‘Controversy’ on Preamble of Constitution



On the occasion of Republic day 2015 GOI issued an advertisement where the first/original preamble of constitution was mentioned. Original in the sense it was the one that was created when India became a republic. It does not contain the words “socialist” and “secular” as defining features of Indian republic, which were added in 1970’s.

Opposition is up in its arms against this “omission” . BJP and some of the government representatives are indicating their willingness to debate and union minister Ravi Shankar Prasad expressed it.

As can be expected, media tried churning a controversy out of it. It is called an omission, then a blunder, then a graciously granted benefit of doubt calling it a possible “oversight”. This is expected because it does not contain the current version which has the words “socialist” and “secular” that were introduced during the emergency-notorious Late PM Indira Gandhi’s tenure. The two words that are so dear to the liberals, leftists, secularists and proxy-colonial elite that they have used as scarecrows for decades to protect their fiefdoms, the two words that have been added under conspicuous circumstances with no democratic procedures followed, have been “let go” by the government run by a Hindu Nationalist. How can an omission of these two words be not mischievous and simply an error! But then, one must understand the secular predicament not just in the objection but also in not invoking any matter of intent and agenda.

The original constitution’s preamble defines Indian union as a sovereign democratic republic. The 42nd amendment whose consequence is addition of these two additional words “secular” and “socialist” happened at the expense of democratic ideal. It is one of the most remembered amendments for the spirit in which it was done. When the Janata government formed later in 1977, the notion of basic structure was brought in so that such amendments do not occur in future. However, the Janata party and allies being socialist themselves, the government did not try enough to undo this modification of the preamble.

So understandably, invoking this amendment reminds us that it goes against a more fundamental aspect of constitutional ideal (spirit of democracy) than those introduced with it (secularism and socialism). It not only shows those responsible for such amendment in bad light but also indirectly shows who respects the constitution more. Hence the predicament in limited protest, to only let the fact of omission but not of the merit of introduction in debate.

However this event presents us with an occasion to not just see what transpired but evaluate the merit of the amendment itself. The fact that it was it was made without inviting a public debate and evaluation of the proposal does not fully explain lack of merit in the amendment – it only indicates an unjustified means, not unjustified ends. To examine the end achieved is also necessary, and in fact more important as it continues to impact policy in future.

Obviously the words like secularism and socialism were not new in 1970’s, they were well known to the original authors of constitution in 1947-50 both as desirable and as prevalent ideals elsewhere in the world. If they did not form part of preamble of the first draft of constitution, it was not merely because some of the main aspects of rights were inspired by American constitution. It was also not because these two features were not sought to be present in Indian union’s policy.

There are multiple reasons why these two words do not appear as the *defining features* of Indian union that appeared in the preamble, although they are in spirit not undesirable.

One, they are not defining features of the nation and hence cannot and should not form the defining features of the state. Secularism originates from the need for church-state divide in Christian societies and simply does not arise as a requirement in a society like Bharata where statecraft always was inspired by a tradition-agnostic moral scheme and religious traditions prospered as power-agnostic knowledge institutions of society, through ethical epistemic argumentation. Similarly socialism does not become a requirement in a society which always prospered with a fine balance between trading and skill groups and has a large privatized social security system. In fact while the state calls itself socialist, the economic model followed by society is hardly socialist. So in both these aspects the nation by its very nature inherently lives by what these ideals try to achieve and are hence redundant. Not just that, the nation has a more refined system of achieving both these goals and demonstrated their successful implementation for several continuous centuries before these concepts were even conceived in the west.

Two, secularism and socialism do not mean what they are made to mean in today’s Indian context. Neither is secularism about religious pluralism (or appeasement) nor is socialism about scuttling the nation’s productive potential to exploit a poverty vote bank.

Three, while secularism is a non-starter for our society, socialism is not a permanent ideal and can easily degenerate into a temporarily acceptable or unacceptable economic policy which cannot hence be the defining feature of a nation or a union of states. Given the longevity and stability of Indian society, such temporal aspects can never be and should never be incorporated as defining features.

Four, there is no moral locus standi for the demand that Bharata should be a secular state after the partition. Pakistan and Bangladesh are not carved for “communal” forces but for Muslims alone. Some elite try proudly claiming that Muslims got Pakistan whereas secularists got India, which is a polite way of representing a colossal fraud against the core identity of this nation, the Hindu culture and society. That hardly means the lack of willingness of Hindus to coexist: partition is entirely about the Muslims’ willingness to coexist. That means that this nation should be run according to the age old Hindu ideals of tolerance, pluralism, tradition-agnostic state, power-agnostic spiritual traditions, a nation and geo-culture duly recognized by the state and protected. That means this nation cannot be run with artificial ideals like “idea of India”, “secularism”, religious exclusivism and protection of intolerance as a right. Only then can it represent the true nature of this nation, its society and its greatness.

The authors of constitution, unlike the uprooted and politically motivated leaders of the subsequent generations, had a much better understanding of what becomes a defining feature for the nation and hence Indian union and what does not, and how to frame the preamble accordingly. Hence they chose, with due diligence and in their wisdom, not to make these two words secular and socialist, the defining features of Indian republic.

It is time there is a debate on the merit of the continuation of these in the preamble, the benefit accrued and loss incurred by the nation in these three decades since their introduction. It is time to evaluate whether there is any inherent contradiction between the secular-socialist policies and the universal worldview of Bharat, whether they go against the democratic nature of this nation, whether they created a problem or solved one. Whether making our state secular is inline with what constitution says elsewhere (such as taking control of Hindu religious institutions and giving complete freedom to minorities) needs debate. Whether undoing this inconsistent change is required to restore justice and fairness to constitution is required. It needs debate whether “secularism” made India’s religious conflict more acute, a case Prof Balagangadhara argues in this paper. The merit in advertising secularism as a solution to religious conflict when it is not by design about religious harmony but about state-religion divide should be debated. It is also required to be debated whether calling the state socialist helped making a policy that built or retarded our economic progress. It needs debate not just whether these two words should be removed but a policy of how and what the defining features of a state for Bharata should be.

 -Skanda Veera

No-Go Zones in USA – Muslim invasion of America

Bobby Jindal, Governor of LA in USA says that Muslim immigration of US will create a problem of “No-Go Zones” that Europe is now facing due to Muslim immigration. He calls it a Muslim invasion.


He goes on to say 

They want to use our freedoms to undermine that freedom in the first place,” Jindal said later of Muslim immigrants. “This is a place where you have freedom of self-determination, freedom of religious liberty, freedom of speech. This is an amazing place and we’re a majority Christian country. We’re a Judeo-Christian heritage, but we don’t discriminate against those that have no beliefs and or have different beliefs.”

Jindal said it’s “wonderful” that people “want to be Americans, they join our military, they start companies, they work to create a better community.” But what he said is unacceptable are those who want to “conquer” us. “If they want to come here and they want to set up their own culture and values that’s not immigration, that’s really invasion if you’re honest about it.

In India, the Hindus face a similar threat by Muslim leaders. Kashmiri Hindu Pandits have faced an exodus which is under-reported worldwide.  In cities like Hyderabad, leaders like Owaisi have openly declared war on the Hindus.

Recent reports suggest that as per 2011 census the population of Hindus has reduced to below 80% and that of Muslims is growing at 3% per decade.

Hindus have to face this issue head -on.

The Jihad of the womb is in action in Europe, America and India.


Leela Samson-Residue of Colonial Evangelism

Leela Samson(chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification) comments about removing scenes from PK movie that hurt the Hindu sentiment

“Every film may hurt religious sentiments of somebody or the other. We can’t remove scenes unnecessarily because there is something called creative endeavor where people present things in their own way. We have already given certificate to PK and we can’t remove anything, now because it’s already out for public viewing.” -Leela Samson

Leela samson

Proximity to the Nehru political dynasty

Samson is known for her proximity to the Nehru political dynasty of the Indian National Congress as she was the dance tutor of Priyanka Vadra. She was appointed as the director of Kalakshetra by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance in April 2005.She was subsequently also appointed as the chairperson of the Sangeet Natak Akademi in August 2010 and as the chairperson of the Central Board of Film Certification (an autonomous body that censors and certifies films in India, including Bollywood movies) in April 2011.

Samson’s tenures at Kalakshetra, Sangeet Natak Akademi and the censor board were mired with many controversies amid allegations of corruption, illegal appointments and arbitrary awarding of contracts,financial irregularities. It is alleged that corruption flourished in the censor board under her chair person-ship and the CEO of the CBFC himself was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation when board officials were caught red-handed accepting bribes on his behalf to clear a film for release.Also, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India indicted her for the widespread corruption and rampant financial irregularities at Kalakshetra under her watch.Subsequently, Samson had to apologize to the Madras High Court when pulled up for contempt of court due to an illegal construction activity at the Kalakshetra campus situated on prime property in Chennai.
She finally resigned from her position as director of Kalakshetra in 2012.She resigned from her position as chairperson of the censor board after the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal overturned her attempt to ban the movie MSG: The Messenger of God featuring Dera Sacha Sauda founder Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in a lead role and gave it clearance.

Rajiv Malhotra writes about Leela Samson in his book “Breaking India

Rukmini Arundale, a guru who rescued the dance form from the era of Colonial evangelism. speaks of dance as “Sadhana”. She had reservations about admitting Leela Samson.
“Leela Samson , a senior artist today, came to Kalashektra as a young girl. Because of her Judeo Christian background she had not had much exposure to traditional Indian culture. Rukmani was therefore hesitant about including her as a student. However on examining her on various related aspects we found that she had the attributes of a good dancer. Rukmani game her admission but with some reluctance. “

She became new director of Kalasketra in 2005. In 2006, she provoked the media storm by justifying the elimination of spiritual roots of Bharatanatyam. In 2006, when Sri Sri Ravi Shanker, the head of Art of Living foundation expressed his concern over the attempt of Leela Samson on thwart the participation pf Kalakshetra students in inaugural function of the “Health and bliss” religious course being conducted by him. The reason being cited by Leela Samson was “this function is concerned with Hindu religion. So Kalakshetra students need not participate in it”

Most of the Vinayaka images for which regular poojas had been conducted by students were removed. Only after a lot of criticism she replaced one image. She ordered all prayers to the deity to be stopped and clothes adorning the deities were removed. She made claims that Kalakshetra never had idols that were worshiped. She told the students and teachers that idol worship is superstition and should be discouraged at Kalakshetra. There were complaints that her hand picked teachers explained the “Gita Govinda” in denigrating tones. The certificate that were designed by Rukmini with Narthana Vinayakar had the embels of Siva on it. The present certificate has been changed and is without any Hindu symbol. She has been criticized for under-valuating the Hindu stories and symbols to the point of ridicule, comparing them with Walt Disney’s characters, Batman, characters in Star war.

source: Wikipedia and   Breaking India