Why The Indian Constitution is Sacred And Cannot Be ‘Dharma-Nirpeksh’

Comparing the preambles of the Constitution of both India and United States, one may find a lot of superficial similarities. There is, however, one crucial difference. While the preamble of the American Constitution states that the people of that country have come together to establish justice, the people of India have come together to secure justice.

Eminent jurist R G Chaturvedi explains the difference:

The concept of the ‘virtue of justice as primordial reality’ is an Indic concept that has been verily embedded in the fabric of our civilisation. Vedic seers called it Ṛta. In the human context, Buddha called it ‘Dhamma’, also known as Dharma. Dr Ambedkar saw the social and political democracies not just as socio-political systems but as manifestation of Dharma-Dhamma in the social realm, and hence a way of life. He considered Upanishadic mahavakyas as the best possible spiritual basis for social democracy.

So, whenever freedom was threatened by its enemies, Dr Ambedkar pointed to them that they were not just opposing a form of government, but they were subscribing to a value system alien to Indic spirit. In 1949, as the head of the drafting committee of Indian Constitution, Dr Ambedkar had to face the attack of Communists.

The condemnation of the Constitution largely comes from two quarters, the Communist Party and the Socialist Party. Why do they condemn the Constitution? Is it because it is really a bad Constitution? I venture to say ‘no’. The Communist Party want a Constitution based upon the principle of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They condemn the Constitution because it is based upon parliamentary democracy.

The Socialists want two things. The first thing they want is that if they come to power, the Constitution must give them the freedom to nationalise or socialise all private property without payment of compensation. The second thing that the Socialists want is that the fundamental rights mentioned in the Constitution must be absolute and without any limitations so that if their party fails to come to power, they would have the unfettered freedom not merely to criticise, but also to overthrow the government.

Then he went on to give a brilliant defence of Parliamentary democracy. He saw the roots of present democratic system he was defending in the fertile soil of pre-Buddhist Indian past. To him the Buddhist Sangha adapted and perhaps improved upon the democratic system of pre-Buddhist and hence Vedic India:

Is it any wonder then that Dr Ambedkar rejected the inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ into the preamble of the Constitution?