Opinion

Modi's silence over debate over Preamble keeps the controversy alive

Kuldip Nayar | February 11, 2015 08:52 AM
Preamble of Constitution of India
Kuldip Nayar

 RSS wants the words 'Secularism and Socialism' dropped

 

THE only good thing Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did in her repressive rule during the Emergency was to include the words, Secularism and Socialism, in the Preamble to the Constitution. Morarji Desai, who succeeded her, had all the changes she made in the Constitution deleted, but retained the amendment to the Preamble.

The confusion has been confounded by Law and Justice Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, who stated that the omission of words, Secularism and Socialism, had given an opportunity to debate the matter all over again. It is a pity that the Law Minister should say so without realising the sanctity of the Constitution. 

The Jana Sangh, the earlier version of the BJP that had merged with the Janata Party, raised no objection. Both L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, the Jana Sangh stalwarts who had joined the Janata, were among the enthusiastic leaders to retain the words of Secularism and Socialism in  the Preamble.

It has been apparent that the omission of the two words from an advertisement issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should not be construed as the “real” intention of the government. The ministry has admitted its mistake. The matter should have ended there and then. 
But the situation has kept the controversy alive by BJP chief Amit Shah. He has said at a press conference that the old Preamble is the real one. However, Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley has stated that what held the field was the new version of the Preamble which omits the mention of Socialism and Secularism. 

The confusion has been confounded by Law and Justice Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, who stated that the omission of words, Secularism and Socialism, had given an opportunity to debate the matter all over again. It is a pity that the Law Minister should say so without realising the sanctity of the Constitution. That a liberal person like him should say it is all the more reprehensible. The matter was debated fully when the two words were included. 

The only inference one can draw from this episode is that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which guides the party, wants the words “Secularism and Socialism” dropped. For them, at least the word “Secularism” is an anathema. Because of the countrywide furore the BJP has not pursued the matter. Maybe, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who stayed silent in public, advised the party that the country was not yet ready to jettison Secularism and Socialism. The RSS probably considered it a reverse, not a defeat, and will come back to this agenda when the climate is favourable. 
True, the lessening support of the Congress, which is ideologically secular, has adversely affected secularism. But the party and the ideology are not synonymous. In fact, secularism has suffered because the Congress deviated from it in action. In its race to grab power, the party pushed ideals into the background. 

Congress president Sonia Gandhi's commitment to the ideology has never been in doubt, nor was that of her son Rahul Gandhi's. But there are many state leaders who do not hesitate to take a parochial line for the sake of votes. She is reportedly unhappy but is afraid of taking action against them because their exit from the Congress may hit the party in a way which may be fatal.

The Congress is in the midst of gathering information from the ground, according to its leader Anand Sharma, and may come out with a report in March. Yet what it does not realise is that it has lost contact with the workers who are disillusioned that the Congress has distanced itself from the ethos of secularism and socialism in the pursuit of power at any cost.

Mahatma Gandhi is still the icon. But the party has given space to such elements who are trying to put up a memorial to pay homage to Nathuram Godse who shot Gandhi dead. His name was nowhere in the picture till recently. But a few days ago an underpass at Alwar, Rajasthan, was sought to be named after Godse. The Congress and other secular organisations, including the leftist parties, should analyze their action and the way in which they have been pushing their programme because Godse represents an ideology which smacks of Hindutva that Mahatma Gandhi fought against tooth and nail. 

Socialism became the socialist pattern during Jawaharlal Nehru's lifetime because he felt that the ideology was difficult to practise. The concept has got so diluted over the years that the public sector undertakings, which were supposed to attain the commanding heights, are on the backburner. Over the years, the private sector has been encouraged by different political parties because the industrialists provide the money for elections. This nexus cannot be broken until there are drastic electoral reforms to lessen the role of money.

Welfare is not dependent on socialism, but egalitarianism is. If industry and business expand, at least the wealth would increase. But the nexus between politicians and the bureaucracy does not allow rapid progress. Red tape apart, corruption at every step saps the energy which can be infused into  society to get ahead.

Communalism is the real problem. The nation's strong reaction has stopped the 'ghar wapsi' movement. Christians are still the target. But their number is limited and does not count much in electoral politics. Otherwise, the BJP government would not have dared to declare even the festival of Christmas into a Good Governance Day! As the Archbishop of Delhi said, the measure was the result of a hate-campaign.

The Muslims, nearly 15 per cent in the country, have not got their due, particularly in jobs. But they have been able to stall the relentless efforts to push them aside. Their vote comes in good stead to them. If they do not fall prey to the machinations of Akbaruddin Owaisi, who is trying to attract Muslims in the name of religion, the realisation that there is no go from secularism would take root. 

Yet the nation has to ponder over seriously how it is being forced to compromise with communalism, the opposite of the ethos of the freedom movement. How many of us today remember Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Frontier Gandhi, who stood boldly during the heydays of the Muslim League? They were visionary and, unlike the present leaders, saw the redemption of multi-cultural and multi-religious society that India is.

 

Have something to say? Post your comment