B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, had strongly pitched for minority rights as the Constituent Assembly discussed the interim report on Fundamental Rights on May 1, 1947.
Dr. Ambedkar, however, more than a year later, opposed a proposal to insert the words “socialist” and “secular” in Article 1 of the Constitution.
The last few days have seen debates on Ambedkar, the Constitution and even “intolerance” in Parliament and outside, with film stars Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan being criticised for voicing concern on the issue.
“Rights for minorities should be absolute rights. They should not be subject to any consideration as to what another party may like to do to minorities within its jurisdiction,” Ambedkar said in 1947, protesting against K.M. Munshi’s proposal that the clause forbidding discrimination against minorities in admission to state educational institutions and prohibiting compulsory religious instruction to them be referred to a committee for further consideration.
While Munshi had offered no reason, Ambedkar said: “The only reason in support for this proposal – one can sense – is that… we must wait and see what rights the minorities are given by the Pakistan Assembly before we determine the rights we want to give to the minorities in the Hindustan area… I must deprecate any such idea.”
He added that while the government could diplomatically engage with neighbours for rights to minorities there, he wasn’t in favour of this affecting their rights here.
‘Secularism is universal’However, his stand on the issue suggests he held that secularism was a universal value that needn’t be specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
An amendment moved by Bihar member K.T. Shah in November 1948 that the words “secular, federal and socialist” be inserted in Clause 1 of Article 1 describing India didn’t find favour with Ambedkar.
He underlined that people should be left to decide “how society should be organised in its social and economic side… according to time and circumstances” and the Constitution should not take away this liberty from them.
While saying nothing specific on “secularism”, Ambedkar suggested that though socialism might be seen by most as better than capitalism in those days, people in future might prefer another form of social organisation. He, however, added that some Directive Principles did have a socialist direction.
Ambedkar was disappointed even with Jawaharlal Nehru’s resolution on the Aims and Objects of the Constitution moved on December 13, 1946, which laid down justice, equality, freedom of expression and belief, faith and worship and safeguards for minorities and backward classes as among the objectives of the Constitution.
He saw as “pure pedantry” and “unnecessary” repeating the values enshrined in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, which were by now “part and parcel of our mental makeup”.
