ഇക്കഴിഞ്ഞ റിപ്പബ്ലിക് ദിനത്തോടനുബന്ധിച്ചു മോഡി സര്ക്കാരിന്റെ വാര്ത്താ വിനിമയ വകുപ്പ് മന്ത്രാലയം പ്രസിദ്ധപ്പെടുത്തിയ ഒരു പരസ്യത്തില്‍ ഇന്‍ഡ്യന്‍ ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ആമുഖം ആയ ടെക്സ്റ്റ്‌ അച്ചടിച്ചത് യഥാക്രമം 'മതേതരം' എന്നും 'സോഷ്യലിസ്റ്റ്' എന്നും അതിനെ വിശേഷിപ്പിക്കുന്ന പദങ്ങള്‍ ഒഴിവാക്കിക്കൊണ്ടായിരുന്നു .
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; And to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."എന്ന ആമുഖം (preamble ) ആണ് SOCIALIST, SECULAR എന്നീ വാക്കുകള്‍ നീക്കപ്പെട്ട നിലയില്‍ കേന്ദ്ര സര്ക്കാരിന്റെ ഔദ്യോഗിക പരസ്യത്തില്‍ കണ്ടത് .
2015 ലെ റിപ്പബ്ലിക് ദിനപ്പരസ്യത്തില്‍ സര്ക്കാര്‍ വരുത്തിയ ഗൌരവാവഹമായ ഈ തെറ്റ് ചോദ്യം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടതോടെ, മോഡി സര്ക്കാരും , ബി ജെ പി യുടെയും സഖ്യ കക്ഷികളുടെയും രാഷ്ട്രീയ വക്താക്കളും പരസ്പര വിരുദ്ധമായ വിശദീകരണങ്ങളോടെയാണ് സര്ക്കാരിനെ അതിന്റെ ഉത്തരവാദിത്വത്തില്‍ നിന്നും മോചിപ്പിക്കാന്‍ വലിയ തിരക്കുകൂട്ടിയത് .
ആദ്യം വിശദീകരണവുമായി എത്തിയത് വാര്ത്താ വിതരണ മന്ത്രാലയം തന്നെയായിരുന്നു .1950 പ്രീആമ്പിളിന്റെ ഒരു വാട്ടര്‍ മാര്ക്ക് (മാതൃക ) കൊടുക്കാന്‍ മാത്രമേ പരസ്യത്തില്‍ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചിരുന്നുള്ളൂ എന്ന് വിശദീകരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് , അത് ഉപയോഗിച്ചതിന്റെ പേരില്‍ , ഭേദഗതി ചെയ്ത ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ പ്രീആമ്പിളുമായുള്ള വ്യത്യാസം എന്തിന് ഇത്രയേറെ കോലാഹലം ഉണ്ടാക്കണം എന്നും നിഷ്കളങ്ക ഭാവത്തോടെ പ്രസ്തുത മന്ത്രാലയത്തിലെ അധികാരികള്‍ ചോദിച്ചു .പക്ഷെ, കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ അവിടെ അവസാനിച്ചിരുന്നുവെങ്കില്‍ ,ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ഇപ്രകാരമുള്ള തെറ്റായ പ്രതിനിധാനത്തെ ചോദ്യം ചെയ്ത പൌരന്മാരുടെ ആശങ്കകളും അവിടെ തീര്ന്നേനെ.
The
Shiv Sena and Ravishankar Prasad revealed the real 'Mann ki Baat'
behind the omission of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the
Preamble as displayed in the Modi Government advertisement. That 'Mann
ki Baat' is nothing but the agenda of eroding secularism to head in the
direction of a 'Hindu Rashtra' in which minorities will not enjoy
equality and freedom. It is extremely significant that throughout, the
Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a calculated silence on the
subject, allowing his Government and party to speak in many voices.
Many
offensive amendments made by Indira Gandhi to the Constitution were
deleted by subsequent amendments by the Janata Government as well as by
Supreme Court intervention. But no Government in the four decades
since the Emergency has ever yet felt the need to 'debate' the inclusion
of the words 'secular' and socialist', and there is good reason for
this.
The
main reason is that those words simply underlined or amplified the
assurance present in the rest of Preamble, as well as in many Articles
of the Constitution. The word 'Secular' only reflects the spirit of the
Preamble's guarantee of 'liberty of faith and worship', of equality,
and of fraternity based on the 'dignity of the individual'. And this
spirit is fully reflected in several Articles of the Constitution.
What
about 'socialist'? It may be argued that with the passing of the
'public sector' regime and the establishment of liberalization as a
policy framework, is has become anachronistic to call India 'socialist.'
Others can argue, rightly, apart from the outward trappings of
five-year plans and public sector, the Indian State was not socialist
in any sense of the term. India was never even a welfare state, let
alone socialist in the revolutionary sense. The failure to carry out
land reforms and democratise agrarian relations, and the growing
subordination of the public sector to the interests of crony capitalism
are the two biggest negations of any kind of socialism.
But
what these arguments forget is that the term 'socialist' is important
in as much as it reflects the spirit of 'social, economic and political
justice' promised in both the Preamble and the directive principles of
state policy. At a time when Governments are trying to step back from
their duty of ensuring basic entitlements of food, shelter, water and so
on to the people, the Constitutional commitment to that duty is
important. At the present juncture, any move to drop the word
'socialist' is nothing but a ploy to claim Constitutional 'approval'
for the rampant flouting of the principles of social and economic
justice by Governments.
In
a recent interview, BJP President Amit Shah has reiterated that his
party sees no need to remove the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from
the Preamble. But it is significant that in the same interview, Shah
refused point blank to comment in any way on RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat's
declaration that India is a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). If the BJP is
indeed committed to the secular spirit of India's Constitution, why is
it unwilling to outright condemn the RSS' 'Hindu Nation' claim that is
the worst possible attack on that spirit? In the same interview, Amit
Shah defended what his party calls 'ghar wapsi' and called for a 'law
against conversions' – both of which fly in the face of the
Constitutional guarantee of the freedom to practice and propagate one's
faith.
Ravishankar
Prasad and others may ask, rhetorically, if Ambedkar was less secular
because he saw no need to include the word 'secular' in the Preamble.
But can there be any doubt whatsoever that Ambedkar was deeply opposed
to the notion of India being a theocratic 'Hindu Rashtra'? Ambedkar
himself organized mass conversions to Buddhism and declared, 'I may be
born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu'. Can there be any doubt that
Ambedkar would find a 'law against conversions' opposed to the basic
spirit of India's Constitution as he drafted it?
A
'Hindu Rashtra' is not just deeply dangerous for India's religious
minorities. It also spells an end to the Constitutional promise of
equality and freedom for India's Dalits, adivasis, oppressed castes and
women. At the time when India adopted the Constitution, the RSS had
opposed it and had called for the Manusmriti to be the Constitution of
India as a 'Hindu Rashtra'. The RSS organ Organiser, on November 30
1949, had complained that the Constitution had no mention of the
Manusmriti – the same Manusmriti that is full of horrific decrees
against the basic dignity and freedom of Dalits and women, the same
Manusmriti that Ambedkar had publicly burnt.
It
is precisely as a rebuff of and safeguard against these forces that
seek to turn India into a Hindu nation that India's Constitution and
Preamble must continue to declare India's secular character without any
room for ambiguity.
No comments:
Post a Comment