Mamata leads Oppn charge on ECI drive
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
37 minutes ago
- Hans India
Secular and Socialist: A Constitutional debate beyond words
These words, conspicuously absent when the Constitution was adopted in 1950, were introduced through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976, during the national emergency. The manner and timing of their inclusion have sparked persistent questions about their necessity, legitimacy and impact on the foundational spirit of the Republic. This debate is not merely about words but reflects a deeper struggle over India's identity and the delicate balance between historical intent and evolving aspirations. On June 25, 1975, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi invoked Article 352, declaring a state of emergency citing 'internal disturbance.' This unprecedented move, which lasted until March 21, 1977, curtailed civil liberties, suppressed political opposition, and placed the legislative process under extraordinary strain. It was during this turbulent period that the 42nd Amendment, often termed the 'mini-Constitution', added 'secular' and 'socialist' to the Preamble. Critics argue that the emergency's restrictive environment, which stifled democratic discourse, undermined the legitimacy of this change. The decision to insert these terms appears disconnected from the emergency's stated purpose, suggesting an attempt to imbue the Constitution with a specific ideological bent rather than a reflection of broad national consensus. The Constituent Assembly, which meticulously crafted the original Constitution, had deliberately chosen not to include these terms after exhaustive debates. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Constitution's chief architect, emphasized that principles like religious neutrality and social justice were already woven into the document's fabric, particularly through the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. The Assembly believed that explicit labels in the Preamble were unnecessary, as the Constitution's ethos already embodied these values. The 1976 amendment, therefore, raises a critical question: if these principles were inherent, why were they added during a period of curtailed democratic processes? Some view the move as an effort to legitimize the emergency regime's actions by aligning the Constitution with the ruling government's ideology, rather than a genuine expression of national will. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in interpreting these terms, affirming their constitutional validity while clarifying their meaning in the Indian context. Indian secularism, distinct from the Western model of strict separation between state and religion, embodies the principle of equal respect for all faiths, often described as Sarva Dharma Sambhava. The state maintains neutrality, neither favoring nor discriminating against any religion, while ensuring religious freedom for all citizens. In the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, a nine-judge bench declared secularism a basic feature of the Constitution, unalterable even by amendment. The Court emphasized that religion is a matter of individual faith and cannot be mixed with secular activities, reinforcing the state's role as a neutral arbiter. This ruling underscored that secularism was intrinsic to the Constitution, even before its explicit inclusion, validating the 42nd Amendment's addition of the term. Subsequent judgments have consistently reaffirmed secularism's centrality, positioning it as a guiding principle for state action and policy in India's diverse society. Similarly, the term 'socialist' in the Indian context denotes a commitment to social and economic justice, rather than rigid state control of production. Described as 'democratic socialism', it seeks to reduce inequalities and ensure a decent standard of living through democratic means. The Supreme Court has linked socialism to the Directive Principles, particularly those aiming to promote welfare and minimise disparities. In one judgment, the apex court observed that a socialist state's primary aim is to eliminate inequality in income, status, and standard of life. This interpretation envisions a mixed economy where the state intervenes to protect the vulnerable and ensure equitable resource distribution. The judiciary's endorsement has largely settled the legal standing of these terms, but it has not fully resolved the philosophical and historical debates surrounding their inclusion, particularly given their perceived redundancy considering the Constitution's existing provisions. The retention of 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble, even after the 44th Amendment of 1977 reversed many of the 42nd Amendment's changes, underscores their symbolic importance. Proponents argue that these terms serve as a constant reminder of India's commitment to pluralism and social justice, particularly in a nation grappling with communal tensions and economic disparities. Their presence is seen as prescriptive, guiding India toward an inclusive and equitable future. Conversely, critics contend that the terms are superfluous, as their principles are already enshrined in the Constitution's substantive provisions. They argue that removing these words would not alter the Constitution's fabric, as the judiciary has affirmed that secularism and socialism are intrinsic to its basic structure. Such a move, they suggest, would honour the Constituent Assembly's original intent, which prioritized substance over symbolic labels. The Assembly's decision to omit these terms was not an oversight but a deliberate choice, reflecting confidence that the Constitution's provisions adequately embodied these ideals. The debate also raises questions about the 42nd Amendment's political motivations. Critics view it as an attempt to consolidate power during the emergency, while the selective retention of these terms during the 44th Amendment suggests a complex interplay of political will and recognition of their symbolic value. If a proposal were made to remove these terms without altering other constitutional provisions, opposition would likely stem from their symbolic weight rather than their substantive impact. Their deletion could be misinterpreted as a retreat from India's pluralistic and welfare-oriented ethos, potentially emboldening divisive forces. However, proponents of its removal argue that such an act would reaffirm the Constituent Assembly's wisdom, prioritising the Constitution's implicit strength over explicit labels. This debate reflects a broader struggle over India's constitutional identity. The Preamble is not merely a preface but a living testament to the nation's aspirations. Whether these terms remain or are removed, the principles they represent—secularism as a commitment to harmony and socialism as a pursuit of equity—will continue to shape India's democratic journey. The judiciary's affirmation of these principles as part of the Constitution's basic structure provides a robust legal foundation, yet the philosophical and political discourse remains vibrant. As India navigates its future, the challenge lies in balancing respect for the Constitution's historical intent with the evolving needs of a diverse, dynamic democracy. The question is not just about words but about the enduring vision for a nation committed to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all its citizens. (The writer is a senior Advocate)
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Jose K Mani's man-wildlife conflict remark reignites UDF return debate
KOTTAYAM: Amid growing speculation on the Kerala Congress (M) re-joining the UDF, the party's recent call to convene an urgent assembly session to address issues surrounding the escalating man-animal conflicts in the state is being interpreted as a strategic manoeuvre to part ways with the LDF. KC(M) chairman Jose K Mani's statement has already kicked up discussions within political circles, suggesting that the party is actively exploring ways, and reasons, to exit the Left coalition. According to sources, Jose has already held informal discussions with the Congress high command regarding the switch in alliance. Reports have pointed to the KC(M) chairman holding talks with senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and general secretary in-charge of organisation K C Venugopal in New Delhi. At the same time, KC(M) leaders said there was nothing political about Jose meeting Rahul and Venugopal as they are colleagues in Parliament. 'There is nothing inappropriate about Jose speaking with Rahul Gandhi or Venugopal. As of now, it's too early for any such discussion regarding KC(M) switching to the UDF,' said a KC(M) leader. The Kerala Congress leadership is aware of the general pro-UDF sentiments among its cadre.
Time of India
9 hours ago
- Time of India
Emergency by Indira was undemocratic: Joshi
Dharwad: Union minister Pralhad Joshi said the 50th year of the dark days of Emergency in India is being observed throughout the country to inform the younger generation about how the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency and ruled for 21 months without constitutional and moral authority. Speaking at the Viksit Bharat Sankalp Sabha and the inauguration of the 50th year of remembrance of the struggle during the Emergency, organised by the BJP at Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha here, he said Emergency was imposed on June 25, 1975 and during that time, protests were suppressed, many protesters including all the leaders of opposition parties were imprisoned, and several people lost their lives, he explained. "Indira Gandhi was accused of misusing her power during the elections by Raj Narain, who took the matter to court. Justice HR Khanna of the Allahabad High Court had delivered the verdict in favour of Raj Narain and had declared Indira's election null and void. That judgement copy is not available anymore," he added. "Jawaharlal Nehru made the first constitutional amendment. Later, Indira Gandhi made several amendments including to Articles 38, 39, and 42. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ford&Go. Extra Bonus di € 1.500 e prima rata a ottobre. Ford Italia Scopri di più Undo After imposing the Emergency and causing hardships to the people, the Congress is now claiming that the Constitution is in danger. They are lecturing the nation while keeping the copy of the Constitution in their pockets," he remarked. Joshi stated that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the country has developed immensely in the last 11 years. India has now emerged as the fourth largest economic power in the world, he claimed. Retired judge SH Mittalkod presided over the function. Mayor Jyoti Patil, former MLAs Amrut Desai, Seema Masuti, Lakshman Uppar, Sanjay Kapatkar, Vijayanand Shetty, Shankar Kumbi, Shankar Shelke, Raju Topannavar and others were present.
