Dr.B.R.Ambedkar on word “Secularism and Socialism”
Constituent Assemble Debate – Vol.VII
Monday, the 15th November, 1948.
The recent controversy…I would say CONSPIRACY against the constitution of India and the two words “Secularism” and “Socialist” started by Mr.Nitin Raut – Shiv Sena, and the defense made by Mr.Ravi Shanker Prasad – Law Minister of India stating that “ leaders like B.R.Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru who were “more intelligent” than the present day congress leaders had decided not to include “Secular” and “Socialist” word in the original preamble of the Constitution”. I just want to draw attention of Mr.Ravi Shanker Prasad towards the Constituent Assemble debates – motion of discussing on Secularism and Socialists. Here is the part of debates.
After Mr.K.T.Shah moved the motion to add “Secular and Socialist” words in the preamble, Dr.Ambedkar replied to his motion thus…
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organization of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.
The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My Honourable friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the on, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of state policy. If my honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy. Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter: It says:
"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -
(i) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(ii) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
(iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(iv) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;...."
There are some other items more or less in the same strain. What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.
Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.
Constituent Assemble Debate – Vol.VII
Monday, the 15th November, 1948.
The recent controversy…I would say CONSPIRACY against the constitution of India and the two words “Secularism” and “Socialist” started by Mr.Nitin Raut – Shiv Sena, and the defense made by Mr.Ravi Shanker Prasad – Law Minister of India stating that “ leaders like B.R.Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru who were “more intelligent” than the present day congress leaders had decided not to include “Secular” and “Socialist” word in the original preamble of the Constitution”. I just want to draw attention of Mr.Ravi Shanker Prasad towards the Constituent Assemble debates – motion of discussing on Secularism and Socialists. Here is the part of debates.
After Mr.K.T.Shah moved the motion to add “Secular and Socialist” words in the preamble, Dr.Ambedkar replied to his motion thus…
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay: General):Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism where by particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organization of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.
The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous. My Honourable friend, Prof. Shah, does not seem to have taken into account the fact that apart from the Fundamental Rights, which we have embodied in the on, we have also introduced other sections which deal with directive principles of state policy. If my honourable friend were to read the Articles contained in Part IV, he will find that both the Legislature as well as the Executive have been placed by this Constitution under certain definite obligations as to the form of their policy. Now, to read only Article 31, which deals with this matter: It says:
"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing -
(i) that the citizens, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
(ii) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub serve the common good;
(iii) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;
(iv) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;...."
There are some other items more or less in the same strain. What I would like to ask Professor Shah is this: If these directive principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.
Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks for comment... your suggestions are valuable and we try to accept.welcome again.