Political leaders must debate if it is time to drop the word ‘socialist’ from the Constitution
In an interview early this week, given at an economic summit, economist Jagdish Bhagwati modestly claimed that he is 80 years old and cannot accept a role in the Government. “I fall asleep,” he is reported to have said. However, he felt he had the nicest things to say about the Prime Minister.
That is nothing unusual, because a lot of people have nice things to say about the Prime Minister. What marked Mr Bhagwati’s comment, however, the extent of praise. Mr Bhagwati had reportedly said, “Narendra Modi is the gift of God to India”. Now, that is a fulsome comment.
Mr Bhagwati was also asked if he had spoken to Amartya Sen recently and he made a joke about it. That Mr Sen had got a Nobel Prize which Mr Bhagwati had not, was also brought up. The latter was sporting about it.
He also had nice things to say about his colleague from California who is now the Chairman of NITI Aayog. (Had he recommendedIJ) He also had kind words for the NRI who is continuing as Governor of the Reserve Bank of India.
Concurrently, I noticed another news item about a group of American faculty members who had been invited to the Indian Institutes of Technology for stimulating the environment through some teaching. I could not help wonder what all of this totaled up to. It sounded so much like the UPA in action. Former Congress Minister Kapil Sibal would be such a satisfied man after having read all of this.
In the mid-1990s, Mr Bhagwati, with his gospel of foreign investments and open economy, was duly invited by the powers then close to the current powers to evangelise about a free economy. People like Vinay Bharat Ram, the founder of the Delhi Cloth Mill, sponsored his lectures. Seminars were organised around Mr Bhagwati’s thoughts. I happened to be invited to some of those seminars and dutifully attended as, I was expected to. I would do so again, today, if I was asked, but that is not the point.
The point is a simple one: The idea of socialism is a national mission enshrined in the vision of the nation, as represented by the Constitution of India. This country is supposed to be a sovereign, democratic, socialist, secular republic. What is to happen to the concept of socialism if the likes of Mr Bhagwati and his ilk continue to so critically determine the policy frameIJ
Times change, so do needs. If the needs change, the philosophy and the policy has also to change. It’s much better to accept this, if this be the case with reference to both open economy and so-called socialism. living with contradictions causes much confusion and chaos. So far so good.
However, consider another aspect of the national mission as enshrined in the Constitution: The word ‘secularism’. Think of the holy anguish with which many people talk when their understanding of secularism, is violated.
However, when it comes to economics there is a thundering silence from almost all political parties on the issue of socialism. No constitutional guarantee is then evoked. If there really is such unanimity on the issue of an open economy, then is it not about time that we amended the Constitution to drop the word ‘socialist’IJ
This suggestion is not being made in mirth. This is a serious line of thought for preserving the reality contact and aspiration of the sanctified document called the Constitution of India.
However, we must also ask if this silence on socialism and the articulation on a given understanding of secularism rooted in nature of political formations in this countryIJ Political parties are operationally based on caste, community, religious c considerations, and not on the economic constructs or ideology. People are moved for participation in political processes on issues of identity and community interests.
Are we, by action, implying that there are no significant economic ideological divides in India; hence there is no need for political formations based on economic ideologiesIJ So far as development is concerned, there is no political party which says it does not want development.
It is necessary to fully understand the operating predispositions and orientations to understand the nature of political processes better. This alone will help us to see what kind of societal architecture is going to dominate the future of India.