On the eve of Constitution Day 2024, the Supreme Court of India dismissed petitions to delete the words “Socialist” and “Secular” from the Preamble to the Constitution.
The initial discussions on what the Constitution (and the Preamble) should look like can be traced to a December 13, 1946 discussion of the Constituent Assembly. Back then, Jawahar Lal Nehru proposed a broad outline of the Assembly's aims and objectives, called the Objectives Resolution.
"Laws are made of words but this Resolution is something higher than the law," he said before urging the Assembly to declare "its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign Republic."
Building from this Objectives Resolution by Nehru, the Assembly eventually (on October 17, 1949) passed a motion to add to the Constitution a Preamble that proclaimed India as a "Sovereign Democratic Republic" after intense debate.
However, as repeatedly highlighted during the recent Supreme Court hearings, the words "Socialist" and "Secular" were not originally a part of the Preamble adopted in 1949.
Rather, the terms were added in 1976 by way of the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, when the Emergency was in force.
This article aims to highlight the Constituent Assembly discussion around the inclusion of these words in the Constitution and the Preamble, and why the architect of our Constitution, Dr BR Ambedkar, opposed the same.
Ambedkar's opposition
Notably, during the Constituent Assembly debates on November 15, 1948, Prof KT Shah called for the introduction of these words to Article 1 of the Constitution. Prof Shah moved a motion to describe India as a “Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.”
The word ‘federal’ would indicate that India is not a Unitary State and that all its constituents have equal rights, he pointed out.
Next, he pointed out that time and again, it has been said that India is a secular state.
“If that holds good, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the Constitution itself to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension,” he added.
Finally, he defended the proposed addition of the word “socialist” as indicating an aspirational goal for India.
“What is implied or conveyed by this amendment is a state in which equal justice and equal opportunity for everybody is assured,” he clarified.
However, he faced opposition leading to the rejection of his motion.
Among those who opposed the amendment was Dr Ambedkar, although his comments were confined to criticising the proposed addition of “socialist.”
Dr Ambedkar opined that it would destroy democracy if the Constituent Assembly were to define in 1949 what India’s priorities should be for posterity – whether it must be geared towards socialism, capitalism or something else.
“What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic sides 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. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live.
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 than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore 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,” he said.
He also termed Prof Shah’s proposed amendment superfluous, since there were other provisions in the Constitution to provide for equality of opportunities.
“These socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment,” Dr. Ambedkar concluded.
HV Kamath, meanwhile, supported the addition of “secular” and “socialist”, albeit in the Preamble to the Constitution instead of Article 1.
“I personally think that they should find a place, if at all only in the Preamble,” Kamath said.
Prof Shah’s motion was eventually rejected.
However, the Assembly’s discussions on whether socialism or references to divine faith (or lack thereof) should be added to a prominent place in the Constitution did not end there.
Of God and Gandhi
On October 17, 1949, the Preamble to the Constitution (which was eventually adopted a little over a month later on November 26) was finalised.
During this debate, Brajeshwar Prasad suggested referring to India as being a “secular cooperative commonwealth to establish a socialist order” to secure for all citizens an adequate means of livelihood, free and compulsory education, free medical aid and compulsory military training.
“What about a camel and motorcycle?” was Dr PS Deshmukh’s response.
Prasad went on to justify the need to add these terms, saying,
"...this word secular has not found any place in our Constitution. This is the word on which the greatest stress has been laid by our national leaders. I do submit that this word ought to be incorporated in our Preamble because it will tone-up the morale of the minorities and it will check the spirit of loaferism that is rampant in politics. I have laid stress on another word. I refer to the Word ‘Socialist’. I believe that the future of India is in Socialism. I believe in a Socialist order. When I say that I believe in a socialist order. I do not mean that I accept the Marxian interpretation of History. I do not believe in class war nor in the materialist Philosophy which is so widely prevalent among the socialist circles. By socialism I mean an equalitarian social order..."
The amendment was eventually rejected, as was an amendment by Maulana Hasrat Mohani to refer to India as the Union of Indians Socialistic Republics (UISR) on the lines of the USSR.
Meanwhile, some members expressed their wish to invoke God in the Preamble.
HV Kamath wished to add “In the name of God” as the introductory line to the Preamble.
“A man has a right to believe in God or not,” objected A Thanu Pillai, although he was quick to add that he was a staunch believer of God.
“Instead of ‘In the name of God’, would he be pleased to accept ‘In the name of Goddess’?” added Rohini Kumar Chaudhury.
“It should not be subjected to the vote of a House of three hundred people whether India wants God or not,” Thirumala Rao urged, while requesting Kamath to withdraw his amendment.
Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru also weighed in by expressing regret over the manner in which the topic was being discussed.
“I recognise the sincerity of Mr. Kamath and of those who agree with him, but I do not see why in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should be forced on anybody,” he said.
Chaudhury agreed, adding that he was saddened by Kamath’s proposal.
President Rajendra Prasad also urged the Assembly not to be flippant about the topic.
“He (Kamath) may be asked to withdraw it,” Ambedkar suggested.
The motion was eventually put to a vote and rejected (41 in favour and 68 against).
“This, Sir, is a black day in our annals. God save India,” Kamath is recorded to have lamented in response.
Prof Shibban Lal Saksena later proposed an amendment that involved not only God, but also Mahatma Gandhi. Prof Saksena suggested that the Preamble open with the following words:
“In the name of God the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation from slavery into Freedom ….”
Brajeshwar Prasad opposed the suggestion, stating that Gandhi should not be incorporated in a Constitution that had its foundations in decisions of the American Supreme Court.
“If we had a Gandhian Constitution, I would have been the first to offer my support. I do not want that the name of Mahatma Gandhi should be dragged in this rotten Constitution,” he added.
The amendment was eventually withdrawn following a request by Acharya JB Kripalani who pointed out that it would not be right to drag Gandhi into a Constitution that may be changed or reshaped at any time.
The fight to add God to the Preamble persisted still. Pandit Govind Malaviya suggested that the Preamble begin with,
“By the Grace of the Supreme Being, Lord of the Universe, called by different names…”
He reasoned that such a broad description of the divine may respect competing beliefs and was unlikely to offend anyone.
“My amendment says ‘called by different names by different peoples of the world,’” he pointed out.
An earlier draft version also called for the incorporation of Parameswar and Mahatma Gandhi, although Malaviya amended the motion to remove these references when he presented it before the Assembly.
President Rajendra Prasad, however, declined to put it to vote since a similar motion had already been rejected.
“By simply omitting the word Parameshwar you do not take out of the amendment which has been defeated,” Prasad said.
At the end of the discussion, Naziruddin Ahmad perhaps summed up things aptly when he said,
"He (Kripalani) seems to think—and I speak with great respect—that the success of a democracy depends upon the introduction of some sweet and palatable words in the Constitution. I however, submit that the success of a democracy depends on how it is practically worked. It has nothing to do whatever with what we may state in the Preamble or in the Constitution."
A living document
The November 25 judgment of the Supreme Court refers to the Constitution as a "living document", keeping in mind the vision of Dr Ambedkar and the other framers.
"While it is true that the Constituent Assembly had not agreed to include the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, the Constitution is a living document, as noticed above with power given to the Parliament to amend it in terms of and in accord with Article 368."
On why "secular" was not added back when the Constitution was being framed, the Court said,
"In 1949, the term 'secular' was considered imprecise, as some scholars and jurists had interpreted it as being opposed to religion. Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalizes the profession and practice of any faith."
Similarly, on the non-inclusion of "socialist", it said,
"Neither the Constitution nor the Preamble mandates a specific economic policy or structure, whether left or right. Rather, 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a welfare State and its commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity."