March 7, 2021

From childhood all of us have been familiar with the pranks and practical jokes that go with April 1 – the All Fools Day – and enjoyed the fun, laughter and merriment. April this year is significant, certainly for Christians, because Good Friday falls on April 2 followed by Easter Sunday on April 4. For Indians, April 14 – a public holiday - is special as it marks the 130th birth anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, the Father of Indian Constitution.

Dalit icon Dr Ambedkar was conferred the nation's highest civilian award 'Bharat Ratna' posthumously. He passed away on December 6. 1956. Months before his death on October 14, 1956, he renounced Hinduism and embraced Buddhism with his followers. He did consider Islam, Christianity and Sikhism before finally choosing Buddhism.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ celebrated as Easter Sunday or why Dr Ambedkar gave up Hinduism and opted for Buddhism are different subjects, and have little to do with God or Indian Constitution. But how or why God found a place in our Constitution is interesting.

India is Hindu majority country with 80% of the population being Hindus. It or rather the framers of our Constitution and our leaders consciously decided to be a secular country with people of all religions and faiths enjoying equal rights and chose not to become theocratic as Mahatma Gandhi firmly believed in the idea of being a secular country with no religion gaining preference. Could anybody dare go against the wishes of the Father of the Nation?

Preamble of the Indian Constitution

The speeches and writings of Gandhi outside the Constituent Assembly and of the first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr Ambedkar and many other stalwarts inside and outside the Constituent Assembly make it abundantly clear that they firmly believed State is State and shall always be State and Religion is nothing but that and the two shall not mix shall always remain separate!

The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution on November 26, 1949 to become a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic with a Parliamentary system of government, and it came into force on January 26, 1950. We have been observing January 26 as the Republic Day and recently started observing November 26 as Constitution Day or Law Day since 2015, for which a formal notification was issued on November 19 of that year.

Socialist, Secular entered later!

Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity were the guiding principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. The words Socialist and Secular were included in the Constitution when the Preamble was amended in 1976.

In the landmark judgement on March 11, 1994 in the S R Bommai x Union of India case, the Supreme Court ruled that India was already a Secular state from the time it adopted its Constitution. The apex court held that what was actually done through the 42nd Constitutional amendment was to explicitly state what was earlier contained implicitly under Article 25 to 28 guaranteeing citizens the Freedom of Religion as a Fundamental Right to practice and promote their religion peacefully.

Dr Ambedkar as the Chairman of the Constitution drafting committee had opposed the demand for inclusion of the words Secular, Socialist and Federal made by Prof K T Shah, economist, advocate and socialist from Bihar, in the Preamble (as can be read in the Constituent Assembly debates of November 15, 1949) on the ground that the entire Constitution embodies the concept of secular state and the term Socialist was best left to people to decide themselves instead of being tied down to a particular form and mentioning federal would be superfluous as the country is an union of states.

Enter God after a fierce 'battle!'

To come back to the question of God's place in the Indian Constitution, one might wonder if He is ONE or many because the country's predominant Hindu religion is supposed to have over 33 crore gods and goddesses (trayastrimsati koti).

Unlike many constitutions of different countries, ours does not mention God in its ‘body.' But then, most of the members of the Constituent Assembly (and even Gandhi, who was not a member) were firm 'believers' and 'pious' in their hearts and outlook. Still, they evidently preferred to keep their 'beliefs' to themselves and did not think it necessary to bring the 'almighty' in the text of the Constitution, especially when the task at hand was to build a modern and secular nation where everybody enjoyed the same right and freedom.

Yet, despite the firm beliefs and fervent convictions of the Constitution framers, God being Omnipotent (all powerful as the almighty or supreme power), Omniscient (all knowing, fount of all knowledge – past, present and future) and Omnipresent (present everywhere at all times) – at least this is the belief of almost all mortals, barring perhaps the atheists, somehow 'stealthily' (with due apologies!) made His way in. He just walked in through the front door and firmly entrenched Himself though in Schedule III.

Like the dozen Schedules in the Constitution including the Scheduled subjects in the Union, State or Concurrent List or say, the Scheduled Languages, God is also scheduled in the form of an Oath prescribed in the Third Schedule of our Constitution. The Third Schedule prescribes the form of oath that MPs, MPs, MLA/MLCs, Supreme Court/High Court judges/Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and other Constitutional functionaries before taking up office. The President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Ministers and Chief Ministers as well as Governors are sworn in under different Articles but follow similar oaths. They have the option to 'Swear in the Name of God' or 'Solemnly Affirm' that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and the law.

Those who swear in the name of God, obviously, put greater trust in the almighty than their own solemn word to occupy positions of power. Does the steadily increasing numbers of people invoking the almighty to come into office indicate the power of divine over mere mortals? Perhaps yes. The question, therefore, is whether God is preferred over solemn word of humans? Is it out of faith, belief or superstition or fear of the consequences of displeasing the almighty? One wonders. Normally, word and, more so, solemn word should be enough as ‘word of honour' or the commonly used phrase, ‘my word is my bond,' should suffice as trustworthiness could be judged by others through deeds and God alone might be in a better position to discern godliness. Whether they 'Swear in the Name of God' or 'Solemnly Affirm,' it is done with just a vow to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and to be devoted to the “service and well-being of the people of India.”

When the Constituent Assembly discussed and settled this business of swearing in the name of God or solemn affirmation while taking the oath of office, there was drama and heated exchanges – of course, it was not of the kind that we have been witnessing in the Parliament or State Legislatures! Reading the fascinating accounts of debates of the Constituent Assembly, we learn that Mangalore-born Hari Vishnu Kamath, better known as HV Kamath, who became an MP from Hoshangabad – renamed recently as Narmadapuram - in Madhya Pradesh, did insist on putting God in the Preamble, saying ''In the name of God, We, the people of India…'' and also later in the Oath.

When a member Kasturiranga (Kumitithadal) Santhanam) objected Kamath's amendment saying, ''The amendment moved must have a meaning,'' the latter responded: ''My amendment means, in the name of God, we do this and that. No long speech is needed to commend this motion. Besides, invoking the name of God, I have taken a little liberty with only one word, and that is, I have changed the word ‘'its'' to ‘'her'' citizens.'' To this another member Pattom A Thanu Pillai said: "If Kamath's amendment is accepted - of course, I am a believer in God - would not that amount to compulsion in the matter of faith? Is it not out of order to move a motion like that? It affects the fundamental right of freedom of faith. A man has a right to believe in God or not, according to the Constitution. In that view, this amendment should be ruled out, though I am myself a staunch believer in God."

"We are passing this in the name and on behalf of the people of India. All that we have done here in this Assembly has been in the name and on behalf of the people of India," responded Kamath. Another member Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri joined the debate: ''instead of 'in the name of God,' would he be pleased to accept 'in the name of Goddess'? Sir, we who belong to the Sakthi cult, protest against invoking the name of God alone, completely ignoring the Goddess. That is my submission. If we bring in the name of God at all, we should bring in the name of the Goddess also."

Sardar Bhupinder Singh Mann, a Sikh representative, countered Kamath asking ''if any steps had been taken to ascertain the wishes of God Himself in such a vital matter.'' Mann said, he was not opposed to the idea of God but worried that such facile use of His name could be demeaning. He also wondered what God might think of it all, which was why He should be asked. ''Tomorrow, the whole labour will be lost if He withdraws His consent and refuses to be associated with your Constitution,'' warned Mann.

As the debate was going on, Purnima Banerjee (nee Ganguly) and younger sister of Aruna Asaf Ali, interjected: ''The matter of God (is made the subject)…is most embarrassing. To most of us, believers and non-believers, it will be difficult to affirm or deny God. Let us not try to invoke His name in vain… The name of God is invoked by every nation upon the earth and God is an impartial Entity and He should be allowed to remain so.''

Noted Urdu poet who coined ''Inquilab Zindabad'' slogan, Syed Fazl-ul-Hasan, famously known as Maulana Hasrat Mohani, along with Andhra Pradesh leader Bhogaraju Pattabhi Sitaramayya and other members vehemently opposed the opening sentence, ''We, the people of India, having…..'' in the Preamble proposed by Dr Ambedkar and insisted that the sentence should begin with the words, ''In the name of God, We, the…'' as suggested by Kamath. Of course, as noted earlier, Kamath's efforts to insert the words 'in the name of the God' into the Preamble did not succeed!

Finally, Kamath's amendment was put to vote by the president of the Constituent Assembly Dr Rajendra Prasad, India's first President, saying: 'There is no alternative left to me.'' Along with Mohani and Sitaramayya, Kamath was supported by Pandit Govind Malaviya, son of Madan Mohan Malaviya and former Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University, and insisted on a division or taking a vote by physically counting those in favour by show of hands. There were 41 ayes and 68 noes, which led to the amendment's annulment. Hence, God or rather Kamath & co, who wanted Him in the Preamble lost!

Kamath and others succeeded in the next battle by having God in the Oath! It is difficult to unseat Him from Schedule III except by a Constitutional Amendment, which is probably inconceivable!