The structure is withering while the skeleton exists

“It is perfectly imaginable to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form, by simply changing the signifier of the medication and to marque it inconsistent and opposed to the tone of the Constitution,” Excerpts from the code delivered by B.R. Ambedkar connected November 4, 1948

While the basal operation of the Constitution inactive resonates with the principles of democracy, federalism and secularism, the informing fixed by Ambedkar successful a code successful the Constituent Assembly seems to go much and much applicable today. Our Constitution has been amended 105 times wrong 75 years of its adoption. Since the verdict of the apex tribunal successful the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala lawsuit (1973), the powerfulness of Parliament has been limited.

The Supreme Court successful this landmark determination clarified that Parliament has nary powerfulness to marque amendments that interaction the basal operation of the Constitution. Interestingly, the regularisation placed connected Parliament to amend the Constitution done this judgement is the astir disturbing origin for the rulers of the day.

The Constitution stands arsenic a stumbling artifact for them to instrumentality their hidden agendas. It is adjacent much pertinent that the judgement came from a 13-member Constitution Bench, which indirectly means that the overruling of this larger Bench determination cannot beryllium expected successful the adjacent future.

This tin beryllium inferred arsenic the precise crushed wherefore the authorities is utilizing its administrative tools and organization mechanisms to alteration the basal operation of the Constitution and of the state from a secular, democratic, national republic to an authoritarian Hindu Rashtra. In fact, specified a concern was foreseen adjacent by the Constitution framers, which is rather disposable erstwhile 1 attempts to traverse the Constituent Assembly Debates.

The debates and conflicts wrong the Constituent Assembly chiefly revolved astir 2 antithetic taste streams. On the 1 hand, determination were representatives advocating for a secular and pluralistic India, which encompassed its divers taste aspects and humanities heritage. On the different hand, the Hindutva faction asserted that Indian civilization is fundamentally rooted successful religion. These 2 contrasting perspectives highlighted a cardinal ideological disagreement regarding the quality and individuality of the Indian state. While proponents of secularism and pluralism emphasised the coexistence of aggregate religious, linguistic, and taste identities wrong India, the Hindutva faction promoted the thought of a much homogeneous taste and spiritual identity. These differences successful ideology and knowing of Indian civilization played a important relation successful shaping the discussions and deliberations wrong the Constituent Assembly.

Indeed, the second radical wrong the Constituent Assembly sought to redefine nationhood on spiritual lines. They argued that religion should signifier the foundational ground of the aboriginal authorities apparatus. In contrast, advocates for the thought of a secular authorities asserted that the edifice of Indian statehood is built connected secularism, fraternity and pluralism. Fundamentally, 1 needs to recognize that the concepts of secularism and pluralism person been taxable to reinterpretation and redefinition since the root of the ideal. The word “secularism” originated during the French Revolution and was initially referred to arsenic “irreligious morality”.

During the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, Jawaharlal Nehru and different Left-leaning members emphasised the non-interference of religion successful authorities affairs. On the different hand, a few, specified arsenic S. Radhakrishnan, projected adjacent attraction of each religions. The struggle betwixt these 2 approaches became evident during discussions connected cardinal provisions wrong the Constitution.

However, it is important to enactment that the superior contention was betwixt the contrasting ideas of secularism and religiosity. The debates surrounding the relation of religion successful shaping the authorities and governance operation reflected this underlying struggle betwixt those advocating for a secular attack and those favouring a much spiritual orientation.

The Preamble of the Constitution begins with the beauteous words “We the people”, which is however the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America besides starts. However, the import of these words astatine the clip of their adoption successful their respective law schemes was different. The connection “we” successful the American Constitution successful 1787, erstwhile it was adopted, did not see women, Black people, oregon the poor.

It is rather absorbing to enactment that it was lone aft astir three-quarters of a century, that is, successful 1868, that citizenship was granted to African Americans done the 14th Amendment. But, owed to the prevailing racism astatine the time, the amendment did not assistance them voting rights.

The U.S. Constitution was amended again successful 1870 done the 15th Amendment to prohibit the denial of voting rights based connected contention oregon colour. But that by itself did not guarantee voting rights for the African Americans successful the States that had enacted the “grandfather clause”, which denied voting rights to the descendants of the slaves who hadn’t voted. The clause was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court successful 1915. However, women had to hold longer to find their spot successful the “we” of the American Constitution.

On August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment was passed, granting voting rights to women successful the U.S. Paradoxically, contempt these law changes, the poor, including African Americans and women, had to hold until the abolition of the canvass taxation to formed their votes. The canvass taxation was a prerequisite for voting rights. The conflict for voting rights for each citizens of America saw galore sacrifices, particularly during the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. The 24th Amendment successful 1964 banned canvass taxes, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 yet ensured voting rights for African Americans.

Interestingly, it took 178 years to see each citizens, irrespective of race, wealth, and gender, into the fold of “we” of the Constitution of America successful practice. The “we” successful the U.S. Constitution evolved done struggles, parliamentary and judicial interventions.

An inclusive idea

In striking contrast, the “we” embedded successful the Preamble of the Indian Constitution has been inclusive from the precise beginning. It included radical from each religions, languages, genders, castes, classes, creeds, ethnicities, and economical backgrounds. As Ambedkar pointed out: “Everyone has the close to 1 ballot successful a democracy. Every ballot has adjacent value, careless of who formed it.”

However, today, the inclusive “we” is being transformed into an exclusive “we”, meant for definite sections. While the “we” successful the U.S. Constitution has evolved with the transition of time, the “we” successful the Indian Constitution is being narrowed down by administrative and legislative actions. In the inclusive “we”, citizenship is simply a close for all, arsenic clarified nether Article 5 of the Constitution. During the statement connected the citizenship for those who returned to India from Pakistan aft the Partition, Nehru made it wide that religion should not beryllium a origin successful determining citizenship.

But the amendment projected by C.D. Deshmukh sought to assistance citizenship connected the ground of spiritual affiliation. The amendment projected by him stated: “That each idiosyncratic who is simply a Hindu oregon a Sikh and is not a national of immoderate different State shall beryllium entitled to beryllium a national of India”. Further, Deshmukh explained. “If the Muslims privation an exclusive spot for themselves called Pakistan, wherefore should not Hindus and Sikhs person India arsenic their home? We are not debarring others from getting citizenship here. We simply accidental that we person nary different state to look to for acquiring citizenship rights, and truthful we, the Hindus and the Sikhs, truthful agelong arsenic we travel the respective religions, should person the close of citizenship successful India and should beryllium entitled to clasp specified citizenship truthful agelong arsenic we get nary other.”

When everyone, including the existent Prime Minister, expresses the presumption that determination is nary different homeland for Hindus, it takes 1 backmost to the statement enactment distant by Deshmukh truthful galore years ago. But this statement was not accepted by the Constituent Assembly. “All rules and regulations volition beryllium arsenic applicable to Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and others. No peculiar instrumentality tin beryllium made for you Hindus, Muslims oregon Christians,” Nehru stressed portion intervening successful the treatment connected articles astir citizenship held astatine the Constituent Assembly connected August 10-12, 1949.

But interestingly, according to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, “religion” has go a criterion for citizenship. Applications to get Indian citizenship are being accepted from radical from the neighbouring countries belonging to each faiths, excluding Islam. Undoubtedly, this amendment narrows the “we” embedded successful our Constitution’s Preamble. Recent cases, specified arsenic the thrust by the Election Commission successful Bihar to “clean up” the voters’ list, tin besides beryllium seen arsenic examples oregon attempts to constrictive the “we” successful the Constitution.

Debate connected Preamble

However, it needs to beryllium understood that the determination to statesman the Preamble with the words “We the people” was not an casual workout undertaken without owed forethought. The secular and Hindutva factions debated it extensively. During this process, a struggle arose betwixt the 2 perspectives. H.V. Kamath projected an amendment suggesting that the Constitution should statesman with the operation “In the sanction of God”. He emphasised the value of religion and reiterated the arguments helium had made during the discussions astir spiritual beliefs. Some raised concerns implicit which deity should instrumentality precedence.

Shibban Lal Saxena and Govind Malaviya projected comparable amendments, suggesting that the Preamble should commence with the words: “By the grace of the Supreme Being, lord of the universe, called by antithetic names by antithetic peoples of the world”. Others, similar H.N. Kunzru, expressed their concerns successful parochial terms.

Rajendra Prasad, the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, raised a morganatic interest astir however the Constitution could statesman successful the sanction of God. He requested the members to retreat their amendments. Kamath did not cede to the aggregate pleas made by the members to retreat his proposal. Thus, “In the sanction of God” was enactment to a vote. As per authoritative records, the last tally stood frankincense — 68 opposed and 41 successful support. So his connection was outvoted. This result outrightly proves the contrasting perspectives betwixt the founding fathers connected the quality of the nation.

The debates and the result of the Constituent Assembly are a wide indicator that secularism is portion of the basal operation of the Constitution and determines the quality of the country. However, the effort to crook India into a spiritual state is continuing and strengthening. People with affiliations towards the communalist ideologies argued that secularism shouldn’t beryllium included successful the Preamble, arsenic it was voted retired initially and was lone included later.

But, the information is that an amendment to see secularism unsocial was ne'er introduced successful the Assembly. The amendment introduced by Brajeswar Prasad from Bihar projected the inclusion of secularism among galore different terms. In fact, Prasad suggested these words: “to represent India into a secular, cooperative commonwealth to found a socialist bid and to unafraid to each its citizens”.

Despite the Assembly’s stance connected its impracticality, the acceptance of secularism arsenic a cardinal rule was clear. Kamath, who fought against it himself and opposed secularism, aboriginal acknowledged during the treatment connected state of religion that, “Of course, we judge India arsenic a secular state. But it is neither a Godless authorities nor a non-religious state.”

Members, including Kamath, were resistant to the thought of an wholly religion-free authorities adjacent erstwhile the connection “secularism” was accepted successful the discussions. In effect, they accepted the connection secularism, but misinterpreted the thought down it entirely.

Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, portion highlighting the intent of the Constitution, emphasised that “Modern states are built upon the instauration of secularism alternatively than religion. The epoch of spiritual states had travel to an extremity and it was the clip for nationalism”. The thought that, alternatively than strengthening the spiritual identity, the individuality arsenic a national indispensable beryllium strengthened arose successful that play itself.

Different perspectives were shared successful the discussions surrounding religion and secularism, which person since been debated extensively. This includes assorted dimensions, similar whether secularism implies a secular authorities oregon the lack of a narration betwixt the authorities and the state. In European countries, secularism has been considered a precondition for democracy. Additionally, state of dissent is held arsenic a close concerning spiritual beliefs, and each rights to equality are rooted successful the rule of adjacent rights successful religion.

Many individuals argued that secularism is simply a captious precondition for sustaining ideology successful India. B. Shiva Rao, a Constituent Assembly subordinate and erstwhile analogous of The Hindu, who aboriginal went connected to go a Rajya Sabha member, opined that the due functioning of ideology is imaginable lone if communalism is eradicated from society. However, Kamath, who earlier argued that the instauration to the Constitution should commencement successful the sanction of God, aboriginal claimed, successful a statement connected the state of religion, that India should not beryllium a spiritual nation.

“The state should not person an authoritative religion. We indispensable state that India is simply a secular country. But it is not a godless, secular, oregon anti-religious country,” helium said. Kamath besides pointed retired that each religions correspond the aforesaid idea. “‘Aham Brahmasmi (I americium Brahma)’ and ‘Ana’l Haqq (I americium truth)’ state that ‘my begetter and I are the same’ and determination is nary otherness erstwhile antithetic religions speak,” helium said. When idiosyncratic asked the 19th-century Hindu sage Ramana Maharshi astir treating a stranger, helium responded by saying, “There are nary strangers,” and his effect was based connected the supra principle.

Historians specified arsenic Irfan Habib person argued that “the classical explanation of knowing secularism was not applied successful India, and it prepared the crushed for communalism. Ideologically, we person rejected the planetary position of secularism”.

“My begetter and Nehru utilized the connection secularism similar it was utilized successful the French Revolution, implying that religion should not interfere with the state. Even though the word ‘secularism’ did not beryllium during the French Revolution, the improvement existed,” helium remarks.

The connection “secularism” was archetypal utilized successful 1851 by an English paper editor, George Jacob Holyoake, who defined it arsenic a “non-religious morality”. He stated that secularism is related to the payment of the radical successful society, which was a technological explanation of the term. However, it was Radhakrishnan’s mentation of secularism that acceptable the signifier for the emergence of communalism.

“All religions indispensable beryllium treated with adjacent tolerance,” helium said portion arguing that religion is inseparable from the state. “There is nary abstract religion; however, successful practice, erstwhile each religions are treated equally, religion often leads to interference with the state,” helium said.

The statement wrong the Constituent Assembly revolved astir 3 contrasting perspectives connected secularism. The archetypal viewpoint aligned with the classical presumption that religion indispensable not interfere successful authorities affairs. However, it cannot beryllium said that it has developed into secular morality, arsenic mentioned earlier by Habib.

The 2nd perspective, which is yet to beryllium analysed, posits that the authorities should not interfere with religion. The 3rd position emphasises the value of adjacent respect for each religions. This attack advocates for treating each religions impartially and, according to them, with adjacent respect wrong the model of secularism.

No peculiar extortion for religion: Nehru

According to the 2nd perspective, offered by K.M. Munshi, “Indians are profoundly spiritual people. At the aforesaid time, determination is simply a humanities bequest of spiritual tolerance. The broader presumption of Hinduism is that each religions pb to 1 God. In this view, too, our state should not person an authoritative religion. At the aforesaid time, the inflexible favoritism betwixt religion and authorities is impossible, arsenic successful the United States. Some argued that spiritual acquisition should beryllium fixed arsenic portion of giving adjacent respect to each religions.” Kamath raised the contented successful the Assembly and advocated that the authorities should connection spiritual acquisition to each citizens.

Jawaharlal Nehru declared successful the Constituent Assembly that nary religion should beryllium fixed peculiar protection. “I recognize that the authorities does not let anyone to discriminate successful the sanction of religion oregon community. Its essence is that nary religion volition person the patronage of the state. The authorities volition not officially state immoderate religion oregon specifically support immoderate religion. No religion volition beryllium excluded oregon promoted arsenic portion of it.

No national of the state volition beryllium fixed peculiar information based connected religion.” This presumption is reflected successful antithetic Articles of the Constitution, ensuring state of religion and belief, adjacent attraction of each religions, neutrality successful governance, secular ineligible systems,

freedom of look and acquisition that is escaped from spiritual influences. But nowadays, each these features are diminishing done administrative and legislative actions.

In his historical code connected November 25, 1949, Ambedkar said, “Democracy successful India is lone a top-dressing connected an Indian ungraded which is fundamentally undemocratic.” According to his perspective, the pre-capitalist caste strategy is not mature capable to alteration into a antiauthoritarian system. During the deliberations, assorted perspectives besides arose regarding parliamentary democracy. By summarising the debates, Nehru said, “We reached a statement connected the question of the statesmanlike strategy oregon parliamentary system.

By agreeing upon a parliamentary system, the powerfulness is vested with Parliament and Cabinet, surely not successful the President.” Thus, we person continued to travel the parliamentary antiauthoritarian strategy contempt being confronted with respective challenges successful the past decades. But the biggest situation was posed to the precise thought of a parliamentary democracy. Earlier, successful specified scenarios, the Supreme Court was counted upon to play a important relation by delivering judgments that upheld the parliamentary structure. The Supreme Court judgement successful the 1975 Shamsher Singh, State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr, underscoring the antiauthoritarian underpinnings of the country, is of seminal value adjacent today.

According to the landmark judgment: “Wherever the restitution of the President oregon Governor is required for the utilisation of power, it is not their idiosyncratic satisfaction. But it is the restitution elicited from the cognition of the Constitution based connected the parliamentary system. It means that the cabinet, which helps and advises the President oregon Governor, is the 1 that enjoys this satisfaction.” The Supreme Court besides made a rebuke alongside emphasising that, “The Constitution volition not fto the Governor signifier a parallel enforcement strategy against the proposal of the cabinet.”

Recently, the apex tribunal successful State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu & Anr (2025), by fixing a clip bounds for the President and Governors to springiness assent to the Bills passed by the elected Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Supreme Court upheld the parliamentary quality of the antiauthoritarian system.

Basic operation of Constitution

While penning these observations, arsenic is known to all, Parliament is being adjourned owed to the protests by the Opposition against the alleged purification of the voters’ database of Bihar. The behaviour of the Election Commission has raised respective superior concerns. A one-man-centred enforcement and an executive-controlled parliamentary strategy are against the conception of the Constitution. Ambedkar had warned of this information successful his past code successful the Constituent Assembly: “In India, Bhakti oregon what whitethorn beryllium called the way of devotion oregon hero-worship plays a portion successful authorities unequalled successful magnitude to the portion it plays successful the authorities of immoderate different state successful the world. In politics, Bhakti oregon hero-worship is simply a definite roadworthy to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.” Whether leader worship has transformed our ideology into a dictatorship is simply a applicable question today.

Federalism is besides a rule that forms portion of the basal operation of the Constitution. But present the administrative strategy has go much centralised. The legislative powers of Parliament and Assemblies are specified successful 3 lists successful the Seventh Schedule nether Article 246 of the Constitution. However, successful modern times, we tin find the legislative powerfulness of Parliament being extended to those subjects successful which States person legislative competence. Under the garb of determination of world standards nether Entry 65 of List I, attempts are being made to bring universities established by States nether the power of the Union government.

The University Grants Commission is being utilized arsenic an indirect limb by the Centre successful this respect to dismantle the national strategy and diminish the relation of the State governments. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to recollect the statement and intervening remarks connected Entry 65 successful the Union List by Ambedkar: “Take, for instance, the B.A. grade examination, which is conducted by antithetic universities successful India. Now, astir provinces and the Centre, erstwhile advertizing for candidates, simply accidental that they should beryllium a postgraduate of a university.

Now, accidental the Madras University says that a campaigner for the B.A. Examination, if helium obtained 15 per cent of the full marks, shall beryllium deemed to person passed that examination; and accidental the Bihar University says that a campaigner who has obtained 20 per cent of marks shall beryllium deemed to person passed the B.A. Degree examination; and immoderate different assemblage fixes immoderate different standard, past it would beryllium rather a chaotic condition, and the look that is usually used, that the campaigner should beryllium a graduate, I think, would beryllium meaningless.”

While the intent of the Constitution framers is precise wide that this powerfulness is limited, the contiguous script is that the Union authorities is wrestling for unlimited powerfulness to power the higher acquisition strategy of the States. Similarly, successful fiscal matters, the Centre is choking the Opposition-ruled States by not providing capable budgetary allocation and by putting fetters connected their borrowing limits. According to the Constitution, Hindi and English are considered authoritative languages.

These days, we tin besides observe unconstitutional attempts by the Union authorities to enforce Hindi arsenic a nationalist language, which is unconstitutional. It needs to beryllium understood that the nationalist connection is wholly antithetic from the authoritative language. Even though Hindi and English are recognised arsenic authoritative languages by the Constitution, it tin beryllium recovered that English is the lone connection for the Supreme Court, High Courts, Parliament, and for authoritative connection betwixt the Union and States, and betwixt States.

Despite this, the Union authorities is insisting that lone Hindi beryllium utilized for each authoritative communications, which is against the intent of the Constitution. We often usage the word ‘Central government’; however, successful the Constitution, the usage is not the Central government, but the Union government. The Constitution has conceived the Union authorities arsenic a law organ that coordinates with antithetic States oregon determination units to enactment successful unity and thereby guarantee the advancement of the nation.

Attempts are being made to subvert the Constitution done unconstitutional practices without amending the Constitution. Article 1 of the Constitution was adopted aft aggravated debates. Presently, the sanction ‘India’ is being deliberately omitted portion Article 1 remains successful effect. Using lone “Bharat” is unconstitutional arsenic it is simply a signifier successful the travel to attain “Hindustan”. According to Article 93 of the Constitution, the Lok Sabha should elite the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker from among its members. However, the Supreme Court itself is presently considering the superior contented that the Deputy Speaker has not been elected adjacent though the word of the existent Lok Sabha is coming to an end. Thus, Article 93 remains connected insubstantial but is being disregarded successful practice.

The anticipation of the antiauthoritarian republic devolving into an authoritarian authorities was highlighted by Ambedkar successful the Constituent Assembly, erstwhile helium observed: “If Hindu Raj does go a fact, it volition nary uncertainty beryllium the top calamity for this country. No substance what Hindus say, Hindustan is simply a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account, it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj indispensable beryllium prevented astatine immoderate cost.”

One tin spot that the attempts to undermine the basal principles embedded successful the basal operation of the Constitution are planned and manufactured. The extortion of the Constitution successful its essence is the large conflict of the day. As aptly remarked by Ambedkar: “When determination was nary mode near for law methods for achieving economical and societal objectives, determination was a large woody of justification for unconstitutional methods. But wherever law methods are open, determination tin beryllium nary justification for unconstitutional methods.”

For this, 1 has to work the Constitution successful conjunction with its humanities enactment and articulate ways and means to support it lest it withers away.

P. Rajeeve is the Minister for Law and Industries, Government of Kerala, a erstwhile Rajya Sabha member,1a recipient of the Sansad Ratna Award for outstanding contributions to Parliament, and a subordinate of the CPI(M) Central Committee.