From the days of law college, I used to think- what is there in law, which is ours. You see any concept, any theory, any dogma. All of it is Western. According to a study, during the historical phase of Guptas, India was producing about 35% of world GDP. That is to say India alone was contributing 35% of the world's wealth. This figure was even higher at earlier phases of history. At the time of independence, we were left as 'fragile five' economies by the British. And today after seventy five years of independence, we command just about five percent of the world economy in spite of being a nation of 1.5 billion.

This level of progress was simply not possible unless our legal system was functioning at the utmost level of perfection. The question is- why our forefathers did not adopt the earlier legal framework? Why did they just adopt the British legal system which in essence is not ours? Law and legal framework is not value neutral like technology or scientific principles. It directly touches the day to day moral and social life of people on the ground. It bears the entire socio, economic and administrative structures. Thus it has to contain the fragrance of soil. Why is it being said so?

Let us see our basic document- the Constitution. You simply compare the Constitution with the Government of India Act, 1935, a British document. About eighty-five percent of the Constitution is copied from this Act. The remaining fifteen percent is again borrowed from the US, Canada, Germany, Japan and so on. The country came out of the clutches of foreigners officially on 15th August, 1947. The Constitution was adopted on 26th November, 1949. Thus for the whole of about two years, our forefathers appear to be busy in deciding what is to be 'copied' from other countries; after copying almost the entire Government of India Act, 1935. They never appear to get focussed on our legal concepts. These concepts could have been modified as per need of time and adopted. But no attention appears to be paid on this. Why is it said so? Let us see.

The phrase "Rule of Law" connotes the impression that people shall be 'ruled' not by monarchy but by 'law'. This notion emerged due to direct conflict between 'Protestant Reformists' and 'Catholic Church' in Europe. The object was two fold. First, to curb the influence of the Church over European Kingdoms and people. Secondly to check the powers of ruling elites in those Kingdoms. Thus the notion arose purely out of the historical situations in Europe and particularly in Britain. 

The situation in India has been totally different. Here the efforts of our great thinkers and warriors had been to 'root-in Dharm' or "Dharm-sthaapan". Indian people before the Arab invasion, were always regulated by norms of 'Dharm'. By virtue of those norms, they were being regulated and propelled by codes of 'Kartavya'. India before the arrival of Arab culture was never ruled directly by whims of monarchs or any superior religious institution. There is simply no historical evidence of it. Being so the question is- are we supposed to follow the European notion of 'Rule of Law' or we should strive towards "Dharm-sthaapan"? The answer is left to the thinking of readers.

The term 'law' itself is problematic from an Indian point of view. In theory, laws are the byproduct of "social contract" at the initial phase of human evolution. Now this 'social contract theory' in itself was a revolt against Church dominated dogma- that man was created by God. This theory is pegged on 'doctrine of evolution'. That is- humans evolved from apes. And in the advanced stage of evolution, they entered into a contract and from that contract, some rules emerged. These rules attained sanction of State and matured into law. 

In Indian thinking, there is no concept of 'creation' at first hand. In terms of 'Darshan', the 'Jeev' evolves at layers of 'Chetan' i.e. consciousness. This evolution takes place right from 'Jadd' objects like rocks and mountains- to humans. Again in humans, the 'Chetan' keeps evolving birth after birth. The end result of this evolution, as 'Darshan' says, is 'Moksh'. Being so, the code of 'Dharma' is not something that was 'created' by humans or by God. These codes were already present. It manifested itself with the rising level of 'Chetan'. Hence 'law' and 'codes of Dharm' are altogether different phenomena. How is it? Let us see.

The end of 'law' is always protection of 'rights'. Now this 'right concept' is again a product of Western historical situations. In the Middle Ages, the catholic Church was dominating all spheres of life of common people as well as the States. The notion of right evolved as a means of reform. A close look suggests that- presence of right in a citizen means- duty of State or other citizens to that extent. This is likely to cause problems particularly in Indian situations. 

The Indian 'Dharshan' has never been in favour of overt-expression. It is always inward looking. It believes in reforming from inward and not vice-versa. In India, the 'Dharm' makes an individual bound with the code of 'kartavyas'. This sense of 'kartavya' does not come because someone has the right. It is self propelled. As such in the Indian situation, the notion of right is misnomer. What prevails here is 'kartavya'. Thus if everyone follows his 'Kartavya' guided by his 'Dharma', the society is bound to operate smoothly. Thus adoption of Western system of 'right' in Indian soil is the cause of several troubles we are facing today.

The above two-three examples are just the glimpse of- where our legal system is suffering. Now what can be the solution? Can we bring a revolution by replacing all codes of law by new ones? Yes we can. But practically it is impossible to do in the short run. The natural solution can be the "Change of Gaze''. The existing laws and system may remain the same. But the lens of interpretation may be changed. Instead of deploying Western theories and philosophies, - we should interpret those laws by deploying our own 'Darshan' and 'shastras'.