[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Sanjeev's allergy to the word 'socialism'

In 1950, India became a sovereign, democratic republic. I believe the
words "socialist" and "secular" were inserted by Smt.Indira Gandhi's
Constitutional whiz kids namely, offspring Sanjay  and V.C. Shukla, whom 
some referred to as the "Indian Goebbels" during the Emergency. 

Neither word belongs in our constitution, and both have taken on such
distorted interpretations as to be laughable. Socialism, whatever its
original Rousseau-Voltaire noble origins, represents a command economy
model of resource allocation and distribution. As such, it is in total
variance with Indian history, culture and society. 

Also, we ought to take out the word "secular" which by definition 
connotes an "irreligious" state, and instead put in language found for 
example in the U.S. constitution concerning the doctrine of separation 
of church and state. I strongly urge the inclusion of the Uniform Civil 
Code (UCC) as well. After all, the Constitution of India clearly states 
(this was way back in 1949)that all personal laws are meant to be 
temporary with an UCC to be implemented as soon as practically possible.

Finally, I notice the repeated use of the word "manifesto" to describe
this draft we are working towards. I would tend to shy away from this
usage for two reasons: One, it has leftist connotations (i.e. the
Communist Manifesto) and Two, it is a word often used by Indian
political parties when releasing their pie-in-the-sky election year 
promises. Symbols are not as important as substance, but they do have 
the ability to shape public perceptions. We should be conscious of the 
image we are trying to project. I would rather prefer to see words
such as "contract","covenant" or the use of the phrase "declaration of 

Sanjeev Sabhlok wrote:
"I am against all kinds of dogmatism. But if we say that the word
socialism should be removed from the Constitution, and replaced by a
blank, that is not being dogmatic."

K. Sastry wrote:
"The trouble is that we are carried away by the debasing of the term
socialism by those who have 'practised' it. It is wrong to equate it 
with state capitalism, centralised planning, or bureaucratic governance 
of the kind practised by us in India. In its original connotation, 
socialism represented a set of values, a moral doctrine. The 'doctrine 
asserts the primacy and mutual dependence of the values of liberty, 
equality, and fraternity.'(See Bernard Crick, Socialism, Open University 
Press, 1987.)"

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/