First came the apparently innocuous advertisement to mark the Republic Day — the original page showing the Constitution as adopted on November 26, 1949. There were some, especially from the Congress, who cried foul over the absence of the two words — socialist and secular — from the Preamble. The minister of state for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Rathore responded rather gleefully saying that this was the original manuscript of the Constitution. One thought that the issue had died down. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

But Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut has chosen to keep the controversy alive. Raut has said that the words, ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ should be dropped because they were inserted during the Emergency. Union minister for information technology and telecom Ravishankar Prasad on Wednesday further stoked the controversy proposing a debate on the issue. He  went further and said that at the time of adopting the Constitution, the words were not included in the Preamble. And that their absence did not mean that Jawaharlal Nehru, who was a prominent member of the Constituent Assembly, was not secular. 

It is an interesting argument in itself. What makes it troubling is that the BJP government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi — this is a National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government only in name — seems to be playing a cunning game of sorts. Prasad’s statement opens up the possibility that the government is testing the waters and would not mind bringing an amendment which would remove those two words which were inserted in 1976. The BJP leaders should have the courage to be honest and bold. They should state their intentions clearly and loudly, if they have reservations about having ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble. Let them say so. The BJP claims to believe in secularism, and it accuses its bete noire, the Congress, for not being truly secular. The BJP believes in uniform civil code as part of its secular credo. If that is the case, it should not object to the existence of the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble. The BJP also believes in ‘socialism’ in its own way. Its leaders are fond of proclaiming their adherence to Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s Antyodaya Yojana, of serving the needs of the last man in the line. 

The BJP’s ideology revolves around nationalism and socialism. So, it is puzzling as to why Prasad expanded the scope of the idea mooted by the Shiv Sena and made the suggestion that it should be debated. It is possible that Prasad did not have anything more serious on mind than the lawyer’s desire for a good argument on an issue. There is then no need to read more into his statement.

Though the 42nd Amendment, which included the insertion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble, was passed during the Emergency, it was debated in Parliament, and Indira Gandhi was not alone in pushing the changes. Many jurists like Gajendragadkar and VR Krishna Iyer, were in favour of changing the Constitution to suit the aspirations of the people. They and the Congress sycophants of Indira Gandhi of the day, had proclaimed that the Constitution cannot remain a dead document and that it should reflect the demands of a living people. It would not be surprising if the BJP ideologues were to come up with similar arguments. Remember Modi’s views on Planning Commission when he announced its abolition? All that we demand is that the BJP and the government state their position without any ambiguity on the issue.