This Constitution Day, a secular, socialist gift from the Supreme Court of India

IT is heartening that on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the inclusion of the words “secular” and “socialist” in its Preamble.These words were inserted during the prime ministership of Indira Gandhi through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976. This was a period of Emergency in India.Yet, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of these words in the Preamble to the Constitution and held that the addition of these terms could not be invalidated merely on the ground that the Preamble retained its original adoption date of November 26, 1949.Significantly, the Supreme Court upheld the secular nature of India and the State’s neutrality towards religion which has shockingly been compromised by the utterances and actions of leaders occupying high constitutional positions after Narendra Modi assumed office as Prime Minister of India in 2014.Meaning of socialismIt is gratifying to note that the Supreme Court, while validating the inclusion of the term “socialist” in the Preamble, outlined the meaning of socialism by observing that it signifies a welfare State and does not conflict with the growth of the private sector.It noted, “Socialism in India is about equitable distribution of resources and equality of opportunity. It does not hinder private enterprise, which thrives in our country.”.SC rules against ‘might is right’ bulldozer action, issues guidelines and fixes personal responsibility of erring officers.It is also a categorical imperative to examine the meaning of socialism in terms of a welfare State and to understand to what extent it has been negated by the relentless pursuit of the Modi regime to promote crony capitalism, which has caused rising levels of social and economic inequality, far worse than those that prevailed during the British Raj.Unanimity on establishing a secular StateFirst, let us focus attention on the unending attack by the Modi regime and the BJP leaders on secularism, one of the dimensions of which is the neutrality of the State to religion.A peep into the pages of history reveals that the neutrality of the State to religion is a byproduct of our struggle for independence from British rule. In 1931, M.K. Gandhi, in his resolution on fundamental rights, specifically put the provision that the State would remain neutral to religion..On November 22, 1949, Begum Aizaz Rasul, the only Muslim woman in the Constituent Assembly, remarked that “the most outstanding feature of the Constitution is the fact that India is to be a purely secular State”..Dr B.R. Ambedkar, in his Constitution for the Union of India, drafted by him in 1945, provided draft Article 17 that “the State shall not recognise any religion as State religion”. It is instructive that the Hindu Mahasabha, which never participated in the freedom struggle, drafted a Constitution of the Hindustan Free State Act, 1944 and provided in its Article 7(XV) that “there shall be no State-religion for the Hindusthan Free State or for any of its Provinces”.These samples from the pages of history testify to the vision for the establishment of a secular State in India, free from encumbrances of any religion. It has made India quite distinct from many countries in its neighbourhood, where several States were aligned to a specific religion.Discussions in the Constituent Assembly on a secular StateA cursory look at the debates of the Constituent Assembly illuminates our understanding that not a single member of the assembly advocated for a theocratic State. In fact, all of them very strongly celebrated the establishment of a secular State in India.Govind Ballabh Pant, a distinguished member of the Constituent Assembly, while participating in the discussion on the Report on Minority Rights on August 27, 1947, twelve days after India's independence on August 15, that year, asked, “Do you want a real national secular State or a theocratic State?”Expressing his anxiety, he warned, “If the latter, then in this Union of India, a theocratic State can be only a Hindu State.” He proceeded to add, “Will this State care for those who have no share or voice in the election of the representatives who will have real control of the affairs of the State? Will anything be more dangerous than that?”.In the Calcutta HC, a matter of sacrifice to Kali and ‘essential religious practice’ of Hinduism.Jaspat Roy Kapoor said on November 21, 1949 that “Gandhiji wanted a secular State, that religion should be a personal affair and that the State should have nothing to do with it, that persons professing any religion must have absolute freedom and should be equal in law and in the eyes of the State”.A day later, on November 22, Begum Aizaz Rasul, the only Muslim woman in the Constituent Assembly, remarked that “the most outstanding feature of the Constitution is the fact that India is to be a purely secular State”.“The sanctity of the Constitution lies essentially in its affirmation of secularity and we are proud of it,” she added. “I have full faith,” she asserted, “that this secularity will always be kept guarded and unsullied, as upon it depends the complete unity of the peoples of India without which all hopes of progress would be in vain.”Even earlier, on October 14, 1949, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel stated in the Constituent Assembly, “I made it clear that this Constitution of India, of free India, of a secular State, will not hereafter be disfigured by any provision on a communal basis.”.It is outrageous that Modi, who took oath owing allegiance to the Constitution, was violating it by conflating Ram with rashtra and dev with desh..What another eminent member of the assembly T.J.M. Wilson said on November 23, 1949, three days before the Constitution was adopted and enacted on November 26 that year, assumes significance when India is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Constitution and confronting escalating dangers to the secular State.“The greatest achievement, however, of our Constitution,” he said, "is its secular character and the secular State that emerges therefrom.” Adding further, he stated, “We have achieved this secular character of the State and we have provided for it in the Constitution.”He cautioned by saying, “But the clouds are gathering and are threatening to darken the secular character of the State and obliterate it.” “I only pray and trust,” he affirmed, “that the progressive forces of this country, under the guidance and leadership of our great and beloved Prime Minister [Jawaharlal Nehru] will clear away those clouds and shall not allow our country to pass once again through that destruction and misery which most of the nations of Europe and Asia had to pass before they could accomplish this great achievement of a secular State.”.Gods above the Constitution: A new era for India’s judiciary?.These insights from the Constituent Assembly in defence of the secular State of India forged during the trying times of the Partition of British territories in the subcontinent and the Supreme Court’s upholding the validity of the insertion of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 are of critical significance to defend the idea of India which is being assailed by the Modi regime relentlessly.Attack on the secular StateOn the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the adoption and enactment of the Constitution, it is important to reflect on the neutrality of the State to religion and the ruthless assaults it has faced from the Modi regime, governors appointed by it in non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled States and BJP chief ministers.On January 22, ten months before the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution, Prime Minister Modi negated the secular State embodied in the Constitution while consecrating the Ram temple in Ayodhya by saying that “Dev se desh tak, Ram se rashtra tak,” (from the Lord to the country, from Ram to the nation)— implying that the Hindu deity was an embodiment of the country.It is indeed outrageous that Modi, who as Prime Minister took oath owing allegiance to the Constitution, was violating it by conflating Ram with rashtra and dev with desh. What he did constitute an affront to the very idea of our secular State. It is pertinent to remember that Sardar Patel has said, “The Constitution of India, of free India, of a secular State, will not hereafter be disfigured by any provision on a communal basis.”.Tamil Nadu Governor N. Ravi said on September 24 this year that “secularism was a European concept which was not needed in India”..It is indeed agonising that in a year when the 75th anniversary of the Constitution is being celebrated, Prime Minister Modi, instead of leading the country as a secular State through his words and deeds, is infringing upon these principles willfully.In maintaining a stoic silence on the calls issued by BJP legislators and Hindutva leaders to socially and economically boycott Muslims, Modi, representing the State as Prime Minister, is trampling upon its secular features, which mandate him to act by respecting all faiths and protecting the life and liberties of people of India regardless of their faith.The odious example set by him is being followed by even governors appointed by his regime and was exemplified when Tamil Nadu Governor N. Ravi said on September 24 this year that “secularism was a European concept which was not needed in India” and “one insecure Prime Minister introduced secularism in the Constitution during Emergency in order to appease some sections of people”..The subtle art of differentiating between a theocracy and a secular democracy.Such utterances violated the Constitution and, therefore, the Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of the insertion of the word “secular” in the preamble of the Constitution affirms that violation with retrospective effect.Constitution as a social document in the context of socialismThe Supreme Court’s decision supporting the constitutional legitimacy of incorporating the word “socialist” in the same Preamble is of enormous significance in the context of its explanation that socialism represents a welfare State.If secularism means guaranteeing equality and equal opportunity for people pursuing diverse faiths, then their welfare based on equity and justice is of paramount significance.This is particularly so in the context of the gathering crises caused by the Modi regime in promoting crony capitalism which, along with neo-liberal economic policies, have aggravated social and economic inequalities and created conditions for deepening poverty and deprivation in society..The Modi regime must rise above the narrow framework of Hindutva to uphold the Constitution and its secular and socialist features..US expert on the Indian Constitution Granville Austin, in his book The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation, call our Constitution “first and foremost a social document” and asserts that, “The majority of India’s constitutional provisions are either directly arrived at furthering the aim of social revolution or attempt to foster this revolution by establishing conditions necessary for its achievement.” Such an explanation underlines its contents for taking forward the core values of socialism.Modi regime must safeguard the secular State and socialismSecularism and socialism are reciprocal ideals enshrined in the Constitution and the pursuit of these ideals and corresponding action in this regard by employing constitutional methods would benefit all citizens and take forward the cause of their well-being.In fact, a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly, Loknath Misra, said in the House on November 25, 1948, “Rightly, therefore, have we declared that our State would be a secular State and thereby we mean that everybody who inhabits this land, who is a citizen is just a man and his human needs will be fulfilled and his religion, if he has any, will be taken care of by the individual himself.”The Modi regime must rise above the narrow framework of Hindutva to uphold the Constitution and its secular and socialist features by eschewing policies that have endangered the legislative intent of the Constituent Assembly, the Constitution and its basic structure, and the very unity and integrity of our country.