‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ But Not ‘Sovereign’: Brajeshwar Prasad’s Amendment To Preamble
Brajeshwar Prasad had eight amendments standing in his name out of which he moved the following.
“WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA — having resolved to constitute India into a SECULAR CO-OPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH to establish SOCIALIST ORDER and to secure to all its citizens — 1. an adequate means of LIVELIHOOD 2. FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION 3. FREE MEDICAL AID 4. COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution for India”
Explaining his amendment, he said that the word ‘secular’ about which the greatest stress has been laid by national leaders ought to be incorporated in the preamble. According to him, it will tone-up the morale of the minorities and it will check the spirit of loaferism that is rampant in politics.
He also suggested to add the word ‘Socialist’, because he believed that the future of India is in Socialism. By socialism I mean an equalitarian social order.He also objected to the word ‘sovereignty’ in the Preamble. According to him, sovereignty leads to war and imperialism. Prasad also said that liberty and equality are not merely incompatibles but they can be reconciled only in a class less society.
This amendment was also put to vote and negatived.
Epilogue: Though his suggestion to add ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the preamble was not accepted by the Constituent Assembly, the Parliament of India amended the preamble in 1976 to include these words.
Selected Speeches
‘Secularism’ will tone-up the morale of the minorities
Brajeshwar Prasad: It is for you to suggest those things. Sir, this word secular has not found any place in our Constitution. This is the word on which the greatest stress has been laid by our national leaders. I do submit that this word ought to be incorporated in our Preamble because it will tone-up the morale of the minorities and it will check the spirit of loaferism that is rampant in politics.
I believe that the future of India is in Socialism
Brajeshwar Prasad :I have laid stress on another word. I refer to the Word ‘Socialist’. I believe that the future of India is in Socialism. I believe in a Socialist order. When I say that I believe in a socialist order. I do not mean that I accept the Marxian interpretation of History. I do not believe in class war nor in the materialist Philosophy which is so widely prevalent among the socialist circles. By socialism I mean an equalitarian social order. Equality of opportunity without equality of income is a mere shibboleth. I believe that in India we have to evolve a new type of socialism consistent with the tradition and history of this land. The theory of materialism is a well-knit dogma. I think that we people in India have not to learn anything from Germany on philosophical speculation.
‘Liberty’ and ‘equality’ do not go together.
Now I come to some other words which have found place in the Preamble. There seems to be a confusion of thought. I hold the opinion that the word ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ do not go together. They are incompatibles. They are the enemies of one another, the one can only triumph at the expense of the other.
I do not want to place impossible ideals before tile, nation. Sir, it is only in a class-less society that we can achieve a reconciliation of the two, concepts of liberty and equality. I have suggested that instead of these ideals laid down in the preamble we should have some pragmation ideals before us. If we succeed in providing an adequate means of livelihood, free and compulsory education, free medical aid and compulsory military training I would think that our efforts have borne fruit. I do not want to place impossible ideals before the nation which we know well that neither in our life-time nor in the life-time of our children or our grand children we will not be able to achieve.
Sovereignty leads to war; sovereignty leads to imperialism.
I object to the word ‘sovereignty’ in this Preamble. I hold the opinion that the whole concept of Austinian sovereignty has been exploded. A legal concept must have some relation with real facts. If it is not so, it has got no value.
Sir, it is not right to say that the Government of Nepal is a sovereign State. It has got, the right: it is sovereign and it can declare war against the U.S.A. The Government of the U.S.S.R. is free to liquidate the Communist Party of Russia. We know that both in the external and internal affairs the State is circumscribed by numerous factors. If the Government of Nepal declares war against America or the U.S.S.R. tries to liquidate the Communist Party. we know what the result would be. Therefore. I hold tile opinion that we should not place any undue emphasis upon this word “sovereignty”. I hold the opinion that this ideal is neither necessary nor desirable because sovereignty leads to war; sovereignty leads to imperialism. (Clapping and interruption)
