|Source :News Bharati English Date :12-May-2017|
Professor (late) Dr Dhanajay R. Gadgil , formerly Vice-Chairman of the erstwhile Planning Commission and well-known erudite Economist is on record to have issued a statement ( as quoted by Professor Dr.V.M.Dandekar in Artha Vijnan , June V 13 , N.2 p.xi , 1971 ) while working as a Member of the Expert Committee on Constitution-making of the Indian National Congress ( 1946) which was later published in ‘India Quarterly’ Oct.1947.. .. ‘Calling the Indian Union a Hindu State’. Dr.D.R.Gadgil in no way was a known Hindu loyalist/thinker nor was this a theological proposition. He was a great intellectual, an economist, a pragmatist and an erudite personality in his own right. Had the suggestion been considered and materialised, subsequent chaotic partition pangs and unnecessary meaningless debates and unending bloody riots and distrusts among different religious groups might have been avoided. The partition of the continental nation did not entail clarity in political thinking on the issues of ‘eternal national interests’ by the then leadership of India i.e. Bharat. Perhaps the then modern leadership always thought of India and not of ‘Bharat’. The question is what is wrong and even unconstitutional in organising a public debate on the ‘constitutional maintainability of ‘calling India a Hindu State'? A ‘confident and a resurgent’ Hindu India?
Commencing the multi-pronged wide-ranged programmes to end the colonial psyche:
Narendra Modi’s assumption of power in the Union Government marks the beginning of the end of the colonial psyche. It has to be kept in mind that the Indian mainland has been invaded by outsiders since almost 8th century AD from the West, the period which included Moghul dynasty in the years 12th century and the 16th century with the advent of East India Company far away from the British Isles. Thomas Babington Macaulay born in Leicestershire, England on 25 October 1800, the son of a former African Colonial Governor and anti-slavery activist is essentially held responsible for defiling the Indian psyche.The educational structure and the administrative set-up which he proposed for the British colonial rule in the undivided India were disturbed by the introduction of the Macaulayan system. It was here when the seeds of interspersed splinters and subsequently scattered pieces of unified cultural India were sown. Of course, despite several welcome introductions of progressive administrative measures in India by the British colonial system in India, it was this decentralisation that was carefully and methodically done by de-‘Indianising’ the essence of the Indian culture without hurting the native sentiments of the newly educated class of Anglo-Indian communities in India. The schemes worked. Gradually in every field of activity and in every walk of life, the newly emerged class of Anglo-Indian community became a staunch advocate and a supporter over a period of time of the colonial rule exactly as desired by it. The political class in India, even the Indian National Congress constituted by a foreigner, which initiated and led the independence movement disrespecting and denigrating the cultural values of the mainland. Not everything that came from the West was despicable, but it was brought as a panacea to substitute the ancient Indian civilisation that too at the cost of the age old existing culture. India, for the British imperial political rulers (and perhaps the military rulers too), was a fertile terrain for conducting a profiteering trade and commerce. India was a production House for them. The imperial rulers in the United Kingdom were rested assured of complete support to their plans from within.
The Indian National Congress as a political party was founded on 28th December 1885 in Bombay by Mr Allan Octavian Hume, a retired British civil servant along with the famous Parsee-duo Shri Dadabhai Naoroji and Dinshaw Wacha, its aim being the attainment of national independence from the colonial rule. The intentions of the learned natives in and outside INC were honest although supportive to the colonial policy makers, it was essentially an elitists’ patriotic assembly/group who had an undefined image of India as a nation. These learned groups had received intellectual training from the lessons of Macaulay. These need not be blamed for their stance. These groups had nurtured a romantic vision of the style and role of the Indian nationalism including Muslim participation in it.
It will be interesting to read the INC’s first Muslim president Mr Budruddin Tayyabji’s (1844---1906 ) Presidential Address at its 3rd Madras Convention in 1887 --
“We want the assistance not only of representative men of the Indian communities, but we also want the assistance of Europeans. Gentlemen, while we are attempting to learn some few lessons in the art of Self-Government, our European friends have inherited that art from their forefathers, and after centuries of experience; and it cannot be doubted that if we can induce our European friends to cooperate with us in these various political matters, which in point of fact affect them no less than they affect us, it cannot, I say, be doubted that it will conduce to the advantage not only of ourselves but of the European community also”.
On the question of Indian National Congress and the Musalmans, he continued to observe - “Gentlemen, it has been urged in derogation of our character, as a representative national gathering, that one great and important community -- the Musalman community -- has kept aloof from the proceedings of the two last Congresses. Now, Gentlemen, in the first place, this is only partially true, and applies only to one particular part of India, and is moreover due to certain special, local, and temporary causes; and in the second place, no such reproach can, I think, with any show of justice be urged against the present Congress.
“And, Gentlemen, I must honestly confess to you that one great motive which has induced me, in the present state of my health, to undertake the grave responsibilities of presiding over your deliberations, has been an earnest desire on my part to prove, as far as in my power lies, that I, at least, not merely in my individual capacity but as representing the Anjuman-i-Islam of Bombay, do not consider that there is anything whatever in the position or the relations of the different communities of India -- be they Hindus, Musalmans, Parsis, or Christians -- which should induce the leaders of any one community to stand aloof from the others in their efforts to obtain those great general reforms, those great general rights, which are for the common benefit of us all; and which, I feel assured, have only to be earnestly and unanimously pressed upon Government to be granted to us.
“Gentlemen, it is undoubtedly true that each one of our great Indian communities has its own peculiar social, moral, educational, and even political difficulties to surmount; but so far as general political questions affecting the whole of India -- such as those which alone are discussed by this Congress -- are concerned, I, for one, am utterly at a loss to understand why Musalmans should not work shoulder to shoulder with their fellow-countrymen of other races and creeds, for the common benefit of all. Gentlemen, this is the principle on which we in the Bombay Presidency have always acted, and from the number, the character, the position, and the attainments of Musalman delegates from the Bengal Presidency and from the Presidency of Madras, as well as from the North-West Provinces and the Punjab, I have not the smallest doubt that this is also the view held, with but few though perhaps important exceptions, by the leaders of the Musalman communities throughout the whole of India” .
(Source: Congress Presidential Addresses, Volume One: 1885-1900, ed. by A. M. Zaidi (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Applied Political Research, 1985, pp. 41-50.)
Did Mr.Baddrudin Tayyabji think of a ‘two nation theory’ or illuminate signs of separatist tendencies? There is no space for doubting his honesty and intentions. He was an imperial loyalist yet he was a nationalist for the society. He was secular in education, progressive in outlook ( he was opposed to the ‘purdah system’ ) and moreover he was a great legal luminary who later was appointed a judge, Bombay High Court.
Another question is when and why did Mr Jinnah come forward with his planned ‘two nation theory'? Was his emergence a reaction to the appeasement policy of the INC? It is believed that Mr Jinnah did not believe in the faith or the Holy Quran. In the initial period he was an ardent Indian nationalist, as such he was a rationalist and always thought of freedom of the country from the colonial rule. He gradually changed and emerged an ‘international villain’ who divided a State and an ancient nation. His erudition is another matter of academic interest.
Let us refer to the First Address of Mr.M.A.Jinnah to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, 11th August 1947 in which he defines the newly carved out State of Pakistan:
“I cannot emphasise it too much (of unity). We should begin to work in that spirit, and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community -- because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalees, Madrasis and so on -- will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence, and but for this, we would have been free people long ago. No power can hold another nation, and especially a nation of 400 million souls, in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State. As you know, history shows that in England conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste and creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State. The people of England in [the] course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country, and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain, and they are all members of the Nation.
“Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.” (Source: G. Allana, Pakistan Movement Historical Documents (Karachi: Department of International Relations, University of Karachi, nd ), pp. 407-411.)
Pakistan-- a ‘faux pas’ of the Muslim ( failed ) statehood : It is such an interesting rationale to note the way in which Mr Jinnah seemed to have assured all those who had decided to stay back in the State of Pakistan or those who were planning to migrate over to the new State from across India. . Mr Jinnah did not want to co-habit with the majority Hindus in united India and with a malicious design and without hard historical references and evidence, he visualised the image of a new State i.e. Pakistan- a State without roots of culture and a past of its own. It proved to be a ‘faux pas’ of the Muslim statehood. As at present, Pakistan stands as a ‘failed State’. Whatever structure one finds in Pakistan, is not their contribution but what the British handed over to them and what had been done in the pre-partition period. As at present, it is merely an abode of international terrorism and a backyard of terrorist activities.
It will not be an exaggeration to submit that although the role envisioned for the INC as a peaceful moderate articulation of popular unrest of the agitating people in British Indian colony ‘ was one of the constructive intentions of the colonial rulers in India, the Indian National Congress all along inherited the colonial features in its steps. It acquiesced the hegemony of the imperial rule.There had emerged a new apologetic class of colonial subjects which had assumed subordination to almost everything that was colonial. It was a sort of corrosion from within which led to the suicidal humiliation of generations together. It was a loss of identity as well as a crisis of identity. The challenge before the natives was the recovery of the identity. The INC on its part failed to recover the lost identity, on the contrary, it complicated the situation and made a mess of it. It treated any effort to recover the lost identity as a bourgeoisie measure which required to be discarded forthwith. It's hostile attitude towards the work of ‘individual character-building’ and ‘nation building’ by the ‘Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’ which has been persistently carried out through its daily morning and evening ‘shahs’, is a result of this approach. Along with customary changes, the dress-code too underwent imitational follow-up leave alone dietary mannerism. The brighter side of the colonial British onslaught was that several measures of social reforms in the native Indian society were contemplated by the learned natives and the English, the efforts which need to be acknowledged with reverence.
It was the INC which gradually adopted a colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ regarding the issue of honesty of Muslim nationalism.
With the advent of the British colonial rule , ( one has to take note that the other European maritime powers, the French, the Dutch or the Spaniards never pursued such a policy in India to divide the Indian sentiments, the British cleverly did ) the question of befriending the Muslim sentiments of nationalism in native India, gradually led to the ‘two-nation-theory’ which ultimately culminated in the partition of the land. The INC was aware of it, although it did oppose the ‘two-nation-theory’; it could not do anything about it. The INC subscribed to the school of thought that ‘ India was a land with a composite culture and several faiths and beliefs existed in India, and not any particular faith ‘owned’ the land , therefore, the land ( perhaps the culture too ) belonged to all, naturally the Hindus did not have any preponderance or hegemony’ . Evidence, which the advocates of this school of thought cite is the Arab-Muslim early invasion of the 8th century in search of maritime oceanic trade in spices, which brought the Muslims to the shore of the Indian waters and established their continuing settlement for several generations together. This was followed by the Moghul dynasties from the 12th century. The Portuguese arrived in the 15th century (along with the Spaniards for a while ), then the East India Company arrived in the 16th century followed by the French (who were defeated by the British in India ). The decisive nationalist but incomplete revolt by the natives against the Company forces in 1857 everywhere in India, redefined the consolidated image of India which 90 years later on was materialised in 1947. One cannot ignore the fact that there were several Muslim chieftains and sub-regional fiefdom- kings who too had fought in 1857 against the British islanders.
Faux pas of composite culture: Do the historical periods that the Muslim army leaders who fought shoulder to shoulder along with their Hindu rulers against the Company forces during the 1857 war of independence cater sufficiently enough to pronounce their kind as ‘composite culture'? The Sunni Muslim invaders who captured the escaping non-Muslim army from the battlegrounds in India imprisoned the captives and gradually converted them to Islam, married the captured women and settled their families. The new community soared into tens of thousands, the process in which these conquerors had to adopt several of the social customs and practices of the Indian natives, but were mindful of cultivating and maintaining their different communal identity. This is not ‘composite culture’. The cunning colonial rulers and subsequently the Muslim appeasement followers articulated the ‘faux pas’ of the composite culture. It was a sort of delirium which swallowed a large section of educated natives who inadvertently sowed the seeds of disharmony amongst the fellow countrymen. It was in the colonial interests. Macaulayan system became conducive to the environment of ‘make-believe composite culture’. It thrived. It bore the venomous fruits of malnutrition and yielded the results of ‘partition’.
It was aptly provided for and expressed in the ‘Indian Independence Act, 1947 tabled on the floor of the House of Commons, London, in July 1947, which stated as following--
“An Act to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for, other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of those Dominions” - .18th July 1947.
Further, the law provided for—
“1.-(I) as from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in Dominion India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan”.
It was a British colonial design and therefore, Pakistan was an illegitimate offshoot!
Mr M.A. Jinnah perhaps was a pawn.
Thus, the two new Dominions were created and framed in a legal structure, India being the pivotal focus. It is interesting to note that there was no separate ‘Act’ tabled and passed in the House of Commons for Pakistan. There was division of India since the United Kingdom assumed suzerainty over the entire ( united ) Indian mainland according to the proclamation by the ‘Queen in Council’ under the ( first ) ‘Government of India Act , 1858’ , 1858 , the 1st November , which was addressed to the “ ‘Princes’ , ‘Chiefs’ and the People of India” informing them the ‘taking upon the government of India from the East India Company’ . The royal proclamation by the Queen in Council, the Queen, like Mr Jinnah in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, had promised the Indian people complete security and protection and freedom of practices of religion besides prosperity of the industry and security to the people in India. During the period of emergency that was proclaimed by the then Prime Minister, Mrs.Indira Gandhi way back in 1975, the Preamble of the Constitution of India was amended as its 42nd Amendment coming into force w.e.f. 3-1-1977, which made an addition of the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in its preamble ( in the original preamble in 1950, these terms were not incorporated by the Constitution makers esp. the drafting committee chaired by Dr.B.R.Ambedkar, these were inserted in 1976 during the state of emergency without any sort of public debate in India ).
Can the Indian society contemplate and explore, a Hindu State?
In view of the above discussion on some constitutional references, there is a rational submission whether India constitutionally could be proclaimed as a Hindu State ( this has nothing to do with the ideology or the religious or proselytising textual context ) for several constitutional references and interpretations? Proclamation of Hindu State may remove several constitutional difficulties in interpreting the law and more than that the ghost of ‘composite culture’ must vanish and its nightmare of a hangover would be over. The identity crisis would be over and the lost confidence would be restored enabling the consolidation of India. Moreover, it is to be noted that since there have been several cases pending in the Apex judiciary, pending for rulings on socio-cultural matters. Of course, matters are interpreted and decided in the light of (colonially originated the concept of) ‘rule of law’. There are certain matters which cannot be read in terms of law and regulations which are beyond it. ‘Ram Setup bridge', ‘Ram Mandir sight’, are the recent cases in which the Apex Court has found it very difficult to interpret. Even interpreting ‘Shariat’ law, All India Muslim Personal Law Board and its status, KHAP Panchayat rulings, are some more examples. Let there not be any confusion in this regard. These lines are not written out of retrograde thoughts. In such cases, the limitations of the judiciary are highlighted. Neither are these out of chauvinism nor the expression is unconstitutional.
It is interesting to take note of the very First Article of the Constitution of India which describes the name and territory of the Union, as 1 ( 1 )- “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”.
It is all the more interesting to note that there has not been any significant explanation of the term ‘Bharat’ by any legal luminary in the said context.
‘Hindu’ is not a religious term. It is a hard cultural fact of the society and the Indian State.
(Quote from ‘Wikipedia’) “According to the Oxford English Dictionary, originally Hindutva is the state or quality of being Hindu or ‘Hinduness’. In later use, it defines Hindutva as an ideology seeking to establish the hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu way of life. According to the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’, "Hindutva ('Hindu-ness') is an ideology that sought to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values".
On December 11, 1995, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered judgments in a number of appeals which arose from decisions of the Bombay High Court relating to the validity of the elections of certain Shiv Sena -BJP candidates to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The Bombay High Court had set aside the elections of these candidates mainly on the ground that they had committed a corrupt practice as defined by Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The corrupt practice defined in Section 123(3) consists of "the appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion…" However, J. V M Tarkunde (red) commented another view on this ruling as following- “It is well understood in anthropology that the culture of the people includes their religion, their language, their arts and crafts, their ways of earning a living, and their behaviour with others. This means that culture includes religion and that an appeal to vote on the basis of Hindutva includes an appeal to vote for the Hindu religion as well. Since an appeal to vote for Hindutva includes an appeal to vote for the Hindu religion, it clearly amounts to a corrupt practice as defined by section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951.”
This view was overruled by the Apex judiciary.
“The conclusion that Hindutva or Hinduism means the culture of all the people of India (and not Hindus alone) is derived by the present three-judge Bench from two previous decisions of five-judge Benches of the Supreme Court - Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others Vs Muldas Bhudarda Vaishya and another, 1966 (3) SCR 242; and Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Madras and others Vs late R. Sridharan by LPs, 1976 (Sipp.) SCR 478. Neither of these decisions supports the conclusion of the Supreme Court that Hindutva or Hinduism means the culture of the people of India as a whole. “In Sastri Yagnapurushadji's case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Swaminarayan sect is a part of Hindu religion. It was observed in the judgment in that case that originally the word 'Hindu' arose from the river Indus and the residents around the river were called Hindus. That observation has hardly any relevance to what Hinduism or Hindutva means today. Moreover, the judgment, in that case, refers to many authorities and concludes that the Hindu religion does not claim any prophet, it does not satisfy the traditional features of any religion or creed, and that "it may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more". The present three-judge Bench has relied on these and other observations in the aforesaid judgment and come to the conclusion that Hinduism is a way of life of all Indians.”
In the said 1995 judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that "Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism ... it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption ... that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practicing any religion other than the Hindu religion ... It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant.”
Quote : “However, the former Chief Justice of India J.J.S.Verma heading a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court while deciding the case of Manohar Joshi versus N B Patil did not find the election statement made by Manohar Joshi that “First Hindu State will be established in Maharashtra did not amount to appeal on ground of religion”. (Source: www.livelaw.in)
Term Hindu State does not mean ‘state based on Hindu religion’
Thus, the term Hindu State does not mean ‘state based on Hindu religion’. Moreover, according to V.D.Sawarkar, Hindutva is an inclusive term of everything Indic. He said: “Hindutva is not a word but a history. Not only the spiritual or religious history of our people as at times it is mistaken to be by being confounded with the other cognate term Hinduism, but a history in full. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva. ... Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity of the whole being of our Hindu race.” (Source: Wikipedia).
“The term Hinduism became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially, it was an outsiders' term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travellers to the Indus Valley beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as “Hindu” (Greek: ‘India), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural.” (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Library, 2016). The reference essentially is that of the expression for ‘Hinduism’.
“Neither the BJP nor the RSS advocates the creation of a Hindu state. The principal concern of both groups is the danger posed to “the Hindu nation” by Islamic proselytization among the Scheduled Castes (formerly untouchables) and lower-caste Hindus; both groups have also vehemently opposed Christian proselytization in India for the same reason. In RSS tracks, there is little reference to specific Hindu beliefs, and its members acknowledge that they are not themselves religious.”.” (Source: Encyclopedia Britannica Library, 2016).
With due respect to the academic training on the part of the intellectuals in India, it is submitted that hypocrite rationalist and insincere learned well-known persons refuse to accept the term ‘Hindu’ as most of such individual thinkers are the conclusions of what Macaulay had expected them to be like. Many of such educated individuals are paid to hold ( proudly ) different or contrary views ( esp. the media persons) to unleash cynical expressions. It is needless to submit that it is nothing but conditions of pervert mental mechanism which springs uncalled for critical outbursts from fixed critics. The twisted, misleading and insulting critical observations are made in the name of individual liberty and freedom of expression. It is a tragedy of the otherwise erudite academic world in modern and ancient India. Marxists never believed in Indian nationhood. Most of these have long been suffering from ‘international one mankind utopia’ chasing it everywhere.
Politics of faux pas to defile social decency
Indian political history, by and large, has been cohesive, tolerant, peaceful and decent. Although there is a school of thought which believes that India was never ‘one nation’, the evidence is otherwise. Four worshipping pilgrim places called ‘four Dhaams’ at the four distant corners of the country for several thousand years, known to almost everyone in the country irrespective of the rulers, gives a clear message to the world about the unity of its ancient culture. Indian cultural traits were never dogmatic in its application despite several signs of different practices. These are the characteristics of every human society on the planet and Indian society is in no way different despite its rich traditions. Several cultures and civilisations elsewhere on the planet rose, flourished and vanished, yet Indian cultural ethos ( and of course a few others too ) withstood all odds and attacks and stood organised, survived and thrived like an octopus. The political institutions introduced as West Minister system by the British in India too were assimilated by the political class in India.
There were, of course, several discrepancies and pitfalls encountered, but the newly installed system remained intact, it never broke down and collapsed unlike the examples in the neighbourhood societies and the States. The tragedy is the advocates of ‘left-to-the-center’ ‘composite culture’ prophesies are found using the constitutional devices and machinery to sabotage the eternal ethos of the society by resorting to the legally obtained stay orders from the judiciary , legislative hindrances, castrated ‘Executive', cynically functional mediocre media, frequently enchained public demonstrations and agitations, unfounded allegations against the government personnel—both officials and non-officials, political ‘Don-Quixote’s’ on the question of corruption and black money are seen on the rise. The brooding gang of these sorts keeps on making hey while the sun shines. These are the destabilising agents of the forces which are destined to fail. Of course, these too have a right to fall in line with rationality and sanity.
An authority on the Constitution of India, Professor P.M.Bakshi has stated the basic structure of the Constitution as: “The objectives specified in the Preamble contain the basic structure of our Constitution which cannot be amended in exercise of the power under Article 368 of the Constitution. …. Features of Basic Structure—1) Supremacy of Constitution, (2) Republican and Democratic form of Government, (3) Secular character of Constitution, (4) Separation of powers between the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary (5) Federal character of Constitution. (Source: The Constitution of India, by P M Bakshi, 14th Edition, Universal Law Publishing, 2017, N.Delhi, p.2).
The pertinent question arises in this regard is the propriety of the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution made in 1976!
The question is whether the Constitution of India is an embodiment of the culture and sociology of India? Does it reflect the society, its aspirations, its cultural traits, and of course the multi-dimensional ancient nationhood? Is it necessary to raise and find solutions to these questions? I for one feel with all the due respect for the law of the land and its unquestioned supremacy over any sort of theological foundation, the present status is that the document does not reflect the sociology of India.
In the words of Mr Irving Wallace, well-known English novelist, ‘…the tragedy of the nation is not a wrong action by bad people, but the silence of the good!’ India foots the bill as at present. Prime Minister Shri Narendrabhai Modi is trying to retrieve the great fall of the society in India since he is the first Prime Minister, perhaps after Pt.Nehru , who has an unprecedented vision of a strong society and a replenished vigorous nation a ‘ new India’ or a ‘Naya Bharat’ set before him with his ordained mantra –NATION FIRST’.