Secularism, Socialism and More
The Supreme Court granted the Constitution, or we the people of India who adopted, enacted and gave it to ourselves, a well-deserved present. On 27 November, 2024, it upheld the inclusion of ‘socialist, secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. The judgment had more to it than the fate of these two words. The most reviled by the Hindu majoritarian forces, the attack on these two concepts encapsulates a big attempt to undermine the Constitution. Ironically, the foundational spirit of the constitution – our (inter)national quest for a plural and equal society, which is reason for the ongoing attack, is precisely that which keeps it from foundering.
“The word ‘secular’ denotes a Republic that upholds equal respect for all religions. ‘Socialist’ represents a Republic dedicated to eliminating all forms of exploitation — whether social, political, or economic,” a Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar interpreted, in the 24 November order.
The order was based on a batch of petitions filed in 2020 challenging the validity of the inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble through the 42nd Constitution Amendment in 1976. The petitioners, who included Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy, argued that the insertions made with retrospective effect, that is, from the date of adoption of the constitution by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949 amounted to a fraud on the constitution. Besides, they argued, the word ‘secular’ was deliberately eschewed by the Constituent Assembly and the word ‘socialist’ fettered the economic policy choice of the elected government, which represents the will of the people.
The Supreme Court order, coming just before the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Indian Constitution, provides us with an opportunity to recall what it stands for in spirit and substance.
The Hindu supremacists have always suggested that the Constitution is not rooted in Indian traditions. Nothing could be further from the truth. The core principles of the Constitution were drawn from the freedom struggle, which was a fundamentally transformative process. The freedom struggle was never about rescuing an unattainable pristine ‘Hindu’ ancient India; on the contrary, it was about building a diverse and united modern India by undoing historical structures of oppression and discrimination and by foiling British attempts to divide and rule through tacit encouragement to ethnic nationalist forces. That is where socialism and secularism as ideas were great sources of inspiration to our freedom fighters and constitution-makers.
In his 4 November, 1948 address presenting the draft Constitution Dr. BR Ambedkar rebutted the criticism about the alleged lack of ‘originality’ and ‘Indianness’ of the constitution. Every written modern democratic Constitution, he asserted, should reflect common or universal features and the efficacy of the Indian Constitution should be assessed in terms of adapting those basic democratic features to the diversity and particularities of the Indian context. There were strong opinions that the Constitution should uphold the democratic heritage of the ancient Indian polity and base itself on India’s so-called self-sufficient village republics. Ambedkar refused to romanticize the so-called ‘village republics’ and boldly declared that he is “glad that the Draft Constitution has discarded the village and adopted the individual as its unit.”
Ambedkar also responded to the allegation that the Constitution had borrowed heavily from the 1935 Government of India Act in matters of administrative details. While acknowledging the scope for future amendments and administrative evolution, he emphasized the role of developing an administration compatible with the Constitution and ensuring that the legislature could not pervert the administration and make it inconsistent with and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. It is in this context that Ambedkar highlighted the need to cultivate constitutional morality as the guiding spirit and reminded us prophetically that democracy in India is a top-dressing on an essentially undemocratic Indian soil.
Ambedkar’s Vision, Historical Realities
A look at the memorandum ‘States and Minorities’ which Ambedkar had prepared on behalf of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation tells us how integral secular and socialist principles were to Ambedkar’s vision. In this memorandum Ambedkar described India as United States of India, and promised for all its citizens a set of fundamental rights with comprehensive judicial protection against executive tyranny, unequal treatment, discrimination and economic exploitation. It promised the minorities effective remedies against social and official tyranny and social boycott and provided scheduled castes with due safeguards to ensure proper representation in all spheres.
The memorandum wanted the state to organize the main spheres of economic life including agriculture on socialist lines through comprehensive nationalization and collectivization, but it wanted this to happen within the framework of parliamentary democracy. To lend stability to state socialism it wanted the Constitution to guarantee it in a way that every government would have to abide by it. Article II Section III provided a whole range of protection for minorities: against a communal executive, against social and official tyranny, against social boycott. It granted substantial power to governments to spend money for any purposes beneficial to the minorities.
Many of these were eventually placed in the non-enforceable section rather than the enforceable section because of the continuing undemocratic nature of the society out of which the Constitution grew, and the aftermath of partition. These principles were meant to be practiced, the society democratized, and socialism and secularism normalized.
As Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reiterated on July 10, 1962, the concept of secularism was always inherent in its Constitution:
“We have laid down in our Constitution that India is a secular State. This does not mean irreligion. It means equal respects for all faiths and equal opportunities for those who profess any faith.”
In his November 4, 1948 address Ambedkar had referred to the rightwing conservative and reactionary criticism. Without naming the Hindutva brigade’s constant invocation of the Manusmriti he had addressed their charge of neglecting the framework of ancient India and defended the idea of taking the free individual as the basic unit of the constitutional republic. Early on in his public life Ambedkar had consigned the Manusmriti to flames in the course of the Mahad Satyagrah on December 25, 1927. There was no way he could use this code of caste oppression and patriarchal violence as the guiding spirit of the Constitution of modern India.
Hindutva Discontents, Our Role
The Constitution does not need a fundamental revision; it is the society that needs a fundamental transformation. Hindu supremacists have tried to cleverly flip the narrative, justifying social conservatism, hatred and division; and chastising the constitution for failing to legitimize their worldview. The Sangh Parivar rejected the constitution from day one. Ever since the BJP came into national prominence, the Sangh Parivar has repeatedly mounted public pressure against the Constitution.
On December 25, 1992, a few days after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a press conference was held at the residence of a BJP member by two front-rank Swamis of the Parivar – Swami Muktanand and Swami Vamdeo Maharaj. They gave a call to reject the ‘anti-Hindu constitution’. “We have no faith in the country’s laws,” they said, along with the proclamation that “the sadhus are above the law of the land.” Indian citizenship law which considers all born in this country as its natural citizens is humbug, they appeared to claim.
On January 1,1993 the Sangh Parivar published a ‘white paper’ labelling the Constitution as ‘anti-Hindu’ and outlined the kind of polity that must be established.
In its foreword, Swami Hiranand, a leading light of the Parivar, wrote:
“The present Constitution is contrary to the country’s culture, character, circumstances, situation etc. It is foreign oriented…It has to be discarded completely as a matter of high priority.”
The RSS chief Rajendra Singh apparently agreed with the views expressed in the white paper, and wrote:
“All this shows that changes are needed in the constitution. A constitution more suited to the ethos and genius of this country should be adopted in the future.”
Murli Manohar Joshi, who was then the president of the BJP, demanded “a fresh look at the constitution.”
The white paper condemned reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes and went to the extremely foul extent of calling the constitution ‘a pile of garbage” and ‘an enemy of the nation’s unity and integrity.’
K.S. Sudarashan was appointed the sarsanghchalak of the RSS on March 10, 2000. Soon after taking over, he declared that Constitution of India should be scrapped.
Though the Vajpayee government (1998-2004) made attempts to alter the basic structure of the Constitution, it failed to do so as there was a big hue and cry after it appointed a commission to go into the working of the constitution. Advised by the then president K.R. Narayanan, it inserted a clause in the terms of reference of the commission – the basic structure of the Constitution will not be altered.
But the BJP governments, under both Vajpayee-Advani and Modi-Amit Shah, have found administrative means to bypass the Constitution. This was perhaps foreseen by the chairman of the Drafting Committee. While introducing the draft Constitution in the constituent assembly on November 4, 1948, Ambedkar had clearly spelt out: “The form of the administration must be appropriate and in the same sense as the form of the constitution.”
A communal civil service cannot work a secular Constitution. Ambedkar warned: “It is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution.”
The then home minister Sardar Patel in a letter dated April 27, 1948 to prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed with him: “The service must be above party and we should ensure that political considerations, either in its recruitment or in its discipline and control, are reduced to the minimum.”
Today the Sangh Parivar are doing their level best to infiltrate every layer of governance by their trained cadres, sympathizers or pliant people. At the same time, they are trying to change the text of the Constitution by using their Parliamentary strength. The socially and politically transformative project – towards an equal and plural society – enabled by the Constitution is the target.
What the Sangh Parivar forgets is that socio-political transformation towards a democratic, socialist and secular country is the life-blood of modern India. India as we know it, is no doubt an ancient land. Like all ancient lands, it has undergone many transformations – some for better and some for worse. Either way, the wheels have never turned back.
The two centuries old anti-colonial movement marked the latest of these transformations. It gave birth to India as a political entity as we know it, and the quest to realize Begumpura was at the heart of it. The Constitution was accepted by all Indians, except those threatened by the distant possibility of Begumpura, because it gave us a platform to embark upon the next phase of this quest. The Constitution stands strong because it empowered us to fight for the values we hold dear. And its strength gives us the necessary ballast to fight on.
