India, known for ‘Shashtrarth’, is now a victim of a political culture where any scope for debate and discussion becomes the victim of polemics. It is apparent that after Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale’s proposal to have a discussion on two terms, including ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’, inserted in the preamble of the Constitution in 1976, sparked a controversy.
His suggestion was branded as RSS and the BJP’s attempt to change the Constitution. Opposition parties and their ideologues, who have been practicing a pseudo-secular idea, are not prepared to face open intellectual debate on issues like secularism and socialism, which vitally impact our society. They see all such efforts as an emerging counter-hegemonic force. Exactly this happened with Hosabale’s proposal.
Both the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were debated at great length in the Constituent Assembly on the preamble. Some of the members wanted the inclusion of both the terms, socialist and secular, in the preamble. KT Shah said that by including socialism as an idea in the preamble, India shows determination to fight inequality. But, none other than the father of the Constitution, BR Ambedkar, strongly opposed the amendment proposed by KT Shah. In the words of Ambedkar, “The constituent assembly cannot tie up the future generations with a particular idea. They are free to decide their pattern of governance.”
He argued that there had been umpteen provisions in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) to address all kinds of inequality and human dignity. And finally, he asked, “how much socialism you want more?”
The preamble of the Constitution is a declaration of ideals of a society to be achieved. It is beyond sectarian and narrow thoughts and philosophies. The preamble of the Indian Constitution articulates our ideals in the four virtuous and potent terms: Justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
No state can be called a secular and democratic state if it fails to internalise all four or any of these ideas. The state should be judicious and has to provide an atmosphere in which liberty and fraternity should foster on the one hand, and it must strive to achieve the goal of becoming an egalitarian society on the other, irrespective of the pattern of governance. The ruling Congress party in 1976 amended the Constitution in an authoritarian way during the Emergency, when the entire Opposition was in prison.
Those who plead that the removal of socialist and secular terms from the preamble would be an attack on the basic structure of the Constitution are in great delusion. There has been a definitional deficit in both the terms socialist and secular. This is an attempt to degrade the universal trait of the preamble to a sectarian horizon.
Socialism is a particular ‘ism’, and no Constitution can force the present and the future society to be bound to a particular ‘ism’. If an individual or a group of people proclaim that they are anti socialist, which is their natural fundamental right, they automatically become anti-constitution. So, this shows that Dr Ambedkar was very right in his judgment that no ism should get a place in the preamble.
The very term secular does not represent the Indian ethos. We all know that there has been a battle for supremacy and political power between the church and the state. It has never happened in India.
Moreover, the bloody battle between Catholics and Protestants, as well as among the Abrahamic religions that are Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Farsi, gave birth to the very term and concept of secularism. When society does not accept spiritual and religious diversity as an essence of its way of life, then the only way to achieve harmony and co-existence is through constitutional doctrine. Historically, India has never been a binary of bigotry and otherness. The census during the British regime very beautifully portrayed the majority community of India, that is, Hindus. The census commissioner of the census wrote substantially, “Hindus do not bother about their neighbours’ faith.”
There has been a continuous process of reproduction and regeneration of philosophies, sects, and modes of worship; therefore, India is secular by the Hindu way of life. It is not secular because of the inclusion of the term secular in the Constitution.
If secularism is threatened by the attitudes of Semantical religions, Christianity and Islam, there is no secret that both are proselytisation for conversion and want to achieve uniformity. This is anathema to the Hindu way of life.
The liberalism practiced by Hindus, in obvious form, is its relationship with a numerically marginalised minority. According to the 1931 census, there were 109,000 Parsis and 24,000 Jews in India due to their persecution from their respective foreign lands; none of them faced any conversion or oppression by Hindus. Is it not ironic that Hindus are being taught to be secular?
Secularism in India is guaranteed until Hindus command a numerical majority and continue to believe in diversity. Hypothetically, if the Hindu population is reduced to less than 50 per cent, the Constitution will be reduced to merely a piece of paper.
There was another reason for the Congress to include these terms in the Constitution. The former Soviet Union supported Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian regime. Therefore, to appease the communist party of the Soviet Union, the very term socialist was inserted into the preamble. The rulers during the Emergency ruthlessly persecuted the Muslims. The atrocities against hundreds of families at Turkman Gate in New Delhi are a glaring example of this. This has also been repeated in the other parts of the country. To hide the shame and sins, Indira Gandhi used the secular term as a mascot.
The universal character of the preamble, which was the product of rigorous intellectual discourse of the constituent assembly, was attacked by pseudo-secular forces for their sectarian political gains. Our constituent assembly debate reflects India’s historical, democratic spirit.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly said India is the mother of democracy. The history of our democratic tradition goes back to the ‘Sabha’ and ‘Samiti’ of the Vedic era and the republican government in Lichhvi (Vaishali).
This is well presented by K P Jaiswal’s words in Hindu Polity (1924) as the constituent assembly’s ideal model of discourse, for instance, H V Kamath brought an amendment to include God in the preamble. Many members, including Chairman Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Purnima Banerjee, requested him to withdraw the amendment. He flatly refused and said that in a democracy, anything under the sun can be discussed. Finally, it was debated and ruled out.
Gandhian Brijeshwar Prasad wanted Mahatma Gandhi’s name in the preamble, but it was opposed by another Gandhian, J B Kriplani, and Dr Rajendra Prasad said neither God nor Gandhi could be a part of the preamble. In the light of such a high tradition of debate, Indian opposition parties do not have a minimal tolerance to debate on issues raised by the General Secretary of the most powerful cultural organisation, that is, the RSS. Politicisation of ideas, wisdom, and values is the lowest stage of any democratic society, and we are passing through such a stage in the country.
In an atmosphere where abuse and allegations became popular debating skills and traits, RSS continues to push Indian discourse on ideas. It’s Sarsanghachalak Dr Mohan Bhagwat’s three-day Vigyan Bhavan speeches and interactions were an amazing intervention. Hosabale’s advice should be seen in that context.
(The writer is Former MP, Rajya Sabha and RSS ideologue)
