GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 25th Sept. India is one of the most diverse countries on the planet, if not the most diverse. It stretches from Jammu and Kashmir in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south and from Gujrat in the west to Arunachal Pradesh in the east.
Secularism was not initially incorporated into the constitution of India. Without any mention of it being a secular state, it was stated unequivocally that India was a sovereign democratic republic. After the 42nd general election, India was branded as a “secular” and “socialist” nation in 1976.
Since then, there has been discussion about whether or not making India a secular nation was the right move or merely a political gimmick to placate a particular group.
In modern times, “the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions” is the very definition of the term “secularism.” The pressure to alter a few sentences in our Constitution has increased ever since a nationalist government took office in 2014. The preferred philosophy of those who favor change is secularism. However, very few of them are aware of how changing the wording will affect the entire world. They haven’t even gone into detail about how the world’s addition altered the evolution of Bharat’s civilization.
People only cite specific passages from the Indian constitution when it is convenient for them to do so. The word “secularism” is equally misleading.
This time, Subramanian Swamy can’t escape the spotlight of the media, whose challenge to the 42nd amendment of the Constitution have made headlines. He wants the words “socialist” and “secular” to be deleted from the Constitution’s preamble.
Swamy argues in his writ petition that the insertion of both of these words is ultra-vires to the constitutional amendment authority granted to the Parliament under Article 368. Both Swamy and the second petitioner, attorney Satya Sabharwal, have used B R Ambedkar’s outspoken opposition to the use of both words during the Constituent Assembly debates to support their claims.
However, they are not the only ones calling for these adjustments. In fact, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under the Modi government used its own image in the preamble in 2015 but left out these two words. The usefulness of both of these words had become the subject of a national debate. Even I&B minister Ravishankar Prasad was forced to participate in the conversation. Rakesh Sinha introduced a resolution five years later that demanded the elimination of both of these words.
All of these questions have complicated solutions. It is accurate to say that adding these two words was merely a formality. The addition of the word “Socialist.” Since we gained political independence, socialism has been an ingrained component of our political system.
The USSR’s economic ideas were simply appropriated by our first Prime Minister and applied to India. The five-year plan, which was abandoned after 2015, was a prime example of how the Soviet Union influenced Indian economic policy.
The truth is that this idea had disastrous effects in the USSR, which were evident by the early 1960s. Indira Gandhi nevertheless thought it appropriate to compel the word’s inclusion in the Constitution. The word shouldn’t have been used anymore after Socialism’s complete failure was finally acknowledged in 1991, but that didn’t happen.
It also occurred to the group’s ignorant members. A rise in minimal state control was observed at the same time that the Indian state was opening its doors to an increasing number of capitalist units. While the NDA primarily devolved government companies, UPA eras were more characterized by state control.
The NDA relied on the Chanakya model of economics rather than the school of modern economic thought. The Chanakya model is currently being implemented in concepts like Corporate Social Responsibility, Impact Bonds to Skill Youth, Social Impact Bonds, and Social Stock Exchange. Due to the fact that socialism is ineffective in India, it would seem that removing the word “socialist” from the Preamble would be beneficial.
When we discuss the removal of the word “secular” from the Preamble, however, things suddenly change drastically. Similar to the word “socialist,” the word “secular” wasn’t necessary at the time. Secularism was deemed to be a fundamental component of the Indian Constitution by the Honorable Supreme Court before Indira Gandhi even added the word to the preamble.
The Judges who announced secularism as a fundamental component had done their research. Being learned people, they were aware of how various Articles supported the abolition of all forms of religious discrimination. Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 44 are merely the western concept of secularism in action. The phrase’s current meaning can be traced back to the movement to separate Church and state.
Constitution and Preamble
Despite a long history of adherence to the term’s positive interpretation, Indira Gandhi formalised it by including it in the Constitution’s Preamble. The Preamble of our Constitution is a challenging section. If someone violates the principles outlined in those few lines, you cannot file a lawsuit. It’s also true that the Preamble is a summary of the principles that underpin our Constitution as a whole.
Because of this, when judges are unsure how to interpret a statute or a clause, they turn to the Preamble as a general rule of thumb. Only then does the interpretation pass the legal test if it is consistent with the Preamble’s values.
Once the United States immediately barred PM Modi from entering its territory after 2002. The US believed it would be detrimental to its reputation to allow CM Modi to visit their shores because the Western liberal media and their allies in India had demonised him to such an extent. In 2014, PM Modi flipped the script by gaining the confidence of a democratic “Secular” party. He later rose to become the nation’s “numero one” leader. The President of a secular nation had no choice but to be unbanned by the US.
This explains why PM Modi, after he assumed office, did not pay attention to anti-secularism sentiments. He wasn’t the one who desired power solely for its own sake. With power, PM Modi hoped to reunite India. He has been specifically concentrating on gaining the support of the voter bases that the media’s disinformation campaign against PM Modi in particular and the BJP in general had identified.
The pro-Secularism image of PM Modi sets India apart from other emerging or established superpowers. China’s Communist government is in charge, so it lacks such influence. Russians specifically aren’t known for respecting all religions, either.
It is imperative that the Preamble maintain its secularism. Although it may not have a significant effect on domestic policies, it has an impact on the world’s perception. It won’t harm anything if the word is used in the Preamble and is used to equalise Hindu rights with minority rights. But the benefits are enormous.
Hinduism’s influence has been acknowledged by the entire world. Hinduism is becoming more popular in the West. India and Hindus are no longer associated with lower eyes. We must consider Hinduism’s existence right now because it is urgent. India, as the sole Hindu Ratshtra, must protect the Hindus in its own home.
Comments are closed.