The LPG—liberalisation, globalisation, privatisation—cylinder rolled out in 1991, notionally leaving behind the license-quote-permit raj that exemplified the socialist era. Yet, 19 years later, the Supreme Court has ruled out striking out the 42nd amendment that inserted allegiance to “socialism” as one of the prerequisites for parties seeking recognition to contest elections.
Although “market forces” are all around us, the SC has declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking the removal of socialism as enshrined in Section 29-A of the representation of people Act which mandates that no political party would be registered by Election Commission unless it bore “true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy.”
The SC’s contention is that even the parties that were responsible for getting the State to vacate the “commanding heights” of the economy, had no objection to being asked to swear by “socialism”. And this, although Babasaheb Ambekdar had himself opposed the inclusion of the word “socialist” in the Constitution.
Questions: After 19 years of liberalisation, is it time to junk socialism from the Constitution? Or, in a poor country like ours, is socialism an ideal we must always aspire to, in spite of market forces? Are our parties right in sticking to socialism while succumbing to market forces? Or is this just an academic point of no interest to the aam admi?
churumuri 
Of the various values enshrined in the pre-amble, “socialism” as thrust into it by Indira Gandhi’s government during emergency is the most problematic.
It is problematic firstly, in and of itself. Socialism is often easily equated to a welfare state, but that is a case of confusing ends and means. the welfare state is the end and socialism is a means, but perhaps not the only one. Even when foreign words are used to denote Indian concepts such as secularism and sovereignty, we know the content of these concepts, but socialism has no Indian equivalent and its content remains ambiguous at best.
Secondly, it creates needless conflicts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is true that even prior to 1977 (when it was introduced into the preamble) there were provisions of the constitution which seemed to suggest that the government undertake policies that can definitely be classified as “socialist”. However, these were non-enforceable and when in conflict with enforceable fundamental rights, had to take less precedence when an individual’s rights were affected. By including socialism in the preamble, a serious conflict has been created vis a vis individual rights that the courts are still grappling to resolve.
Lastly, it was introduced into the Constitution with improper motives. The 42nd amendment took away many many valuable rights of the people of India (eventually restored in the 44th amendment) but the stain on the Constitution remains. Socialism, when seen in the context, becomes a thinly disguised ploy to have a greater control over the lives of people and treat them as subjects and not as citizens, against the constitutional mandate. Socialism was used to subvert the aim of the constitution, i.e., to have government guided by the people and protective of minorities, as opposed to a government that silences the voice of the people and goes after minorities.
“Socialism” doesn’t deserve to have a place in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has not decided this finally, mind you, as they have expressly stated in this case that this question of law is kept open and when appropriate proceedings (not a PIL) are started, it will be looked into.
LikeLike
.Not socialism. Not capitalism. Not communism.
No ism can cure the instinctive and inherent ‘me-first, damn-all-others disease’ of human being.
Capitalism thrives on greed – leads to unadulterated arrogance, cavalier disregard to humane values and brutal hegemony.
Socialism leads to super sloth, astounding inefficiency and complete complacency.
LikeLike
excellent article. this mungaru churumuri is quite tasty!
Well, it’s indeed quite noteworthy that Indian players who are among the richest in the world always like to play in a socialist global world be it flying in VIP or economy and meeting in a competitive world bound by US laws where they themselves see as dutiful workers bound by laws and rights and protected by them.
, but would never create the same workplace democracy for their own workers – they are bound to create a red tape based on survival of the fittest competition rather than a socially co-operative organizations.
A bright example is the attrition rate of “subjects” than “workers” of Infosys.
The centre has been shifted to America where they have created another level of hierarchy to hold onto , to shift the paradigm into unknown borders and create divisions not knowing that there cannot be any sustenance to this mockery of a complete race.
Coming to article,
I don’t think a malformed entity of law like License Raj can be compared to socialistic principles.
@Alok
Before erasing socialistic principles please
think about a house without socialism , a neighborhood without socialism and body with genes and organs without socialism!
Or if you want corporate sector think about a team where everyone works with their own goals.
Probably you will get to know what it means to take the generation together.
else we always will have a dantewada or terrorism for the fear factor of Madmohans.
LikeLike
Murthy-avare
You illustrate my point perfectly.
No one knows what socialism exactly is, but that doesn’t seem to stop the government from trampling all over rights of individuals, minorities and the like in the name of socialism.
The roots of Dantewada et al were laid when, in the 42nd Amendment (the very same one which put in “socialism” in our preamble), it was decided that an individual’s property rights need not be protected under the Constitution.
The position is still the same because every government has found that its life has become much easier when it doesn’t have to deal too much with problems of adequate compensation, justification, et al which flowed from the fundamental right to own and dispose of property.
LikeLike
India said bye to Socialism during Dhirubhai Ambani years. It has been Crony Capitalism ever since…
LikeLike
just change the definition of socialism as the greatest good for the greatest number
LikeLike