Preamble ad controversy — IT IS NO 'TREASON', MR SACHAR

Preamble ad controversy

IT IS NO 'TREASON', MR SACHAR

By Amba Charan Vashishth

The veteran jurist and former chief justice of Delhi High Court, Mr. Rajinder Sachar has taken undue offence to the watermark of the Preamble to the Consitution in an advertisement appearing without the words "secular" and "socialist". In his article which appeared with the same caption , "This is treason, Mr Prime Minister" in the The Statesman on February 12, in the weekly Mainstream on February 14 and The Hindu as also in the Muslim Mirror. These words were inserted in 1976 Amendment to the Constitution while the ad was issued on the occasion of the 66^th anniversary of India's Republic when these words did not form part of the Preamble. He dubs the action as "treason". This is not the case.

The line of argument taken by a person of the stature of Rajinder Sachar in his article, ”This is treason, Mr Prime Minister” published in various national newspapers and periodicals in February is appalling. One is surprised at his understanding and appreciation of the fact, law and the situation of an “unimaginable crisis…gripping our country”, something nowhere visible.

He takes offence to a government advertisement carrying the watermark of the Preamble to the Constitution on the occasion of the 66th anniversary of our Republic on January 26. How could the omission of the words “secularism” and “socialism” become a “devious interpolation” when these words were not there in the Preamble in 1950? Moreover, January 26 marked the 66^th anniversary of the 1950 Preamble and not of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution which “interpolated” the two words in 1976. In fact, it would have been insertion of these two words on the occasion of the 66^th anniversary that would have constituted what he calls a "devious interpolation".

It has also been pointed out that a similar advertisement bearing the watermark of the 1950 Preamble too was published in 2012. But to Sachar, for reasons best known to him, it did not constitute “treason”. There is hardly any overt or covert reason for Sachar to jump to anticipate that the NDA government wishes to delete the words “secularism” and “socialism”. He quotes Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressing his opinion to “delete” secularism although nothing of the sort appeared in the media. Even if Sachar is rightly quoting Prasad, the latter had every right to exercise his constitutional right to personal opinion and expression. We also know that a single individual cannot amend the Constitution.

Sachar quotes the Keshvanand Bharati case to say that the Parliament has no right to change the basic structure of the Constitution. But this SC judgement applies as much to the 1976 amendment to the Constitution as to any a future government may think of. If that amendment did not change the basic structure of the Constitution by inserting the two words, how will any future amendment to remove these words do?  The present Parliament is as much representative and competent to amend the Constitution to delete the two words from the Preamble to the Constitution as was the then Parliament to insert these in 1976 during emergency.

The 1976 Amendment was in itself a political ploy in the guise of national interest. Sachar himself quotes Dr. B. R. Ambedkar stating in the Constituent Assembly: “If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be”. The Supreme Court alluded to the same impression: “Though the word “socialism” was introduced into the Preamble by a late amendment of the Constitution that socialism has always been the goal is evident from the Directive Principles of State Policy . The amendment was only to emphasise the urgency.”

Sachar claims that “Dr. Ambedkar refused to do so (incorporate the word “socialism” in the Preamble) for technical reasons”. He stands contradicted by the latter's speech in Constituent Assembly where he emphatically declared: “I don’t see why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves”. Why should the future generations of Indians be perennially bound constitutionally to a particular way of live and live in a particular form of society and government?  Why should the people in a democracy be perpetually denied the right to choose or change the system of economy they likein changed circumstances?

Even without these two words the various Articles virtually make the Constitution "secular" and "socialist" because it prohibits discrimination on grounds of faith and provides for equal opportunities and rights to all irrespective of caste, creed, sex and region.

The Prime Minister and his cabinet did take oath that “they will bear true faith and alligience to the Constitution of India as by law established”. Nowhere have they implicitly or explicitly hinted their intention not to abide by their oath. Therefore, there is hardly any rationale to demand and the PM to oblige to reiterate their resolve just to satisfy the imaginary fears of some persons. If Sachar’s argument was stretched further, that would inversely mean that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution because the MPs had on oath declared to abide by the Constitution.

There  seems  to be a deliberate design in leaving the two words undefined to let different people and parties the unbridled liberty to interpret these differently in their own way to suit their political purpose at a particular point of time and place. It is because of this that every leader and political party enjoys the unrestrained freedom to claim to be 'secular' and to dub the opponent 'communal'. Even those political organizations whose membership is restricted to a single community claim themselves to be 'secular'.

Mentioning "secularism" is meaningless unless defined and codified. And when was the Hindu (Indian) society not secular?  No concept could be more secular than that of sarv dharma sambhav (every faith was equal).  The founding fathers of the Constitution had refrained from inserting the word “secular” only because they never doubted that Hindu society could ever be not secular.

The insertion of the word “socialist” without defining too is as much a misnomer as is “secular”. Socialism means different things to different people in different countries. USSR, now Russia, China, Cuba and many other countries are ‘socialist’ ones but socialism varies from country to country. Many of our political parties claim themselves ‘socialist’ but their concept of socialism is not one and the same. It changes with the person and the party. During last assembly elections Mamta Banerjee defeated CPM led left front government in West Bengal and replaced it with a TMC one.  But interpreting this change as defeat of communism-socialism and advent of a capist regime would be patently wrong. Therefore, calling the country a “socialist” republic is as vague and incomprehensible as “secular”. 

In reality the mere saying so in the Preamble does not make the Indian government, political parties and the people "secular" and "socialist". These two words are not a panacea for all the ills of secularism-communalism and poverty facing the country. Despite their being in the Preamble, neither has communal harmony become the order of the day, nor have the communal riots become a thing of the past nor is socialism ruling the roost. During the last about forty years of the country having been declared "socialist" constitutionally, poverty has just not vanished. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. 

Going by the Sachar logic, exercising their fundamental right to opinion and to express it against the Amendments to the Constitution by individuals or parties or challenging these in courts amounts to "treason" in this "secular" and "socialist" Republic of India. But section 124A of the Indian Penal Code provides: "Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards… the Government estab­lished by law in India … shall be punished with im­prisonment for life…" How does the words and actions NDA government amount to "treason" only the jurist in Rajinder Sachar can explain.              ***

                                                                             

The writer is a Delhi-based political analyst.

"SECULAR" and "SOCIALIST": The two showpieces of the Constitution

 "SECULAR" and  "SOCIALIST"

The two showpieces of the Constitution

—   Amba Charan Vashishth

—    

An unnecessary, unsavoury controversy has been generated by some political

parties and individual on the issue of non-appearance in the government ad in the Preamble marking the 66^th anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution of the words "secular" and "socialist" that were added in 1976 through 42^nd Amendment to the Constitution. Ironically a similar add had appeared in 2012 too when UPA was in power. The words "secular" and "socialist" are just decorative showpieces. In reality of the social and political life of the country, these have failed to make their presence felt.

In one of his couplets famous Urdu poet Mirza Ghalib said that if you have no work at hand, unstitch your clothes and sew them again to keep yourself busy. That exactly is what the present opposition seems to be doing. Bankrupt of issues to beat the NDA government with, the latest instance of the hue and cry raised over an advertisement issued on the occasion of the 66^th anniversary of the Republic of India. The ad shows a watermark of the original Preamble to the Constitution which came into force on that day and is available in the Parliament of India. The ad does not contain the words "secular" and "socialist" as these were not part of the Preamble on that day.

Moreover, the occasion was the 66^th anniversary of the Constitution adopted on January 26, 1950 and not of the 1976 42^nd Amendment which added the two words.

Condemning the add the erudite former I&B Minister Manish Tiwari anticipated that "perhaps the NDA wanted to replace the words "secular and socialist" in the Preamble with "communal and capitalist*. But Tiwari seems oblivious of the fact that an ad containing that very watermark of the Preamble was issued by UPA government of which he was then a part.  Will Tiwari stand by his words to say that in 2012 his UPA too was motivated by the same intention as he alleges the NDA with today?

Still more surprising is the outburst of the retired Delhi High Court chief justice Rajinder Sachar who threatened legal action against the government. As a person who knows law and justice he owes an explanation to the people why was he not "shocked by the mischief and deplorable omission of the words "secular" and "socialist" from the Indian Constitution Preamble" in 2012? Why did he then not see "treason to the Constitution….(and)…an unpardonable negligence" ?

The insertion of the words "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble in 1976  in itself appears to be a half-hearted attempt by the then Indira government to derive political mileage and, perhaps, to humour Russia which was then the only pillar of support and strength to the government which then stood isolated in the world for 'murder of democracy' in India. There  seems  to be a deliberate design in leaving the two words undefined to let different people and parties the unbridled liberty to interpret these differently in their own way to suit their political purpose at a particular point of time. That is why every leader and political party enjoys the unrestrained freedom to claim to be 'secular' and dub the opponent as 'communal'. Even those political organizations whose membership is restricted to a single community claim themselves to be 'secular'. At times when an independent or a party supports, they are honoured as 'secular' and the moment they quit the alliance they are condemned 'communal'.  V. P. Singh was comfortable as long as BJP was supporting  from outside his Janta Dal government at the Centre. The moment it withdrew support, overnight BJP became untouchable and 'communal' for Singh. Same is true of Lallu Yadav  and Nitish Kumar.

The Constitution now does speak of 'secularism' but does not provide a scale with which to determine  whether a person or party is 'secular' or not. As a result on the issue of 'secularism' and 'communalism' has become a jungle raj where everybody can claim anything and charge his opponent with anything without having to prove the point.

Mentioning secularism is meaningless unless it is defined and codified. In fact, dharma is being wrongly translated in Hindi as 'religion' and secularism as dharmnirpekshta. Dharma is not religion. Oxford dictionary defines it as "(in Indian religion) truth or law that affects the whole universe". The Supreme Court has given a verdict that dharma is not a religion but a way of life. That is why in the Hindi version of our Constitution secularism is mentioned as panthnirpekshta. And when was the Hindu society not secular? Our holy books speak of sarvdharam sambhaav, meaning all religions are equal. Nothing can be more secular than this concept. Because of panthnirpekshta, Hindu society did not witness killings on account of diversity of faith or change of mode of worship. Killings on account of faith animosity ushered in in the country with the onset of the Muslim invasions and British domination. The founding fathers of the Constitution had refrained from inserting the word “secular” only because they never doubted that Hindu society can ever be not secular.

The insertion of the word “socialist” without defining it is as much a misnomer as is “secular”. Socialism means different things to different people in different countries. USSR, now Russia, China, Cuba and many other countries are ‘socialist’ ones but socialism varies from country to country. Many of our political parties, like the Samajwadi Party, Janta Dal (U), JD(S), Lalu’s RJD, RSP and the communist parties claim themselves ‘socialist’ but none’s concept of socialism is one and the same. It changes with the person and the party. So calling the country a “socialist” republic is as vague and incomprehensible as “secular”.

Further, the father of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, had opposed the insertion of the word “socialist” saying “I don’t see why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves”. Why should the future generations of Indians be perennially bound constitutionally to live in a particular form of society and government?  Why should they be barred from change as per their will under the changed circumstances?

Even without these two words the various Articles virtually make the Constitution "secular" and "socialist" because it prohibits discrimination on grounds of faith. The Constitution provides for equal opportunities and rights to all irrespective of caste, creed, sex and region.

A dharma guru some years back told in clear terms that no way of life could be more socialist than the Hindu one which says that a person has no right on more than what he can eat and the rest is for all. He further explained that there could be no equality between a horse and an ass. He said in his ashram he had men and women shishyas, cows, goats, dogs etc. and he loves them all. But his love for each is not — and cannot be — equal and similar with all. That is life and truth.  

In reality the mere saying so in the Preamble does not make the Indian government, political parties and the people "secular" and "socialist". Their mere inclusion is not a panacea for all the ills of secularism-communalism and poverty facing the country. Despite their being in the Preamble, neither has communal harmony become the order of the day, nor have the communal riots become a thing of the past nor is socialism ruling the roost. During the last about forty years of the country having been declared "socialist", poverty has seen just a marginal drop. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 42^nd Amendment that prompted the then Indira Government to incorporate the two words states that it was done "to spell out expressly the high ideals of socialism, secularism and …to make the directive principles more comprehensive". The intention, it stated, is "to give them precedence over those fundamental rights which have been allowed…to frustrate socio-economic reforms" by specifying "the fundamental duties of the citizens and make special provisions for dealing with anti-national activities, whether by individuals or associations".

The last forty years of the Amendment to the Constitution have proved that it was nothing more than a showpiece with hardly anything to feel proud on the score of achievements of the aims and objectives for which it was passed.                                                                                    ***

The writer is a Delhi-based political analyst.  E-mail: acvashishth@gmail.com