Anupam- The Dreamer

Of many things that are worth cherishing about our common shared heritage, there is one thing that I admire as one of the best. That is, the Indian society traditionally has a very good characteristic of holding debates and dialogue. Since the ancient times till today, generations have nurtured and nourished this great tradition of ours. From the शास्त्रार्थ and the great assemblies in the times of great kings of the learned men and women, to the culture of अनेकांतवाद (anekaantvaad) and syncretism in the middle ages, to the extensive and vast debates in the Constituent Assembly leading to our Constitution, this tradition of debates and dialogue has remained constant throughout. This is not a mere coincidence that the Constituent Assembly with vast diversity of members in terms of religion, region, caste, sex, race, place of birth etc. met over 165 days across 3 years to finalize our Constitution and its Preamble. And each and every Article of the Constitution and even the wording of Preamble was extensively debated, voted upon and only then was finalized.

In this context, it is imperative to analyse the contemporary debate surrounding the words “Socialist” and “Secular” in our Preamble. It is noteworthy that when Constitution was adopted on 26^th Nov, 1949 by “We, the people of India”, the original Preamble included the words “Sovereign, Democratic, Republic” as our ideals. Additionally, in the “Fraternity”, the words “unity and integrity of our Nation” were not present. It was only through the 42^nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, these words were added to the original Preamble.

Now, here few points are noteworthy. Firstly, some of our Constitution makers like Dr. Ambedkar were of the opinion that the Constituent Assembly cannot determine in 1949 what should be the priorities for the nation in future, whether it should be socialist or capitalist or something else. Hence, the inclusion of the word “socialist” was opposed. Secondly, it was opined by some members that the word “secular” in its strict meaning in the Western world means that the State is opposed to spiritual and religious matters. But, India as a society had always been deeply spiritual and religious matters. Therefore, it was finally decided to not include this word also.

However, during the imposition of Emergency in our country for 21 months between 1975 to 1977, the government of the day deemed fit to include the words “Socialist” and “Secular” in our Preamble. As we stand today, these words have stayed in the Preamble till date and have been more or less accepted by the people of the country and the judiciary as well.

The points to ponder that emerge from the above are the following:

1. The context in which these words were included in the Preamble is important. During the times of Emergency, the fundamental rights of the citizens were suspended, the Union government assumed more powers in the federal structure and the dissent was not favoured. So, the atmosphere was not conducive for debates and dialogue to be held in a free and an open manner. The government of the day may in its good intent included those words, which were in some way or the other were already expressed in the Constitution in its different Chapters. For example, the Directive Principles of the State Policy provide for the “welfare state”, which incorporates the ideals of socialism. And, the fundamental rights regarding the “freedom to practise one’s own religion and faith” provide for the basis of a secular state, albeit in a positive manner where the State does not interfere in the private religion of an individual but promotes harmony among all the religions and also provides protection to the minorities. The moot point here is that the timing of the inclusion of the words in the Preamble may not have been right, as the public opinion and the opinion of the Opposition parties was not secured at that time. It would have been better if the consensus was built around these by encouraging debates and dialogue among wider populace before their inclusion.
2. Over the period of time, various courts including our Apex Court have accepted these words as a part of our Preamble because more or less, we have accepted the core intent of the words Secular and Socialist. There can be different interpretations of these words by different scholars, however there is a wider acceptance that as such we are not opposed to the general interpretation of these words as a part of the state policy.
3. The debate surrounding whether to remove these words or not from the Preamble, in  the current times, should be more focused on the intent of the Constitution makers, their vision and dreams about Indian society, and to how much extent have we been able to realize the goals and aspirations of our Constitution makers. Mere inclusion or exclusion of some words will not make much difference to the Preamble, unless each and every word of the document is actually practised in real life by each and every citizen of our nation.
4. There is no harm in holding and allowing debates surrounding these core ideas in today’s times too. Unless, we debate, how will we come to know the historical aspects, the various interpretations of different concepts, and their applicability in the current socio-economic milieu of the society? It is the culture of debating each and every aspect of our Constitution through reasoning, scientific temper and logic that we can evolve our Constitution as a living document that fulfils the aspirations of all Indians. Who knows, that maybe after 50 years or so, we might like to include some more words to the Preamble in particular and Constitution in general. We must not fear change, rather embrace change, if it is good for the people of the country.

In the end, I would leave you with the words of wisdom as expounded by the President of the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad in his concluding speech:

“Whatever the Constitution may or may not provide, the welfare of the country will depend upon the way in which the country is administered. That will depend upon the men who administer it. It is a trite saying that a country can have only the Government it deserves. If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, they would be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution. If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country. India needs today nothing more than a set of honest men who will have the interest of the country before.”