Some Random Thoughts on the words: Socialist and Secular in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution

 

Some Random Thoughts on the words: Socialist and Secular in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution

I am writing this with somewhat mixed feelings of both concern and satisfaction, definitely not as a scholar or an intellectual, but as a layman, a humble citizen of India. Ever since the Constituent Assembly was formulated to make the constitution of India in 1946 many epoch making developments took place – Babasaheb

Ambedkar, who later became an important figure in the process of the constitution making, could barely manage to come to the Constituent Assembly from Bengal in the face of unethical and Manuwadi thinking of the Congress party and its leaders and also the mainstream of the society led by prominent Hindu leaders of the time. Ambedkar’s membership of the Constituent Assembly came to naught in the wake of partition of India as the seat he represented fell in East Pakistan. There was a talk and thinking to invite some constitutional expert from abroad to help us in making the constitution but by that time Ambedkar had showed his mettle in the initial sittings of the Constituent Assembly. The saner sense prevailed and it was felt to engage Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the process and he was got elected to

the Constituent Assembly from Bombay. It is believed that Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar’s staunch opponent till then, prevailed upon Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel among others to associate Ambedkar and avail of his expert services to make the constitution of India. Subsequently, he was made the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly. How skillfully he drafted the document and piloted through the Assembly is a well-documented story of the constitution making? There is no point in going into these details. The Constitution was finally passed, enacted and given to ourselves on November 26, 1949 and accordingly India became Republic in accordance with the new Constitution on January 26, 1950. Here before I proceed further, I would like to recommend to my readers and the Indians at large to read the last speech of Babasaheb Ambedkar which he made in Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949 before the Constitution was finally adopted. I think many of the distortions which have come into discourse and debate would automatically fade away. It would become clear as to what kind India the chief architect of constitution of India, Babasaheb Ambedkar, visualized and what were the warnings and cautions he expressed to safe guard our newly attained independence? It would help us to understand the debate and discourse a bit more easily. The underlying fact of the whole matter is that though Ambedkar, till his death in 1956, did not get his due space in the polity and society in the socio-cultural norms of inherent graded inequality yet it is a matter of satisfaction to note that India’s socio-political edifice is fully resting on the thought and legacy of Ambedkar after 75 years of India becoming a Republic under the arrangements of a well-made document called the Constitution of India. Though the constitution has already passed the test of time, to my mind, yet some controversies remain, some genuine to adjust to the changing requirements and some purposely generated by the vested interests under one pretext or the other.

Before I come to the ongoing acrimonious debate, let me write emphatically that if India is India today, it is because of the constitution made thoughtfully by our forefathers, led by Babasaheb Ambedkar. It is a matter of satisfaction. Why  I say so, I elaborate it briefly here?  - In the initial years of our independence, personality cult crept in our polity. The questions and doubts like
who after Jawaharlal Nehru started surfacing? Nehru passed away in

1964. Nothing happened and change over took place in accordance with the law of the land. PM Lal Bahadur Shastri got removed from the scene in mysterious circumstances in his death in Tashkent in the then USSR in 1966. The reigns of the country was transferred to Indira Gandhi again as per the constitutional norms. PM Indira Gandhi ruled the country with firm grip on the system even in the turbulent events of war with Pakistan and creation of Bangladesh in 1972. Indira Gandhi was unseated from the Lok Sabha by a verdict of the judiciary in pursuance of the law. She promulgated internal emergency to meet the situation in 1975 again in terms of the law of the country. Emergency was good or bad may be an issue of debate but there is no denying the fact that the constitution of India stipulates internal, external and even financial emergencies as required. Again it was potency of the constitution that PM Indira Gandhi had to lift the emergency in 1977 and face elections as required in a democratic set up. The strongest PM Indira Gandhi lost the elections making way to the new dispensation called Janta Party under the stewardship of Morarji Desai. It was all under the constitution; it is matter of gratification to note. These new leaders, the so called ‘game changers’ could not hold for long due to personal greed and deficit of moral values. Indira Gandhi again was voted to power by ‘we the people of India’ in accordance with the constitutional process. PM Indira Gandhi was assassinated by the bullets of her own security creating a sudden vacuum which also resulted in unfortunate and condemnable communal riots in Delhi and some other places. The constitution was at work and the changeover brought in Rajiv Gandhi in 1984. Again he was eliminated in violence in 1991 resulting in new challenges. But the constitution so skillfully made by Babasaheb Ambedkar with stood these onslaughts on the polity and society of India. With a view to cut the story short – governments of different hues came and gone, external challenges in the form of conflicts and standoffs with unfriendly neighbors, internal challenges of terrorism and communal strife like Ram Janam Bhoomi issue and also pandemics like Covid were handled with success working under the constitution and law of the land. With this, I can safely say that India has come a long way and has, perhaps, arrived but it has still to go a long way to reach. It could happen and we would make it happen further too if we remain and uphold the constitution which has paved the way to success and prosperity. If we tended to ignore these ground realities and put our vested agendas above the nation, as warned by Babasaheb Ambedkar himself in his last speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, we would put our independence into jeopardy and usher India into ‘Grammar of Anarchy’.

The Constitution of India is such a wonderful document which meets all the requirements of the diverse Indian society. Over the years, it has been amply demonstrated that the constitution is flexible and may be amended to adjust to the changing requirements on one hand on the other it is a rigid document which cannot be changed easily to maintain the much needed balance. With this, as many as 106

amendments have been made so far in the constitution with due process of law. The question of change and amendment in basic structure, principles and values of the constitution has been addressed repeatedly by the highest court of the land that is Supreme Court of India. The fundamental aspects of the constitution cannot be changed at all. Now the moot issue comes – Why this debate troubles the polity and constitutional edifice of India again and again. The answer partially rests in the belly of history and partially in the fast changing socio-cultural and also economic and political landscape of the country due to the power of the people of India unleashed by the Constitution made by the visionary icon, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

The reasons of this debate are both ideological and racial pursued to meet the political ends. The right wing Hindus are averse to both socialism and secularism on one hand and on the other at the back of their mind is Hindutava, Hindu Rashrashtra and Social Status Quo (Graded inequality based on Chaturvarna) as ordained in the Hindu scriptures. This is my simple understanding and explanation of this big issue. The right wing Hindus never accepted the constitution of India and recognized the contribution of Babasaheb Ambedkar in this regard from the day one. And till date, under one pretext or the other, raise this bogie to revisit debate and amend the constitution. Then came the emergency and the 42nd amendment of the constitution in 1976 inserting words Socialist and Secular in the preamble of the constitution as recommended by the Swaran Singh Committee. The constitution was doing well even without these two volatile and contentious words as duly explained and debated in the Constituent Assembly. Perhaps there was hardly any need to tinker with the preamble and generate avoidable controversies. Let me narrate an anecdote in this regard. One of my fellow BootanMandian back home in Jalandhar, Manohar Mahey shared this with me. Manohar’s family was supporters of Congress Party as such enjoyed good rapport with Sardar Swaran Singh who also belonged to Jalandhar. One of Manohar’s uncles (Taya), Seth Banta Ram was not happy with the emergency and tinkering with the constitution. After the 42nd amendment made on the recommendations of Swaran Singh Committee, Swaran Singh was made the President of Congress Party sometime in 1977-78. Seth Banta Ram sarcastically commented ‘Pehlan ene Aiyan (Svidhan) da barka barka kita ate hun eh party nu bhi kheru kheru karuga’ – First he destroyed the constitution and now he will break and disintegrate the party also. It showed the ground reality and public sentiment on the mindless amendments. On the other hand rationale behind the amendment inserting the words – Socialist and Secular by PM Indira Gandhi, to my mind, was the lingering fear of the onslaughts of right wing Hindu outfits like Jan Sangh/BJP and their mentors like RSS on the socialist credentials of the polity and attitude towards the minorities’ particularly Muslims and Christians. The political developments of 1974-77 - ‘Complete Revolution – Sampuran Kranti gave the government a handle to address these issues through the constitutional provisions.

There is nothing new in this and earlier attempts to amend and change the constitution by the right wing Hindutava elements. As said earlier, they never fully accepted the constitution and even its framers like Jawaharlal Nehru and Babasaheb Ambedkar. Till date, some misguided elements are busy in lowering and negating the contribution of Babasaheb Ambedkar by occasionally and selectively bringing in B.N Rau, who was an advisor to the Constituent Assembly, as the real framer of the constitution. When BJP came to power in the last years of 1990s and early years of 2000s under the stewardship of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a committee to renew the constitution was made as occasionally demanded and pressed by RSS and other likeminded outfits.  But the emerging political scenario generated by the forces, unleashed with the affirmative actions for

empowerment of dalits and women and also other marginalized segments of the society, by Babasaheb Ambedkar both by making constitutional provisions and otherwise did not allow the vested interests to succeed. By now things have come full circle. All political entities, big or small, are falling on each other to own Ambedkar and his legacy. Even RSS and its affiliates have changed tack and have expressed support to affirmative actions like Reservations and upholding of the Constitution and its core values, prima facie. Things have come to such a pass interestingly that if you want to negate and side-track an issue; you quote Ambedkar and on the other hand if you like to underline and support an issue, you need to quote Ambedkar. The

current debate initiated by RSS’s Dattatreya Hosabale regarding the words – Socialist and Secular is fully in line with this ‘Ambedkar phenomena’. The opposition led by Rahul Gandhi flaunts ‘Ambedkar’s Constitution’ to attack the BJP and RSS. The BJP and RSS take shelter under ‘Ambedkar’s Constitution’ to answer the opposition. Since these two words did not find mention in the Ambedkar’s original Constitution and were inserted only in 1976, these need to be deleted from the constitution. This is the camouflaged argument of the votaries of debate and change. The intent is clear but only time will tell how far they can go? Obviously, the path is full pitfalls and inherit dangers.

Coming to the debate and discussion in the Constituent Assembly on these words of Socialist and Secular, it is true it was intensively discussed and debated and the pilot of the draft constitution Babasaheb Ambedkar explained and answered each and every aspect of these two words. First, the word secular, Babasaheb was asked that you say India that is Bharat will be a secular country but the word secular does not exist in the entire constitution. His answer was classic. He said that all the relevant provisions, especially in the articles on fundamental rights and the directives of state policy, in the constitution speak loudly that India will be a secular country. Second, the word socialist, he amply explained that he would not favour tying a newly independent state to any political ‘ism’ and added that the aim and object was to make India a welfare state as compared to the concept of democratic socialism prevalent in Europe and all necessary provisions have been made in the document to govern India. It is as simple as that. Babasaheb Ambedkar, a visionary leader was not oblivious, to my mind, of the underlying current of ‘Hindutava’ supported by the right wing Hindus and also the political thinking of the left wingers; communists and socialists.  Following the theory of middle path of Gautama the Buddha, his conscious keeper, Babasaheb skillfully avoided these two volatile and controversial words of socialist and secular from the constitution. Here lies the farsighted approach and wisdom of the father of the constitution. Nothing has changed with the insertion of these words in the constitution in 1976 and, to mind, nothing will change by removing these words now as demanded and proposed by the votaries of Hindutava. These words could have been deleted in 43^rd and 44^th amendments introduced and adopted to undue the perceived mistakes done during the emergency but it was not done. The crux of the matter is that anybody who would try to tinker with the basic structures and fundamentals of the constitution will be opposed tooth and nail by ‘we the people of India’. India is India because of the constitution of India.

Babasaheb Ambedkar himself said that you give a bad constitution to good people; they will prove it good and you give a good constitution to bad people; they would prove it bad. We need to be good to do well. Apart from the letter and spirit of the constitution, we need to inculcate constitutional morality in implementing the constitution which, unfortunately, is missing from our aptitude. We need to have knowledgeable that is Gyansheel people in our august houses of legislation to take India forward as visualized by Babasaheb Ambedkar. He said, “If I may use the words of Buddha he said that man requires two things: one is Gyan and other is Sheel. Gyan without sheel is very dangerous. It must be accompanied by Sheel by which we mean character, moral courage, ability to be independent of any kind of temptation, truthful to ones ideals. I am very keen to see that no member enters this august assembly who does not possess Sheel in adequate degree.”

One or two final takes before I conclude this long analysis of a lay man – One, Given the track record, many people, particularly among the dalits, do not believe the ruling dispensation and their ideological mentor RSS on their pronouncements on Babasaheb Ambedkar and the constitution. I am not one among them. If they profess that they believe in Ambedkar and his legacy and the Constitution of India

which is called Ambedkar’s Constitution, let it be. We should take them on their face value till they prove themselves otherwise. If they have started liking Ambedkar and his legacy, it is good – the more the merrier. Second, I am a firm supporter of the Samrasta Chapter of RSS as it exactly fits in the lofty ideal of fraternity shrined in the preamble of the constitution. India needs an inclusive society where the majority, main stream of the society, lives in tandem and harmony with the minorities; especially the largest Islamic minority. Let us rise above the petty vested interests and search for the way forward to make India a developed country by 2047 as visualized by PM Narendra Modi. I recall poetry of Allma Iqbal which may give us some food for thought –

मस्जिद तो बना दी शब भर में ईमान की हरकत वालों ने
मन अपना पुराना पापी है, बरसों में नमाजी बन ना सका
(हालांकि मस्जिद रातों-रात बनाई गई थी ईमान वालों ने,
हमारा दिल वर्षों से पापी होने के कारण धर्मनिष्ठ नहीं हो सका)

तार आंखें तो हो जाती हैं, क्या लज्जत इस रोने में
जब खून-ए-जिगर की अमाजिश से अश्क पियाजी बन न साका
(हालांकि आंखें गीली हो जाती हैं लेकिन इस रोने में कोई मजा नहीं है
अगर दुख के खून के मिश्रण से आंसू गुलाबी नहीं हो पाते)

इकबाल बड़ा उपदेशक है, मन बातों में मोह लेता है
गुफ्तार का ये गाजी तो बना, किरदार का गाजी बन ना सका
(इकबाल एक अच्छे सलाहकार हैं, पल में ही दिल को मोह लेते हैं,
बातों में तो हीरो बन गए, लेकिन कर्मों में वो हीरो नहीं बन सके।)