Revisiting the Idea of India – Independent, Sovereign but not Socialist ?

A Right of Center Retrospective on the Constituent Assembly Debates

It is rather symbolic that this post is being penned while in transit at the Gatwick Airport in London. India is soon to celebrate 60 years of Independence from British Imperialism. While India Shining, India Rising have dominated popular debate in recent times, the 60th anniversary is a unique opportunity to revisit the idea of India. In traditional Hindu Culture the 60th anniversary is an important milestone, amongst other things an occasion to renew marriage vows. 60 years back our nation married democracy and this 60th anniversary is an opportunity to renew those vows. What better place to start to look for those vows than the Constituent Assembly Debates as the founding fathers explored the idea of a democratic India.

Much has been said and written of the Constituent Assembly debates but very little has been examined of the Right of Center ideas expounded in these debates. Offstumped in a series of posts attempts to bring to light some of these ideas as we look to rejuvenate India 60 years on.

The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India took place in Constitution Hall, New Delhi, on Monday, the 9th December 1946. Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha was nominated the provisional chairman of the assembly  on account of his age. Dr Sinha interestingly enough in his opening speech raises the question of which constitution process India could learn the most from. Amongst other Dr. Sinha turns to the American Constitution quoting from a series of experts, but one quote from a certain James a former Solicitor-General of the United States truly stands out:

the stream of time which has washed away the dissoluble fabric of many other paper constitutions, has left almost untouched its adamantine strength. Excepting the first ten amendments, which were virtually a part of the original charter, only nine others have been adopted in more than one hundred and thirty years. What other form of government has better stood the test of time

It is rather sad that 60 years on neither Nehru who opened the floodgates of Amendments with formulations like the Ninth Schedule nor his daughter Indira Gandhi who forced a record number of amendments during her reign paid much heed to Dr. Sinha’s call for the Constitution to be immortal and a structure of adamantine strength. The Constituent Assembly then went on to elect Dr. Rajendra Prasad as its permanent chairman. One of the first resolutions under his Chair was moved Pandit Nehru on 13th December 1946 which called for India to be a “Sovereign Republic”. Note that there was no reference to “Socialist” in the original resolution. The “socialist” tag got inserted at a later time as the left of center ideas started to take center stage. While Nehru went on record of his desire to see the nation as a being socialist he did not see it necessary to thrust it into this declaration. Interestingly enough this resolution saw 40 amendment being moved. One of the finest responses to this resolution came from Minoo Masani who while recounting his own Minority background made some telling remarks almost clairvoyant, on the present day environment of minority appeasement.

the conception of a nation does not permit the existence of perpetual or permanent minorities

it is a good thing that we have these legal and constitutional safeguards, but that ultimately no legal safeguard can protect small minorities from the overwhelming domination of big masses, unless on both sides an effort is made to get closer and become one corporate nation, a homogeneous nation

In today’s politically environment, similar remarks from anyone Right of Center would invariably attract charges of fascism.

Minoo Masani while swearing his allegiance to Democratic Socialism also puts Socialism into perspective with these remarks

Equality of opportunity certainly assumes that every child in this country, every boy and girl, will get an equal opportunity to develop those faculties which he or she possesses in order contribute to the common good. That is the socialist aspect of the resolution.

And he then goes on to quote Jai Prakash Narayan

The State under Socialism threatens, as in Russia, far from withering away, to become an all-powerful tyrant maintaining a strangle-hold over the entire life of the citizen. This leads to totalitarianism of the type we witness in Russia today. By, dispersing the ownership and management of industry and by developing the village into a democratic village republic, we break this strangle-hold to a very’ large extent and attenuate the danger of totalitarianism. Thus my picture of a socialist India is the picture of an economic and political democracy In this democracy, men will neither be slaves to capitalism nor to a party or the State. Man will be free.”

One can clearly see the Right of Center ideas that shaped the thoughts of Jai Prakash Narayan and Minoo Masani, only to be abandoned in the later years by Nehru and Indira Gandhi. The debate on this resolution ensued for many days as the members split hairs on the verbiage, on the absence of the Muslim League and so on. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishna in his rejoinder to some of the challenges made some excellent observations that once again highlight that what was “Socialism” to the founding fathers was Right of Center in its essence.

 It is a socioeconomic revolution that we are attempting to bring about. It is therefore necessary that we must re-make the material conditions; but apart from re-making the material conditions, we have to safeguard the liberty of the human spirit. It is no good creating conditions of freedom without producing a sense of freedom.

We must safeguard the liberty of the human spirit against the encroachments of the State. While State regulation is necessary to improve economic conditions, it should not be done at the expense of the human spirit.

 The entire debate on the aims and objectives of the Constitution lasted six whole weeks since Nehru first moved the resolution. Finally on 22nd Jan 1947 the resolution on what kind of India was to be shaped was put to vote after a lengthy reply from Nehru where once again he steered clear of necessarily injecting Socialism into the aims and objectives of the Constitution. The final resolution that aimed for an India that was Independent, Sovereign and a Republic and not necessarily socialist was adopted without objections.

Nitin pointed out how Socialism has got ingrained in the Constitution today that it is impossible to register a political outfit that doesn’t believe in it. S.V Raju perhaps needs to revisit his mentor Minoo Masani’s remarks mentioned above and not get worked up about Socialism. A lot has also been said in recent days on the need for a Milton Friedman, the need for a new center right political formation and on the limitations of the cultural nationalism espoused by the only mainstream political movement to the Right. Offstumped in the past on two occasions offered a middle ground to bridge the gap between those to the Right on cultural issues and those to the Right on economic issues. The gap continues to be wide and a lot more work needs to be done.

The bottomline however is there is no room in the political arena for a new formation. The best chance for the Right is to work within the current political environment and influence change. The right environment exists in the BJP ruled states with Chief Ministers who have been focused on reform. It must be recognized In the last three decades only 3 political formations have successfully emerged ground up without splintering from any pre-existing party – TDP, BSP and the AGP.

TDP’s success is largely on account of filling the vacuum of a viable opposition in Andhra Pradesh, the BSP as has been debated extensively in recent times owes its success in representing a large segment of the population which did not have a viable political voice. The AGP too owes its success to filling the vacuum in Assam as the alternative to Congress.

For any new political formation to emerge ground up and be successful in today’s political context would require 3 conditions to be met

- it must represent a significant voting bloc that currently is either not participating or not being represented by a viable political voice

- it must focus on a State where there is a political vacuum

- it must champion a cause with a strong populist streak to it, to put it crudely the equivalent of a Mandal or Ram Janmabhoomi.

Unless all three of the above are met, all talk of a new formation would be a pipe dream.

There is one state where two of the above conditions are met and there is the political environment for the third. Any guesses ?

West Bengal today lacks a viable opposition. West Bengal’s Middle Class also lacks political representation or participation. The sequence of events in Singur and  Nandigram have exposed the CPI-Mafioso to create a strong political mood for a different kind of politics premised on economic issues.

So in conclusion there is no point in debating in the abstract, if there is any state that offers a tangible, realistic opportunity for a new right of center political formation it is Bengal.

 Is the Indian Right upto the challenge ? 

Filed under: Constituent Assembly, Uncategorized