No substance, only politics

Notwithstanding the government putting to rest the recent row over the Preamble of the Constitution, the debate provides a disturbing insight. The issue today is not about the significance of the Preamble, its amendments, or its legality and sanctity but the parties are playing politics and that too vigorous electoral politics.

Recall a big controversy had erupted over the reproduction of the original Preamble of the Constitution in official advertisements on Republic Day omitting the two terms “socialist” and “secular”, which were added to the Preamble by the famous 42nd amendment in 1976. The I&B Ministry had replied that this was not a mistake, but a representation of “an artistic depiction of an original historical document”. Further, Minister Arun Jaitley later issued instructions that all advertisements/Government communication should use the amended version of the Preamble.

On the occasion of the anniversary celebration of the Indian Republic, the reproduction of the Preamble in its original form seems quite appropriate to some people as part of recollection of our historical heritage.

Interestingly, political exchanges were centred on the omission of the word “secular” and not so much about “socialist”. Self-styled guardians of secularism have obviously moved away from socialism and are perhaps ready to delete the term from the Preamble.

Another omission, omitted in public debates today is the word “integrity” - also added by the 42nd amendment - to elaborate “fraternity” as “assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the nation”. It seems that it is admitted to be redundant by the critics of the advertisement as the entire constitutional arrangement is based on the principle of upholding the unity and integrity of the nation.

Considered impartially, this omission gives credence to the argument that the Republic Day advertisement was a replica of the original Preamble without later amendments with any ulterior motives. The controversy seemed worthless and indeed meaningless, and showed that some vested interests are constantly on the lookout for opportunities to raise secular versus communal issues.

Anyway, it has raised our curiosity to probe into the causes for exclusion and inclusion later of the two terms – “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble irrespective of its relevance today. An important similarity between the two words is that both are politically loaded, yet undefined and open to different interpretations.

The Preamble is an important part of a law or Constitution that conveys its spirit and goals. The Preamble reflects the vision of the founding fathers of our Constitution.

The drafting and adoption of the Preamble were not accomplished as an easy job. First drafted by B N Rao in May 1947 and included in the draft Constitution in October 1947, it was placed before the Constituent Assembly in October 1949. The draft of the Preamble was considered and passed by the Constituent Assembly after adoption of the main text on 26th November 1949. All the provisions of the Constitution including the Preamble came into force on 26th January 1950.

Suggestions to include the terms “socialist’ and ‘secular” were made in the Constituent Assembly, but given up after debate. Even before the 42nd amendment that inserted the word “secular” in the Preamble, secularism had been declared as one of the basic features of the Constitution in 1973 in the Keshavananda Bharti vs. State of Kerala. It is beyond the amending powers of the Parliament as per the verdict in SR Bommai case of 1994.

Unlike in other countries, in India, judicial opinion holds that since the Preamble embodies the philosophy underlying the Constitution, it cannot be brushed aside as a surplus. Going over the political and juridical journey of the Preamble of the Constitution is really unnecessary in the present debate. Today, an artificial bogey is created that dropping the word “secular” is a prelude to dropping secularism – an obsession with some political parties to keep alive “communal” issues and assume a posture of guardians of minority interests.

Dropping secularism is neither possible nor advisable in the pluralist country that is home to a variety of cultures. All political players are doubtless aware of this. There are many genuine problems confronting the nation that await consensual action of political leaders. It is time that we stopped meaningless debates and shift attention to developmental issues. The media can cleanse politics to some extent by ignoring petty controversies and worthless debates.

By: S Saraswati