The system of democracy owes its existence and draws its inspiration from the Constitution of a nation. Without a Constitution, there can be no democracy. The Constitution of each nation reflects the people’s collective will. So too with India, where the Constituent Assembly finalised its framework and contents shortly after Independence and this was brought into force in 1950. The Constitution remains as the fundamental governance document with periodic changes being effected by elected governments. Its sanctity should be protected and preserved.
The Supreme Court decision to uphold the changes effected to the Constitution in 1976 is seen in this light. The apex court upheld the inclusion of the terms, Socialism, Secularism etc., in the amendment made by the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi in 1976. Those who challenged the changes in court cited the point that these were incorporated at a time when the government was on an extended term – the Emergency period when no election to Parliament was possible – and hence its legal validity was ‘questionable.’ The Court rejected the argument and noted that Parliament had deliberated on these matters in 1978 when the next elected government took office. Both socialism and secularism, the court rightly noted, ensured equality and equal rights for all citizens, which is appreciable for all times to come. Socialism need not necessarily have to have a bearing on the financial aspects of governance. Notably, even before these words were incorporated into the Indian Constitution, successive governments from the time of the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had given eminence to such concepts. India as a nation was comfortable with both these ideals though the era of Liberalization arrived and the socialist concepts changed vis-a-vis the nation’s financial governance. At the same time, the concept of equality prevailed in the government’s engagements in the social sphere.
Secularism is a modernist view set against the fundamentalist obsessions of Islamic nations. Neither the Americas nor Europe, under democratic systems, entertained a fundamentalist/religious coating for their governing systems. Islamist nations where individual freedom is a casualty are bedevilled by anarchy other than in the dictatorial, oil-rich Gulf region. In India, the RSS had never been comfortable with the concept of secularism and sought to undercut it in order to establish Hindu supremacy over the nation. That this is the only Hindu nation of prominence in itself cannot justify the attempts at import of religious fundamentalism to its governing systems. Creating social wedges in the name of religion is reprehensible. The BJP government led by Narendra Modi has over the past 10 years treaded carefully and mostly sought to function under the dictates of the Constitution for the simple reason that the public mood is pro-Secularism. It must remain so in order to ensure and promote a fraternal feeling among the entire citizenry.
