Ever since a nationalist government sat at the helm of affairs in 2014, the demands to change a few words of our Constitution have been rising. Secularism is the favourite of pro-change individuals. But very few of them have realised the global impact of tinkering with the wordings. Moreover, they have not even looked deep into how the insertion of the word changed the civilisational development of Bharat.
Attempts to delete two words from Preamble
Subramanian Swamy can’t stay away from media glare. This time around, the former professor has grabbed the headlines for his open challenge to the 42nd amendment of the Constitution. Swamy wants the two words, Socialist and Secular, to be removed from the preamble of our Constitution.
In his writ petition, Swamy urges that insertion of both these words is ultra-vires to the amending power of the Constitution accorded to the Parliament under Article 368. Both Swamy and advocate Satya Sabharwal, the second petitioner, have cited B R Ambedkar’s open defiance to the insertion of both words during the Constituent Assembly debates to validate their demands.
But these two are not the only ones demanding such changes. In fact, in 2015, Modi government’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had itself omitted these two words from the preamble while using its image. A national deliberation had started about the utility of both these words. Even I&B minister Ravishankar Prasad had to jump in the discussion as well. Five years later, Rakesh Sinha moved a resolution demanding the removal of both these words.
The need for tinkering
But, is it really necessary? Is the insertion of these words in the preamble the reason behind the decisions by respective arms of polity? Is it not true that insertion of the words in the Preamble was just a formality when you look at it from the vantage point of provisions already in the Constitution? If so, why was there an explicit need to use both these words?
The irrelevance of Socialism
The answers to all these questions are complex. Yes, it is true that insertion of these two words was just a formality. First, let’s look at the insertion of the word ‘Socialist’. Socialism was an inherent part of our polity since we became politically independent. Our first Prime Minister simply copied economic concepts from the USSR and used them in India. The five-year plan, abolished after 2015, was the major example of Soviets affecting Indian economic policy.
The fact is that this concept produced disastrous consequences in the USSR, the signs of which were clear by early 1960s. Despite that Indira Gandhi found it fit to forcibly insert the word in the Constitution. The final acceptance of the utter failure of Socialism in 1991 should have meant the elimination of the word, but that didn’t happen. Apparently, its adherents were still hopeful of its implementation after LPG reforms.
Socialism needs to be deleted
For the ignorant of the bunch, it happened as well. At the time when the Indian state was opening its gate for more and more capitalist units, a simultaneous rise of minimalistic state control was seen. State control was more prevalent during UPA eras, while NDA mainly devolved government companies.
NDA never subscribed to the school of modern economic thought and relied on the Chanakya model of economy. Prevalence of concepts such as Corporate Social responsibility, Impact bonds to skill youths, social impact bonds and social stock exchange are living examples of Chanakya model. Apparently, there are merits in removing Socialist from the Preamble, simply because Socialism can’t work in India.
Secularism was always a part of Constitution
However, things take a radical shift when we talk about the deletion of the word Secular from the Preamble. Like socialist, the insertion of the word ‘Secular’ was also unnecessary at the time. Even before Indira Gandhi had inserted the word in the preamble, the honourable Supreme Court had declared Secularism to be part of the basic structure of Indian Constitution. In the famous 1973 case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, the Apex Court had ruled that this feature was non-negotiable and can’t be removed through Constitutional amendment.
The Judges announcing Secularism as part of basic structure had done their homework. Being erudite individuals, they had observed how various Articles advocate for zero discrimination on the basis of religions. Articles 14,15,16,19,25,26,27,28 and 44 are just the manifestations of the western concept of Secularism. The term in its current sense traces its origin to the movement of dividing Church and state. The same formula had been copy-pasted in India.
Secularism- What it is and what it means for India
This concept has two large subdivisions. One is positive secularism while the other is negative secularism. Negative secularism does not allow for public display of a religious leaning, while positive secularism opens the gate of acceptance for any religion in society. Indian constitution preaches the second form of secularism, which is why even the right to choose hijab, a supposedly oppressive form of clothing, is debated in the highest Court.
However, a closer analysis reveals that separation between religion and state has been a significant feature of Indic civilization. In India, kings and queens always had their way of life. They used to worship a particular form of Bhagwan. But, nowhere in Indian history will you find any monarch imposing his or her way of life onto the people being ruled by them. People were free to choose their deities, clothes, food and many other aspects of daily lives. This phenomenon is exactly what westerners termed secularism.
Importance of Preamble
Despite having a rich history of adhering to the positive interpretation of the word secular, Indira Gandhi formalised it by inserting it in the Preamble of the Constitution. Now, the Preamble is a tricky portion of our Constitution. You can’t go to Court if someone violates the values written down in those few lines. It is also true that the Preamble is a snapshot of the values present in the entirety of our Constitution.
That’s the reason why when Judges are in doubt about interpretation of any statute or a clause, they look towards the Preamble as a guiding principle. If the interpretation is in line with the values in the Preamble, only then does it pass through the legal check point. The importance of the Preamble validates Indira Gandhi’s forceful insertion of the word to a certain extent.
It was done during the time of emergency, which becomes the basis of argument that the motive behind insertion of Secular was mala fide and politically motivated. A slight chance of getting more acceptance from foreign countries can’t be ruled out either. Over the period of time, the term has shaped India’s political, social and religious history.
Preamble is not the reason for the problem
At this point, it is important to note that the word secularism did shape the aforementioned developments. But its insertion in the Preamble was innocent. Yes, people often blame the word Secularism as a reason behind excessive emphasis on minority appeasement by political parties. But the appeasement and governments’ policies have virtually nothing to do with the Preamble.
Minority appeasement is the result of minority rights doctrine present under the Fundamental Rights section of the Constitution. Unilateral rights on educational institutions, Scholarships, fellowships, specially designed loans for minorities and various such programs have explicit and implicit protection of Articles 29 and 30 of our Constitution. At the same time, the aforementioned drives were advertised in public as India’s adherence to secular principles, which frankly brought more benefits than loss to our international image.
The word gave us international recognition
You see, no matter how confused western countries are about the term secularism, they would always favour an explicitly secular country over the one that is not. That’s because, for the last half century, they have shifted their attention towards economic growth.
For economic growth, a social cohesion is required. For them, the only way to maintain stability in society is by declaring that a country abides by the secular principles, which they deem to be fit. Laughingly, even they find it tough to define it. But they keep using the term because it has become a hallmark of higher face value.
No wonder the United States did not waste a moment before banning PM Modi from entering its geography after 2002. Western liberal media and their friends in India had villainised CM Modi to such an extent that the US thought it would be counterproductive to its image if they allowed him to visit their shores. PM Modi turned the tables by winning the trust of a “Secular” democratic in 2014. He went on to become ‘numero uno’ leader of the country. The US had no choice other than unbanning the leader of a secular country.
A united India is advantaged India
That explains why PM Modi did not listen to anti-secularism sentiments after he came to power. He is not the one who wanted power for the sake of power. PM Modi wanted power to unite India. He has been explicitly focussing on winning trust of those voter bases that were delineated by the media propaganda against PM Modi in particular and BJP in general.
Today, BJP is in power in nearly 20 Indian states. It’s anti-Muslim image has taken such a drastic turn that it won’t be a surprise if 85 per cent of Muslims end up voting for the party in 5-years.
Morality factor made up for lower rank in economy
PM Modi’s pro-Secularism image is what differentiates India from the other rising or established superpowers. China does not enjoy such clout because it has a Communist regime in charge. Similarly, Russians are also specifically not known for giving respect to every religion.
Same is the case with other powers contesting with India for spots as well. This is how India has emerged as a world leader, despite being ranked 5th on economic ladder and a lower per capita income. When an Indian Minister speaks, people listen, which is not the case even with the American President Joseph Biden.
Maintaining secularism in the Preamble is the need of the hour. It may not impact domestic policies to a large extent, but it definitely impacts international image. Using the word in the Preamble and using it to bring Hindu rights on par with the minority won’t do any harm for sure. But the gains are manyfold.
Support TFI:
Support us to strengthen the ‘Right’ ideology of cultural nationalism by purchasing the best quality garments from TFI-STORE.COM
