Reclaiming India’s Constitutional Integrity: The Meaning of ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the Preamble

On June 25, 1975, India experienced a dark phase known as the Emergency. During this time, democracy faced serious threats. Media were silenced, opponents were imprisoned, and the Constitution was altered. One notable change was the addition of “Socialist” and “Secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution via the 42nd Amendment. This move sparked widespread debate and controversy, as it was done without public discussion or input from the Constituent Assembly.

### Missing Words in the Original Preamble

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who played a crucial role in shaping the Constitution, was against including “socialist” and “secular.” He believed that the Constitution should focus on governance, allowing policies to evolve according to the people’s needs over time. Ambedkar pointed out that policies are best decided by elected representatives rather than fixed ideological terms.

The initial architects of the Constitution, like Rajendra Prasad and Sardar Patel, also preferred to keep ideology out of the Preamble. They recognized that India’s strength lies in its diversity, not strict doctrines.

### The Impact of “Socialism”

Socialism doesn’t just shape economies; it influences politics as well. Critics argue that it stifles individual creativity, leading to a heavy-handed government that limits personal freedom. With the term “Socialist” added to the Preamble, successive governments have justified initiatives that may hinder private enterprise, all in the name of public welfare.

Economist B.R. Shenoy foresaw these outcomes. He warned as early as 1955 that adopting Nehruvian socialism could lead to stagnation. Fast forward to the 1990s, and the collapse of the license-permit-quota system highlighted the failures of such policies.

### The Role of “Secularism”

The addition of “Secular” has transformed Indian secularism into a tool that, in some cases, appears to favor certain communities over others. Instead of separating religion and state, it has led to government interventions in Hindu matters, while minorities often enjoy advantages without the same level of oversight.

This version of secularism has become intertwined with electoral strategies, as seen in various political campaigns. Some argue it has shifted from being a guiding principle to a means for political gain.

### Irony of Secularism as a Doctrine

Interestingly, while secularism aims to keep religion out of politics, it embodies its own set of beliefs and advocates. Some philosophers draw parallels between secular liberalism and theology, suggesting that secularism itself can act as an enforced ideology, especially in a country with deep spiritual roots like India.

### The Question of Its Legitimacy

The process of inserting these terms was controversial. The 42nd Amendment occurred during the Emergency, a period marked by political oppression. Many argue that the alteration lacks legitimacy as it was enacted under duress, challenging the Constitution’s integrity.

The Supreme Court upheld in the Kesavananda Bharati case that the Constitution’s basic structure cannot be altered. This raises a compelling question: how could the government make such fundamental changes during such a tumultuous time?

### A Call for Reflection

As India continues to evolve, it may be time to reconsider these additions to the Preamble. Many believe the original wording would better reflect the nation’s true spirit. The terms “socialist” and “secular” may not align with India’s ethos or democratic principles, but rather create ideological barriers.

This isn’t merely an ideological dispute; it’s about restoring the integrity of the Constitution and honoring the vision of its founders. Recognizing India’s pluralistic and spiritual heritage can go a long way toward fostering genuine democracy and governance.

### Conclusion

In light of history and ongoing debates, revising these terms can be seen as a step towards constitutional honesty. Many argue that doing so is not just a matter of ideology; it’s about preserving national dignity and correcting past mistakes. The conversation around the Preamble is broader than politics—it’s about the identity and future of India.



Source link