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 66th 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 66th 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 66th 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.
