Storm in a tea cup

war over words

The only good thing Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did in her repressive rule during the Emergency was to include the words, ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’, in the preamble of the constitution. Morarji Desai, who succeeded her, had all the changes she made in the constitution deleted, but retained the amendment to the preamble.

The Jan Sangh, the earlier carnation of the BJP that had merged with the Janata Party, raised no objection. L K Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Jan Sangh stalwarts who had joined the Janata, were among the enthusiastic leaders to retain the words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the preamble.

It is apparent that the omission of these two words from an advertisement issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting should not be construed as the “real” intention of the government. The ministry had admitted its mistake. The matter should have ended there and then.

But the controversy has been kept alive by BJP chief Amit Shah. He said at a press conference that the old preamble is the real one. However, the Information and Broadcasting Minister Arun Jaitley stated that what held the field was the new version of the preamble which omits the mention of socialism and secularism.

The confusion has been confounded by Law and Justice Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad who stated that the omission of the words gives an opportunity to debate the matter all over again. It is a pity that the law minister should say so without realising the sanctity of the Constitution. That a liberal person like him should say it is all the more reprehensible. The matter was debated fully when the two words were included.

The only inference one can draw from this episode is that the Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh (RSS), which guides the party, wants the words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ dropped. For them, at least the word ‘secularism’ is an anathema.

But due to the countrywide furore, the BJP has not pursued the matter. Maybe, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who stayed silent in public, advised the party that the country was not yet ready to jettison secularism and socialism. The RSS probably considered it a reverse, not a defeat and will comeback to this agenda when the climate is favourable.

True, the lessening support for the Congress, which is ideologically secular, has adversely affected secularism. But the party and the ideology are not synonymous. In fact, secularism has suffered because the Congress deviated from it in action. In its race to grab power, the party pushed ideals into the background.

Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s commitment to the ideology has never been in doubt, nor was that of her son Rahul Gandhi’s. But there are many state leaders who do not hesitate to take a parochial line for the sake of votes. Sonia Gandhi is reportedly unhappy, but is afraid to take action against them because their exit from the Congress may hit the party in a way that may be fatal.

The Congress is in the midst of gathering information from the ground, according to its leader Anand Sharma, and may come out with a report in March. Yet, what it does not realise is that it has lost contact with the workers who are disillusioned that the Congress has distanced itself from the ethos of secularism and socialism in pursuit of power at any cost.

Mahatma Gandhi is still the icon. But the party has given space to elements who are trying to set up a memorial to pay homage to Nathu Ram Godse, the man who shot Gandhi dead. His name was nowhere in the picture till recently. But a few days ago, an underpass at Alwar, Rajasthan, was sought to be named after Godse.

The Congress and other secular organisations, including the leftist parties, should analyse their action and the way in which they have been pushing their programme, because Godse represents an ideology which smacks of Hindutva that Mahatma Gandhi fought against tooth and nail.

Socialism became the socialist pattern during Jawaharlal Nehru’s lifetime as he felt that the ideology was difficult to practice. The concept has become diluted over the years since the public sector undertakings which were supposed to attain the commanding heights have been put on the backburner.

The private sector, however, has been encouraged by different political parties because the industrialists provide the money for elections. This nexus cannot be broken until there are drastic electoral reforms to lessen the role of money.

Roadblocks to progress

Welfare is not dependent on socialism, but egalitarianism is. If the industry and business expand, at least the wealth

will increase. But the nexus between politicians and the bureaucracy does not allow rapid progress. Red tape apart, corruption at every step saps the energy which can be infused for the society to go ahead.

Communalism is the real problem. The nation’s strong reaction has stopped the “ghar wapsi” movement. Christians are still the target, but their number is limited and does not count much in electoral politics. Otherwise, the BJP government would not have dared to declare even the festival of Christmas into a Good Governance Day! As the archbishop at Delhi said, the measure was the result of a hate-campaign.

The Muslims, nearly 15 per cent in the country, have not got their due, particularly in jobs. But they have been able to stall the relentless efforts to push them aside.

Their votes come in good stead for them. If they do not fall prey to the machinations of Akbaruddin Owaisi, who is trying to attract Muslims in the name of religion, the realisation that there is no go from secularism will take roots.

Yet the nation has to ponder seriously over how it is being forced to compromise with communalism – the opposite of the ethos of freedom movement. How many of us today remember Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, the Frontier Gandhi, who stood boldly during the hey days of the Muslim League? They were visionary, and unlike the present leaders, saw the redemption of a multi-cultural and a multi-religious society that India is.