Maha Bharat: Episode 24

What is the significance of the Preamble to our Constitution?

← See all episodes

84 words, carefully considered and debated and deliberately added the way they are, in a sense form the very definition of India. The Preamble to our Constitution was a whole 2 months before the constitution itself and forms the basis for how India governs itself.

But it came with its own share of controversies and that is what we will examine in this episode.

Show Notes

All clips and voices used in this podcast are owned by the original creators

Links to clips used in this episode —

Full Transcript of Episode 24 –

Namashkar Doston, 

In every episode, we try to answer an important question about our country. A law, a political movement, a function of the government. 

But, have you ever noticed that when we try to understand our country, we keep coming back to one thing – our constitution! Samvidhaan. 

Our constitution itself is quite complex, but luckily for us, we don’t have to read the entire constitution to understand its basic structure (buniyad). 

This is defined in the Preamble of our constitution!

[We hear the collective voice of Supreme Court lawyers reciting the Preamble]

The preamble of our constitution starts with the words, “we the people of India”. This is a declaration all of us are making for our country to be a democratic, secular and socialist republic. 

In a way, the preamble sets the foundation of the constitution — and of India. 

But what do all those words mean? Have they always been true in India’s case?

In this episode, let’s take a look at the words that define our country, what they mean and how they’ve made India what it is today. 

The Preamble, or Prastavana, has a simple meaning: it means the introduction to something – a book, a movie, a law. Today, we’re talking about the Preamble to the Indian Constitution, which is an introduction to the constitution. It tells us about the basic idea of the constitution, and the principles on which it was built. 

But, interestingly, the preamble also has another important interpretation. If you listen to the words of the preamble, you will notice that they sound like an oath. A promise. 

Before we get started, listen to what the preamble of the constitution actually says. It has a lot of words you might have heard before and some new ones, but we will talk about all of that in today’s episode.

[We hear the voice of children reciting the Preamble]

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 26th day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

The Preamble, in a few but very important words, is a promise for the kind of India that our leaders imagined (kalpana ki thi). 

The Preamble may be a small introduction — but do not underestimate its importance! There is an interesting story of how the preamble was written — a story with its own fair share of drama. 

By the way, if you heard it clearly, you would have noticed that we adopted the preamble on 26th November, 1949, which is 2 months before we adopted our constitution itself.

1947 — the year India got its freedom. It was a new beginning for India. But doston, don’t be mistaken. The leaders of India had imagined what a free India would look like, many years before 1947 itself.

The Bombay Plan of 1944 laid out the industrial structure of India and even before that, in 1928, the Nehru Report talked about the set-up of the Indian government. 

When the Drafting Committee started writing the constitution, it borrowed many things from these reports. 

Similarly, in 1946, a year before independence, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru drafted the Objectives Resolution of India — a document that lays out the aims and objectives of the Indian constitution. It was accepted in the constituent Assembly on December 13, 1946. 

The common belief is that the Preamble of India was based on this Objectives Resolution. After all, both documents had the same content: the aims and objectives of the constitution — and of India. 

However, over the years, the question “Who wrote India’s preamble?” has collected a few answers. And each one is different from the other, and quite interesting. 

Sir B.N. Rau, the constitutional advisor, is also a part of this story. Sir Rau had prepared a draft preamble, which was considered by the drafting committee. Dr. Ambedkar was the head of this committee. Many experts will tell you that Sir Rau actually wrote the Preamble — but if you take a look at this draft, you’ll see that it looks very different from the final Preamble of India. The drafting committee changed this draft and came up with a new Preamble. 

However, we don’t have the transcripts of the draft committee meetings — so perhaps, what really happened to Rau’s draft of the preamble will always stay within those four walls of the meeting. But we do know this: in the end, the committee came up with a very different draft of the preamble. And such important changes could be done by only one person: the chair of the Drafting Committee. That’s right — Dr. Ambedkar himself. 

I’ll leave you to decide what to believe, but what we can all agree on is that while the Preamble of our constitution is inspired by Nehru’s Objectives Resolution, Dr. Ambedkar also had an important role to play in drafting it. 

Doston, this is not where our story ends. If you’ve heard our other episodes, you’ll know that when it comes to India, history has been made, changed and made again — in the constituent assembly. The Preamble, too, was taken up for debate in the assembly in October, 1949. 

The first amendment was proposed by Hasrat Mohani. He suggested that instead of calling India a sovereign democratic republic, we must call ourselves a Union of Indian Socialistic Republics, like the USSR does. 

He also suggested adopting other successful policies of the USSR. The members of the assembly felt that this renaming would go against the entire constitution, so this amendment was not accepted. 

The next one is interesting — another member, H.V. Kamath proposed that the Preamble should begin with the phrase: “In the name of god, we the people of India…”. He said that the constitution will prosper with God’s blessing — and after all, asking for God’s blessing is an ancient tradition being followed in India for many years. 

This is a common practice. The preambles of many countries’ constitutions mention God, including Brazil, Germany, Russia. However, There a few arguments against this. You can guess one of them — if we mention God in the preamble, what about people who do not believe in God? 

Another member argued that such a phrase will go against a citizen’s right to liberty of thought and faith, something that the Preamble itself mentions. In another unexpected argument, a member insists that if the phrase God is added, then so must be Goddess. 

Both Rajendra Prasad and Dr. Ambedkar were opposed to this amendment. It was dropped, in the end — but mind you, Mr. Kamath was not happy. He said, “This Sir, is a black day. God Save India!”.

Once the issue of God was out of the way, the assembly discussed the inclusion of the only person next to God, for India at that time, that was Mahatma Gandhi. 

Yes, Shibban Lak Saksena, another member of the assembly, proposed that the Preamble must not only begin with the name Mahatma Gandhi, but also mention his principles of Ahimsa and Satya. However, the constitution of India is not Gandhian. It is based on the ideals of the American Supreme Court and the Government of India Act of 1935. The members of the assembly agreed on this fact — and this amendment was dropped. 

After this, the Preamble of the Indian constitution was adopted. 

84 words — bas, that’s how short our preamble is! But don’t let that mistake you into thinking that the preamble is simply a short introduction. Every word in the preamble is extremely important.

So much so, that recently, the Maharashtra government did this: 

[We hear a news report about the the recitation of Preamble being made compulsory in Maharashtra schools]

The preamble declares our country as a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. We’ve heard these words before — maybe in our textbooks, maybe in the news. But what do they really mean? 

Instead of simply discussing the meaning, why don’t we look at a few moments in the history of India, where the words of the preamble have had great significance.

The Preamble begins with the words, We the People of India and ends with the words, “give ourselves the constitution”. This is not just a nice addition to the preamble — it actually demonstrates a very important fact. It tells us about the authority of the constitution, and because of this, the law and order of India lies in the hands of us: the people of India. We have chosen these ideals for our country, and we will make sure that we follow them!

Next, we resolve to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. Yaani, ek सम्पूर्ण प्रभुत्व सम्पन्न, समाजवादी, पंथनिरपेक्ष, लोकतंत्रात्मक गणराज्य. 

A small sentence — but a lot of history packed into it! India is a sovereign country. In Hindi, we call this “prabhutv” (प्रभुत्व), based on the word “prabhu”. That’s right — it means God, or the most supreme power, and in our constitution, it means that India has the supreme power to make decisions for itself. 

The government of India can make laws on any subject. There is no external power that can control us — the supreme power lies with us.

In fact, Pt. Nehru had assured the country on behalf of the constituent assembly that India will be a sovereign republic in 1946 itself. 

[We hear the voice of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru speaking at the Constituent Assembly]

Broadly, when I say sovereign, I mean two kinds of power. Pehla hai internal authority. This means that India has the free will to decide the relationships between its states and citizens: how states will be divided, how citizenship will be provided, distribution of resources. It can make laws on these subjects. These activities are carried out by four parts of Sovereign India, as we say: the Executive, the Legislature, Judiciary and the Administrative. 

The second type of sovereignty is in India’s external authority. This gives us the independent authority to build relations with other countries as we like. It also allows us to acquire any foreign territory (kshetra), or voluntarily give up any territory of our own. 

If you have heard the phrase “our sovereignty is being threatened”. Usually, it’s used if other countries are trying to capture our territory, and disputes over India’s territory is not something new. 

Let me tell you an interesting story regarding this – 

This is the legal case of Berubari Union Vs. Unknown, fought in 1960. But the story of Berubari starts long before that, when our country was divided into India and Pakistan. It was Sir Radcliffe, a British lawyer, who headed the Boundary Commission that drew the borders between India and Pakistan. When it came to dividing areas of West Bengal into India and East Pakistan, Sir Radcliffe divided Thanas, or police stations, into these two countries. The rule was that any territory belonging to a thana will belong to the country the thana was in. Everything was going well, and this decision was accepted. 

At this time, it was decided that the Berubari Thana in the Jalpaiguri (जलपाईगुड़ी) district will remain in India. 

However, when writing the report with the boundaries, there was a mistake and the boundary commission did not mention this fact in their report!

So, Pakistan claimed this piece of land, and they were right. But the dispute continued, as India wanted Berubari back. In 1958, the Nehru-Noon agreement was signed, dividing Berubari into two equal regions: one in India, and one in East Pakistan. For this, India has to voluntarily give up a part of Berubari. 

But this brought about opposition not only from West Bengal, but other parts of India. The argument was that India cannot simply give up territory through an agreement. This case went to the Supreme Court in 1960. 

The Supreme Court ruled that in order to give up Berubari, the Parliament must amend Article 3 of the constitution. This article lays down the laws for deciding the borders of a state. And without amending this article, India cannot give up a part of West Bengal. 

This is where you’re probably wondering — what about the preamble? The Preamble declared India as Sovereign, so the government should have the right to give up any territory. But the Supreme Court disagreed. It said that the Preamble is simply an introduction to the constitution. The court does not derive any authority from the Preamble. So, even if the Preamble declares India as sovereign, the government cannot take this as law. 

The parliament amended Article 3 and eventually, part of the Berubari Union was given up to Pakistan. 

But the question of the Preamble remains: if the words of the Preamble cannot be enforced in the court of law, is it even a part of the constitution?

This question came up again, in 1973, when the Supreme Court made a historic (aitihasik) ruling in the case of Kesavananda Bharati (केसवानन्दा भारती) Vs. State of Kerala. This is when the Court ruled that while the Parliament can make amendments in the constitution, it cannot change the basic structure (buniyad) of it. 

In the same ruling, it also announced that the preamble is a part of the constitution, and can definitely be used in the court of law!

The preamble ends with the words, ‘democratic republic’. In the first episode of this podcast, I told you that the word “Republic” means that India is led by representatives of the people in India. And a democractic republic only confirms this: it tells us that our government is elected by an independent election process. The idea that India should be a democratic republic was something our leaders were sure about — even before the constitution was written. When the constitution was finally adopted, on 26th January, 1950 — India officially became a democratic republic. 

And you guessed it — that’s why we celebrate Republic Day on the 26th January, every year. 

[We hear the collective voice of people reciting the preamble to the Indian Constitution]

Supreme Court Lawyers in Delhi and High Courts lawyers. Citizens in a hyderabad rally and outside the Delhi gate. 

These are people who are reciting the Preamble of our constitution. Can you guess why?

All of these groups, as well as many more across India, recited the Preamble as a part of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, or the CAA. This act was passed in December last year — and it has received opposition from many groups. But, why are they reciting the Preamble?

As we’ve talked about in a previous episode about citizenship, the CAA grants Indian citizenship to refugees of various faiths, who seek shelter in India from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, this list of faith did not include Islam. And this brings us to the “secular” part of the preamble. 

What does secular mean? In simple words, when we say that a country is secular, we mean that it treats all religions equally. No citizen is given an advantage because of his or her religion. When it comes to politics, secularism also means that the government keeps itself separate from matters of religion in the country. You might have heard of the expression “Separation of Church and State” – this is the basic concept of Secularism: to keep religion and politics separate.

Those who oppose CAA believe that by enacting such a law, the government is not only involving itself in religious matters, but also discriminating against one. On the other hand, a group of people also believe that by offering shelter to refugees, the act enforces the “fraternity” ya bhaichara part of the Preamble. 

While the debate on citizenship is for another day, this only goes to show that the word Secular in the preamble is not to be taken lightly. It forms the foundation of our country. 

But, perhaps you’d be surprised to know that the word secular as well as socialist, was added into the preamble almost 30 years after independence! 

The word socialist is used for countries where the central government controls the economy and the money or wealth from this economy is shared among all the citizens of the country. 

However, ‘socialist’ in India’s preamble is “democratic socialism”. This means that the government of India aims to achieve the socialist goals of income equality and prosperity, but through democratic methods. 

Both these words were not by the Constituent Assembly. 

As far as Secular was concerned, this was because the Assembly felt that India could never truly be secular. Think about it yourself: the lives the Indian citizens are so strongly rooted in religion and it is impractical to separate religion from the other parts of their lives. With the word secular in the Preamble, the constitution would not be able to make laws on protection of minority religions, or of religious interests. 

For the word socialist, B.R. Ambedkar strongly believed that the constitution should not lay down the economic policy of a country, since this is something that must change with time and the situation. 

In 1976, the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made a historic amendment to the constitution. While the country was in an Emergency, Mrs. Gandhi changed some parts of the constitution. These changes reduced the power of the Supreme Court. She also added the words socialist and secular to the Preamble. 

Now, more than 40 years, later, these words in the preamble are being questioned again:

[We hear news reports about the word ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ being removed from the preamble]

According to this plea, the words socialist and secular were added “illegally” during the emergency, and are against the theme of bharat. Will these words be removed? — only time will tell. 

When it comes to social, economical and political justice in India, there is no better example than the constitution itself. Several laws of the constitution ensure justice, and time and again, the citizens have relied on these laws. 

I’m referring to the next line of the Preamble: “Justice – Social, Economic and Political.”

Social and economic justice seek to remove all sorts of discrimiantion in the society. This can be based on caste, gender, income. Political justice, on the other hand, ensures that every citizen of the country has an equal opportunity to participate in India’s politics. To vote for the leaders we like — or to become the leaders of this country. 

These same laws often overlap with the ideas of equality of status and opportunity, which is also mentioned in the Preamble. 

For instance, the Article 17 of the constitution abolished (samapt) untouchability from India. In Article 23 and 24, the constitution made Child Labour illegal. The constitutional provision for reservation in education and employment ensures equal opportunity. 

The next part, liberty of thought, expression, faith and belief are reflected strongly in the Fundamental Rights listed in the constitution. This includes the right to Freedom, the right to equality, the right to religion. Article 19 also gives us the freedom of speech — a part of the constitution that is brought up time and again.

Several laws and acts of our country support the preamble directly. 

But there is one part of the Preamble — the very last one — that is very interesting. And this has to do with fraternity, or bandhutva ya bhaichara. 

Bandhutva means brotherhood — or simply, friendship. Laws can be made to ensure that a citizen has equal opportunity or the liberty to faith. But how can the courts ensure that we, as citizens, are united and consider each other brothers and sisters?

The answer to this lies in the legal cases that have used fraternity as their basis. Let me give you one example.

In 1992, The Supreme Court talked about fraternity for the first time. This was the case of Indira Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India.  

Indira Sawhney was a lawyer who had filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India. This was to question the decision of the Mandal Commission, which had recently decided that 27% seats in educational institutes should be reserved for socially backward classes. Indira Sawhney had paritcular questions — one, will the econonimcally backward also get reservations? Aur dusra, can this reservation percentage be increased?

Dekhiye, her argument here was that the socially backward classes should not include the economically backward also — if it does, majority of the country will fit into this category.

The Judge decided that it will not include the economically weak classes. And the reservation percentage will not be more than 50%. 

But the 27% will be retained. The Judged defended this decision with the argument of fraternity. 

Now — our first thought here is that a law like this ensures equality, right? But as the judge pointed out, it is laws like these that first bring about fraternity between different sections of the society. This fraternity then leads to equality. And without fraternity, there will be no equality — no matter the law. 

When asked about the Preamble, Dr. Ambedkar said:

“Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.”

Yaani, स्वतंत्रता को समानता से अलग नहीं किया जा सकता है; समानता को स्वतंत्रता से अलग नहीं किया जा सकता है। न ही स्वतंत्रता और समानता को बिरादरी ya bandhutva से अलग किया जा सकता है

The Preamble is a simple introduction to our constitution. But doston, if you think about it, every law in the constitution — every act that our parliament makes — is based on the ideals of the Preamble. 

It is the words of the preamble that have guided the country through major crises, and brought it back as well. In fact, every topic that we have talked about, has something to do with the preamble in some way or the other!

We do not yet know if any more words would be removed from the Preamble, or if any would be added. However, as citizens of the country, it is our duty to realize the ideals on which our founding father built the country — and how far we have come today. 

That’s it for today, folks!

Credits

Narrated by – Dhruv Rathee
Producer – Gaurav Vaz
Written by – Gaurav Vaz and Anushka Mukherjee
Title Track Design – Abhijith Nath
Audio Production – Madhav Ayachit