental foundation of most modern democracies. While many nations are occasionally compelled to discard old constitutions and draft new ones to suit their evolving local needs, the Constitution—at least in principle—remains the sacred scripture of a democracy. Amending it is often no easy task. Like any scripture, a constitution requires interpretation. It must be understood in spirit, not merely implemented to the letter at the cost of its deeper intent.
Mahatma Gandhi’s account of the formation of the South African Constitution during his Satyagraha days offers profound insights into the often-overlooked subtleties of constitutional governance. His observations help illuminate the tension between ‘government’ as a system of administration and ‘governance’ as a deeper principle that must serve the common good.
To my surprise, once the South African Constitution was agreed upon by consensus, even its spelling and grammatical errors were left untouched. These “mistakes” were preserved to show that the spirit of the text mattered more than its letter—a principle that holds true for both Constitutions and Scriptures. As always, Mahatmaji’s reflection encourages us to approach our own Constitution with this subtle but crucial understanding. In both life and law, striving for perfection can often distract from addressing practical needs. As it is famously said: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.”
Ashram, June 7, 2025
“A member of the House of Commons drew the attention of the House to a grammatical mistake [in the Constitution] and suggested that it should be rectified. The late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, while rejecting the suggestion, observed that faultless grammar was not essential to carrying on a government, that the Constitution was framed as a result of negotiations between the British Cabinet and the ministers of South Africa and that they did not reserve even the right of correcting a grammatical error to the British Parliament. Consequently, the Constitution recast in the form of an Imperial bill passed through both Houses of Parliament, just as it was, without the slightest alteration.”
— M. K. Gandhi, Satyagraha in South Africa, tr. Valji Govindji Desai, p. 24
“There are some provisions in the Act of Union, which may appear meaningless to the lay reader. They have led to a great increase in expenditure. This had not escaped the notice of the framers of the Constitution; but their object was not to attain perfection, but by compromise to arrive at an understanding and to make the Constitution a success. Everyone knows that four local legislatures, four capitals and four Governors are unnecessary and serve for mere show. But the shrewd statesmen of South Africa did not object. The arrangement is showy and entails additional expenditure, but union was desirable and therefore the statesmen did what they thought fit, regardless of outside criticism and got their policy approved by the British Parliament.”
— ibid., pp. 24–25— source www.mkgandi.org,
[This was part of CWMG vol. 29]
Leave a Reply