Came across Barun Mitra’s excellent article in Mint re. the�ideology of “socialism” that all of us are forced�to adhere to.

Excerpts:

“…under the Representation of the People Act, all political parties in India (also) have to pledge allegiance…to socialism.

…The socialist intent of the Preamble has been extended by law to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RP Act) through an amendment in 1988…Rajiv Gandhi�s government introduced this amendment when the ruling Congress party enjoyed three-fourths majority in Parliament.

…at the root of this change, was the infamous 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, enacted by the Congress government under then prime minister Indira Gandhi during the days of national emergency, in 1976. The Bill had proposed nearly 60 amendments�one of these amended the Preamble to the Constitution to term India a �sovereign, secular, socialist democratic republic.�

When the Janata Party formed government after the Congress lost the 1977 election, it sought to undo a lot of the draconian provisions of the 42nd Amendment, but retained the section that pertained to socialism and secularism in the Preamble.

…However, B.R. Ambedkar, the man who helped draft the Constitution, specifically gave his reason for the non-inclusion of the word �socialism� when it was sought to be inserted into the Preamble by another member during the deliberations.

Ambedkar did not want the Constitution to tie down future generations. He said in the Assembly on 15 November, 1948 :

�(H)ow the society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether� It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organization of society is better than the capitalist… But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form…which might be better than the socialist organization of today or of tomorrow.�

…there is now an opportunity to seriously reconsider this whole issue.

…What is at stake is not whether one believes in the tenets of socialism or secularism.

At stake is the democratic and political process, which includes campaigning and convincing the people of any particular political ideology; and the freedom of the people to choose from the competing policies.�

Democracy is not just about majority rule, it is also about the freedom enjoyed by those who hold a minority opinion today to win over their fellow citizens. Without that freedom, democracy cannot have any substance….”

Well said.

***

P.S. Sadly, the Supreme Court rejected the plea�to delete the word “socialist” from the Constitution��by stating that (socialism) “…In (a) broader sense…means welfare measures for the citizens. It is a facet of democracy.”

Hmmm. I am not convinced that socialism = welfare of citizens (only).

The words “secular” and “socialist” were added to the Preamble by an�Amendment to the Constitution during Emergency without much debate or discussion. They have not been revisited since.

Some of you would�like�this article by Arvind Lavakare written about five years ago: The definition of ’secular’� from which I have taken this excerpt re. the “secular” part�of our Constitution:

“…Some other results of our undefined ’secular’ country are as follows:

• The government extends financial assistance to religious institutions. Why, under the 1925 Sikh Gurdwara Act, the state government spends millions of rupees for conducting elections to the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee that controls Akali politics.
• The State allows public celebration of religious functions. Why, the holders of the highest offices of state and tallest political leaders make it a point to visit religious shrines and make a demonstration of paying obeisance to imams or cardinals or sadhus or swamis.
• The state grants funds to educational institutions run for the benefit of one religion only. Why, the Government of India and state governments share the financial burden of ‘modernisation’ of madrassas and the Aligarh Muslim University is run entirely on government grants.
• Minority educational institutions can prescribe religious courses and appoint or dismiss a teacher/faculty member according to their whims, but rules and regulations are in force for majority religion educational bodies. The various interpretations of the Supreme Court on Articles 29 and 30 have ensured that unholy scenario.
• Government subsidises the salaries of imams, naib imams and muezzins of mosques, but not of granthis in gurdwaras and pujaris in temples. Why, the Supreme Court itself has prescribed the scale of these subsidies, which amounted to over Rs 6,000 million annually, according to a publication of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyasa.
• Though the Jama Masjid of Delhi is not classified as a protected monument, Rs 0.7 million were doled out to it in the eighties by the governments of Indira Gandhi and V P Singh, while nearly Rs 10 million were spent on that institution by the department of archaeology between 1990 and 1996. This ’secular’ largesse is in contrast to the denial of even a rupee to ancient Hindu temples like Badrinath and Kedarnath.
• Government-appointed administrators run several Hindu temple trusts while the mosques of Hazratbal and Charar-e-Sharif are free of such control.
• Public holidays for religious occasions are accepted as being in consonance with a ’secular’ State. Why, V P Singh’s government declared the birthday of the Prophet as a gazetted holiday although no Islamic country gives that privilege to its citizens.

***

It is a shame�that we have never had a full and public debate about the need for having this word in the Preamble to the Constitution, in the first place.

Secondly, we have never really bothered�to define what it means and what would it imply in terms of state policies towards�Hinduism, Islam, Christianity and other religions.

Should being secular necessarily entail being defensive about Hinduism? And is it not ironical that at its root, Hinduism is actually a very “secular” belief system?

Related Posts:

Hinduism as a secular�concept�

Of Subsidies and Politics of��Secularism��

�Secular Fundamentalism��alive & kicking in�India�

Secularism or Politics of�Appeasement?�

Perverse secularism and India�s�future�

UPDATE:

Thanks to “Patriot” for this link: http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend42.htm�. You can read the entire constitution and the various amendments at the above site.

Also, please refer to this comment and the following two comments on this topic:

http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/05/08/naman-1857/#comment-11957