The Preamble to the Constitution provides the conceptual framework and moral vision to the contents of the main document. It encapsulates: 1) the objective of the Constitution which is “to constitute India into a Sovereign (Socialist Secular) Democratic Republic”; 2) what it promises to secure to the people — Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; and 3) the promoters who have framed the document — “We, the People” — which gives the Constitution its democratic character.
In any political or social discourse on the Constitution, what engages people most are three words — liberty, equality and secular. Commentaries and other writings on the Constitution deal elaborately with them as they impinge on the daily life and activities of citizens. Someone is denied freedom of expression or faith or an opportunity to which she is entitled, or some action goes against the secular principle. At times, these matters snowball into serious controversies, with an adverse impact on larger issues like law and order or education, as has happened in the case of the hijab. Important as they are, the overwhelming focus on fundamental rights, individual freedom and identities has made us overlook the critical value of ‘fraternity’.
Interestingly, the word ‘fraternity’ did not form part of the original version of the Preamble; it was included much later by B R Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. It is relevant to recall here that in the Constituent Assembly debates, while other clauses in the Preamble were debated at length before arriving at a consensus, the clause on fraternity was received with universal praise.
Thakurdas Bhargava, who called the Preamble “the most precious part of the Constitution”, expressed his gratitude to Ambedkar for having added the word ‘fraternity’ to it. A critic with an acerbic tongue, J B Kriplani, referred to “the great doctrine of fraternity” and went on to say: “It means that we are all sons of the same God, as the religious would say, but as the mystic would say, that there is one life pulsating through us all, or as the Bible says, ‘we are one of another’. There can be no fraternity without this”.
Derived from the Latin frater, meaning ‘brother’, fraternity implies a spirit of brotherhood, of friendship and goodwill. While submitting the Draft Constitution to the president of the Constituent Assembly on February 21, 1948, Ambedkar explained the rationale for including the fraternity clause in the Preamble, though it was not part of the Objectives Resolution, thus: “The need for fraternal concord and goodwill in India was never greater than now”.
One can say, without hesitation, that this statement is as relevant today as it was in 1948, when we had just become an independent nation. Why have things come to such a pass that the atmosphere is filled more with hatred, ill-will towards others, and violence?
Again, the answer comes from Ambedkar, who underlined the importance of ‘constitutional morality’ and the need for its diffusion in other walks of life, particularly in administration. Pointing out that constitutional morality was not a natural sentiment and that it had to be cultivated, he observed, “Our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”.
While India continues to be a democracy 72 years after it became a full-fledged Republic, and the largest in the world, as we claim with pride, the question arises whether it is more in form, while the way it functions is still as a “top dressing on an Indian soil”? Are our institutions -- Parliament, Executive and Judiciary -- functioning in the true democratic spirit? Does our bureaucracy respond to the needs of all classes of people without discrimination? To what extent does the rule of law, the hallmark of any democracy, prevail? Does our behaviour, as individuals and in groups, correspond to the norms of a civilised society? These are some of the inconvenient questions that come up while reflecting on the performance of our nation as a democracy.
Whether we agree or not with the western indexes that have downgraded India’s status as a democracy, certain facts stand out. The number of sittings in a year of both central and state legislatures has suffered a slide, so also the time spent on discussion of bills; there are more disruptions of the proceedings of the House. The Executive’s actions seem more arbitrary, with hardly any meaningful consultative process, and little accountability. The courts, the great bulwark of Indian democracy, are groaning under the burden of an increasing number of cases, resulting in a delay in or denial of justice. The role of the fourth estate, the media in its myriad forms, is coming under increasing scrutiny, with fake news having a field day.
And the people, in whose name democracy thrives, have become helpless spectators, while a few ill-motivated individuals and groups pose a serious threat to society and the nation.
The real problem is that polarisation has reached such levels that as we get trapped into new questions of faith and freedom, secularism and fundamentalism, the form and substance of democracy, each set of actors — the rightists and the leftists, the fundamentalists and the radicals, and the powerful law enforcer, the government, each pretend to know all the answers. The civility to respect the opponent’s point of view while advancing one’s own has been lost, with no desire to find a meeting point in the larger interest. And the hijab has become the latest symbol of that polarisation.
The real answer comes from the Constitution itself. The emphasis must shift to the fourth principle of the Preamble -- fraternity, and this has been forcefully brought home by none other than Ambedkar himself. In a radio interview in 1954, he said: “My philosophy has its roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha. In his philosophy, liberty and equality had a place; but he added that unlimited liberty destroyed equality, and absolute equality left no room for liberty. In his philosophy, the law had a place only as a safeguard against the breaches of liberty or equality; but he did not believe that law can be a guarantee for breaches of liberty or equality. He gave the highest place to the fraternity as the only real safeguard against the denial of liberty or equality – fraternity, which was another name for brotherhood or humanity, which was again another name for religion”.
If the true spirit of democracy has to pervade Indian soil, and not just remain its ‘top dressing’, all thinking persons and institutions must champion the cause of fraternity.
(The writer is a former Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka)