Subhash C. Kashyap, an expert on the Constitution and a former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, says: “By no stretch of imagination or any dictionary definition can the policies of the present government, for instance, be called socialist.” The legal requirement to attest to socialism, he adds, is “fraud” and “poppycock”.
Nevertheless, all parties pledged themselves to socialism. The BJP, in a vision document for the 2004 polls (that it lost), advocated a judicious mix of globalization and state support for the poor.
Even the party’s original philosophy, what it terms “integral humanism”, tries to balance individual aspirations with industrial progress. A treatise on history and philosophy, the document setting forth this philosophy says: “Similar difficulty arises in reconciling socialism and democracy. Democracy grants individual liberty but the same is used by capitalist system for exploitation and monopoly. Socialism was brought in to end exploitation but it eliminated the freedom and dignity of the individual.”
Ravi Shankar Prasad, a national spokesperson of the BJP, says the Constitution of India has left socialism open to interpretation. “Historically, from Stalin and Pol Pot to Gandhi, socialism has embraced an array of approaches. To us, socialism means equity above all else. While the Congress debates how to distribute the bread, we want to increase the quantity of bread available for distribution,” he says.
“What else would you like in place of socialism?” asks Gurudas Dasgupta, the Communist Party of India’s leader in the Lok Sabha, who said he is not aware of the 1989 amendment.
In 1988, when the amendment was still being debated in Parliament, CPI member of Parliament Indrajit Gupta had said: “What is there to prevent any representative of one of the big business houses declaring that he believes in socialism? They are doing it every day. These things have no meaning in actual practice.”
A vast majority of leaders today seem to believe that socialism is a fluid concept that loosely translates into social welfare and massive state-funded creation of infrastructure. “Each term is dynamic. Meanings change and evolve over time. Socialism, in the Indian context, primarily means welfare of the poor. And that’s what the Congress’ commitment to the aam aadmi reflects,” says Dwivedi of the Congress party.
Asaduddin Owaisi, a Lok Sabha member from the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimmen, says both the BJP and the Congress need to “introspect” as they had strayed from the Constitution.
“The Constitution reminds us that India has to be a welfare state. There is too much focus on urban industrialization, while the fact is that India is surviving as a democracy because of the vast majority living in the rural areas and urban slums. These are the people that mainly come out to vote,” he says.
The words “socialist” and “secular” were not part of the Constitution until 1976. An amendment during the 22 months of the Emergency, when Indira Gandhi was the prime minister, had introduced these terms.
With time, this amendment became fertile territory for the 1989 amendment that still shadows the political landscape.