The Preamble won't be changed back to the original. Here's why

The Print

a day ago

The very first sentence of the Constitution has been studded with a lie for the last fifty years. We don't mind misattributing even grave things to the deceased Constitution makers.
The Preamble, a one-sentence credo, carries the date 26 November 1949 in present tense, despite being altered 26 years afterwards. All this while leaders have been propagating with gusto that it is given by a demigod-like leader, BR Ambedkar.
The irony of Indian politics can be understood by the condition of the Preamble of the Constitution. Our habit of playing with words and phrases is in full play here.
Just review the issue. The Preamble of the original Constitution (1950) described India as a democratic republic. Twenty-six years later, two heavy political terms were added to it: 'secular' and 'socialist'. India was re-christened as 'democratic socialist secular republic' only on 26 November 1949.
Now, fifty years after that deceit—intended or not—there is again a clamour to revert it to the original. No surprise if this turns out to be just another game of our leaders.
The change was made during the Emergency. And the amendment was passed in the Parliament without genuine deliberation, as the Opposition was put in jail. It was perhaps a plot of an intellectual coterie that convinced Indira Gandhi to do it—she was not an ideologue like her father to flaunt such heavy terms.
Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru
Tampering with basic structure
The amendment proved to be a great distortion of the Constitution. Look at the facts:
First, all political theorists considered the original Preamble remarkable. The famed British political scientist Ernest Barker began his 1952 book Principles of Social and Political Theory with the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said that it stated 'in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book'. This was a unique commendation for the original Preamble.
Second, in political science or law teaching in India, the Preamble was called the soul and foundation of the Constitution. Therefore, to tamper with it was interfering with its soul.
Third, the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union case (1960) described the Preamble as not part of the Constitution but an overall guiding principle of it, through which other provisions of the Constitution may be understood. So, the Preamble was itself a standard, a scale. And whoever heard of tampering with a scale?
Fourth, the Supreme Court again, in 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared that while the Preamble of the Constitution is not exempt from amendment, its basic structure cannot be changed.
It grates against what was done three years later with it. Their Lordships, too, turned a Nelson's eye to this great contradiction.
On all those four counts, it is undeniable that the alteration made to the Preamble was grave. The consequences have been graver still. The change made in 1976 hit the basics of the Constitution. It was especially damaging as it was an ideological amendment.
It must also be noted that 'socialist' and 'secular' were known concepts to the Constitution makers. In fact, they discussed the issue of adding 'socialist' and 'secular' and rejected it.
It is, therefore, a sin on the part of the leaders of the country to cheat the people by falsely propagandising this distorted Preamble for the last fifty years. Current propaganda, that it all is a 'legacy of Dr Ambedkar', is still more sinful.
It is more so because it was Ambedkar himself who categorically rejected the proposal to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' into the Constitution. It happened in the Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1948.
A member of the Constituent Assembly, Professor KT Shah, had proposed to include the words 'secular, federal, socialist' into the Constitution. Rejecting it in toto, Ambedkar said:
'Mr. Vice‑President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place, the Constitution…is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State…What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised 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 organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better…I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form…This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed…The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous…If these directive principles…are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.'
Though he did not separately comment on the word 'secular', he dismissed the entire proposal. The Constituent Assembly concurred with him.
Despite such rejection, the very terms were inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It is noteworthy, too, that the Janata Party government comprising the Jana Sangh, socialists, and other non-Congress parties continued with the distorted Preamble. They repealed many sections of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment in 1978, but they chose to keep the distortion of the Preamble. Thus, all political parties have injured the 'soul' of the Constitution.
Also read: Hosabale, Dhankhar, Shivraj & Himanta give Modi yet another reason to amend BJP constitution
Vote-bank politics
After that, the character of the Constitution itself began to change. It gradually bore bitter fruit. It led to the establishment of an unstated anti-Hindu mindset in Indian politics, which slowly infiltrated the entire political and educational sphere.
It is a dark irony that until the word 'secular' was added, the Constitution was indeed secular, treating all communities equally. But after inserting the word 'secular', most Indian leaders—knowingly or unknowingly—interpreted and applied it in ways that effectively rendered Hindus as second-class citizens. Now Hindus have become 'eighth-class citizens', to use the term from Anand Ranganathan's book Hindus in Hindu Rashtra.
With time, Indian leaders competitively turned the terms 'minority' and 'secular' into mere tools of vote-bank politics. In the process, the original intent of the Constitution and the universal principles of common justice and morality have been undermined.
Since all this unfolded gradually, it constituted a double betrayal of the Indian people.
All political parties used the excuse of the 'Constitutional' mandate of secularism and a distorted reading of 'protection of minorities' as per Article 29 to provide facilities and privileges exclusively to non-Hindus. This, too, was against the intent of the Constitution makers, who had taken care to ensure every benefit to minorities without excluding the non-minorities from any benefits. But this exclusion is perpetrated by all rulers, especially after the distortion of the Preamble.
In the absence of any political party to sincerely oppose it, Hindus were left with no means to even detect the wrong being done, let alone counter it. Most political leaders intended to woo bulk votes from a particular non-Hindu community. They quietly but openly cheated the unaware, helpless Hindu citizens.
Therefore, any hope of correcting the distortion in the Preamble seems futile. Our political parties are deeply immersed in the quagmire of 'minority-ism'. It is unlikely that any of them will find the courage to come out of it. The issue will most probably be used to create a public uproar, each party using it to consolidate its constituencies. There will be talks of discrimination, accusations, and counter-accusations. Nothing more should be expected.
Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)