Socialism, Constitution and the Country

In the beginning there was the Word and the Word said, "Let there be light" and there was light. In India there is the Constitution and the Constitution says. "Let there be socialism", but where in our country do we find socialism? Socialism is not like the word of the God of the Old Testament. By merely incorporating the word 'Socialism' in the preamble of the Constitution, India cannot and has not become a socialist country. It appears, we have a long long way to go and a weary and arduous journey ahead.  The word 'Socialism' is understood by every one according to his lights and notions or as it suits him. Of course, it has to be so, Words too are democratic; 'they cannot be confined or imprisoned, though Judges, Lawyers, Legislators and Lexicographers do try hard to do so. They acquire different meaning according to the context, according to the times and according to what is intended to be conveyed. You may remember the conversation in Alice and the looking glass : "The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things". "The question is" said Humpty-Dumpty, "which is to be the master.......that's all". And, while talking of words, I must tell you that in the address which I am about to deliver, I have often used the words 'Revolution' and 'Bourgeois'. If you don't like the word 'Revolution' either because it has come to be associated with a certain kind of political action or on account of its emotional overtones or because it has become so as to be devoid of meaning, you may substitute the word "revolution" by the expression 'fundamental change'. Similarly when I use the word 'bourgeois' to describe my own class and its way of thinking, I do not do so in a contemptuous or denigratory way but only in the manner of a historian or a scientist to describe today's ruling class.  We are familiar with many brands of socialism. We have Utopian socialism; we have Fabian socialism; we have Soviet socialism; Chinese socialism; Cuban socialism, etc. There is even a recent book by Dr. V. K. R. V. Rao titled "Indian Socialism'. Harbert Morrison is reported to have said once, in an apparently defiant mood, that socialism was what the Labour Government did One may be inclined to follow Morrison and say, in India, Socialism is what Mrs. Indira Gandhi says it is. But I am sure the Prime Minister will disagree and protest. Much of the confusion, if I may say so, is due to the Paternalistic and almost arrogant attitude of the philosophers and intellectuals of the past who thought that they knew what was good for society and humanity and that they could transform the world into a better world according to their ideals. They had to fail inevitably and their dreams had to fade away as dreams always do, because their theories were not based on the bed rock of science and history but on the shifty sands of vaporous and transient ideals. But this they did, they provoked thought and debate, leading finally and inevitably, as all socialistic roads must lead, to Karl Marx, who was the first to provide a scientific, logical, coherent, systematic, history-based socialist theory for the benefit of the emerging working class movement. He replaced the vague dreams of earlier socialists with the laws of history and science and fashioned tools for waging the struggle to end all class-struggles. I will not attempt any discourse on Marxist theory. I am not the least competent to do so. But I do say that Marx was the founder of what he himself called 'scientific socialism'. He dealt not with ethereal visions, but with material reality. To him, socialism was not a pious Utopian dream but a potent, present possibility. He probed history, he analysed past and present social, political and economic systems and he discovered the laws influencing and regulating the development of society. The laws that he discovered showed socialism to be a necessary and inevitable product of history. Distinguishing between various economic modes of production, primitive, ancient, feudal, capitalist and, in the future, socialist, he explained how in every historical epoch, economic power was gained by the development of the forces of production and how it resulted in a class struggle, for the control of society, between the existing ruling classes and the classes gaining economic power through the new forces of production. Every class struggle resulted in the creation of a new society. Each new society would then establish its new classes and its new forms of oppression and exploitation. In every age there would be a conflict between Stale power and the rising revolutionary class of that age and out of the conflict would grow the current ideas and ideologies. The class struggle may not be seen by those involved in it as a class struggle. It may take fancy garbs and appear as a fight for religion, for liberty, for equality and so on, the class seeking the control of society adopting a revolutionary pose and developing a revolutionary ideology. Thus, it was that "The bourgeoisie destroyed the feudal system and on its ruins established the bourgeois social order, the realm of free competition, freedom of movement, equal rights for commodity owners and all the other bourgeois glories". Thus it. is that the proletariat, using the very weapons forged by the bourgeoisie, will be able to triumph over the capitalist system and build upon its ashes a new socialist society. As has been said, "the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of the class struggle."  Working on the basis of science and history and recognising Marx as the founder of scientific socialism, what do we understand today by socialism ? First of all it expresses the struggle against the entire social order of the capitalist system, its rulers, its supporters, its ideologists, its apologists, its willing slaves and all those whose interests are bound up with its survival. It expresses the proletariat's angry protest against the vicious-ness of the material and cultural poverty inflicted by the capitalist system and its competitive, grasping ethos, on the mass of the people and the degradation and dehumanisation of labour. It voices the hopes and aspirations of the exploited, the oppressed and the unfortunate. It means the abolition of all relationships in which man is humbled, enslaved, abandoned and despised. Naturally, it rejects bourgeois liberalism and affirms the ideals of an egalitarian, democratic, classless society. To achieve this a vital and essential step is seen as the ownership and control of productive wealth by the community and its unswerving use for communal ends. This must necessarily mean an end of all private ownership of the means of production and its replacement by social ownership, resulting in the elimination of the very basis of the exploitation of man by man. Another equally vital step is the adoption of a totally scientific approach in all human activity, doing away with false hypotheses, false theory and superstitious belief. It means a recognition of the reality that 'the world today is made and is powered by science'; and 'for any man to abdicate an interest in science is to walk with open eyes towards slavery'. It involves the full development of the human personality on the one hand and the development of science and technology on the other. It involves a new social ethos, an abolition of every manner and kind of discrimination whether based on sex, race, creed, colour or nationality.  Having broadly attempted to understand, in my own way, what socialism implies, let me now request you to look with me at the Constitution and the law to discover whether there is in them sufficient strong foundation for the establishment of a socialist State. To begin with, the founding fathers of the Constitution were, like the bourgeoisie everywhere, afraid even to mention the word 'socialist' in the Constitution. The word was studiously avoided. It was only 27 years after the Constitution that Parliament by the 42nd amendment added the word 'Socialist' in the preamble to the Constitution. The result of the amendment implies a dedication of the people of India to the establishment of a socialist State. In the original preamble to the Constitution, the people of India had already dedicated themselves to the ideals of justice, social economic and political, liberty of thought, expression and belief, equality of status and opportunity and the dignity of the individual. Certain rights of a peculiarly individual character, primarily meant to protect the citizen against arbitrary State action and, therefore, designed to foster the ideal of a political democracy and to prevent the establishment of authoritarian rule were made fundamental rights, justiciable in a Court of Law. The right to property was amongst those rights, but it is no longer so by reason of another amendment of the Constitution. Several of the fundamental rights are ordinarily capable of enjoyment only by persons who are already free from want and necessity, but are of little meaning and less value to the hungry and homeless. The Constitution-makers were aware that mere adherence to an abstract democratic ideal was not enough and that it was necessary to secure to the people, economic and social freedoms in addition to political freedom. Though the importance of securing economic and social freedoms was realised, curiously enough, though designedly, neither the right to work, nor the right to an adequate means of livelihood, to just and humane conditions of work, to a living wage and a decent standard of living, nor the right to education or the right to public assistance in case of unemployment were made Fundamental Rights. Everything that smelt of socialism was relegated to the category of Directive Principles which the Constitution itself announced shall not be enforceable by any Court. True, the Directive Principles, it is so announced in the Constitution, are to be fundamental in the governance of the Country, and the State is directed to apply Directive Principles in making the laws. True, the State is enjoined by the Directive Principles to secure all these rights and to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting a social order in which justice, social economic and political shall inform all the institutions of the national life. True, concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment is to be prevented and ownership and control of the material resources of the community are to be so distributed as best to subserve the common good. But as I said these directives are not enforceable in a Court and, so, they remain, as indeed the history of these thirty years has shown, so many pious superfluities. It should be obvious that one cannot conceive of a socialist State where the right to work, the right to a decent wage and the right to education, particularly scientific education are not guaranteed. It is equally obvious that we cannot conceive of a socialist State where what is sought is not the elimination of Private property and ownership and the complete control of all the means of production of wealth and not mere prevention of concentration of wealth and means of production. Nor is it possible to contemplate a socialist State where workers are not involved and are not required to participate in decision-making, managerial and planning activity. Unless the basic tenets of socialism are duly and appropriately incorporated into the Constitution it is difficult to contemplate our Constitution as the Constitution of a socialist State. The mere incorporation of the word 'Socialist' in the preamble of the Constitution does not make it a socialist Constitution. It may be, and indeed it is, a liberal Constitution, but liberalism and scientific socialism are far removed from each other. Liberalism is of the past. It was a useful enough ideological weapon in the struggle of the bourgeoisie against feudal forces. It may have its own limited uses even now, but it is not a sharp enough or a scientific weapon to be successfully employed in the proletariat's evolutionary struggle against capitalist forces. What then must we do to transform the existing Constitution into a socialist Constitution ? Quite obviously, there have to be some fundamental and revolutionary changes. Such of the Directive Principles as are mere boneless wonders without sanctions behind them require to be transformed into 'bone and marrow rights'. Surely, the right to work, the right to a living wage and decent conditions of work, the right to education and all such rights must be lifted bodily from the Directive Principles' chapter and moved into the Fundamental Rights' Chapter. Private ownership of the material resources of the community and the means of production must be abolished by the Constitution itself. The system of private distribution must go too. It must be replaced by a Public distribution System aimed at reaching every man according to his needs. These are essential preliminary steps. There have to be many more important and far-reaching changes. Those of you, Gentlemen, who have gathered here, who believe in Constitutional means of achieving socialist goals, it is up to you to suggest such constitutional ways and means of transforming our existing Constitution into a truly socialist Constitution. The principle of Constitutionalism is vigorously in question and the attack upon it is persistent and determined. The choice which the people may have to make is between the orderly processes of the Law and the processes of force which seem so much more swift and effective. It is, therefore, necessary that those who believe in constitutional means of achieving move swiftly and come forward with their plans and blue prints before other forces take over.  While inviting you to suggest constitutional means of ushering in socialism, I may perhaps usefully draw your attention to what I perceive to be the struggle on the Constitutional and legal front between the bourgeoisie and the revolutionary forces ever since we achieved independence. In the beginning, the revolutionary forces led by the emerging Indian bourgeoisie, inspired by the liberal ideals of liberty, equality and justice, the very ideals which were said to have inspired the colonial Lords in their fight for survival against Fascist hordes, put an end of Colonialism and Feudalism. The Indian Independence Act saw the end of the Colonial rule in India and the Instruments of Accessian similarly put an end of the feudal authority of the Princes. The same revolutionary forces led by the triumphant bourgeoisie gave us the Constitution. With the bourgeois memory still green and fresh from the victorious battles with the colonial and feudal forces, the Constitution-makers recognised certain freedoms and rights as basic and incorporated them into the Constitution as Fundamental Rights. They were however careful enough to forge an armour for the protection of their own class interests:  by subjecting some of the freedoms to reasonable restrictions; by including the right to property among the fundamental rights; by providing for preventive detention; and by relegating rights of great importance such as the right to work etc., to the category of Directive Principles which could not be enforced in a Court of Law. The Directive Principles, unenforceable though they were did not go far enough even to say that all means of production and distribution should vest in public ownership. The Constitution-makers specially entrusted the Supreme Court with the task of protecting fundamental rights. It was apparently thought that the judiciary steeped in the British tradition but always ready to borrow from American Jurisprudence, could always be relied upon to expound all the rules of interpretations perfected by the bourgeoisie in Britain and America. The faith was not unjustified as events showed. Even after the coming into force of the Constitution, there were some vestiges of feudalism. The bourgeoisie which had emerged as the ruling force after the Constitution struck a death blow to the vestiges of feudalism by the enactment of legislations abolishing Zamindaries in various States. The Feudal forces fought legal battles for their survival but the rulers were quick to pass the Ist and 17th Amendments of the Constitution so as to prevent any challenge to the legislations relating to the abolition of the Zamindaries. The Supreme Court responded suitably by upholding the validity of the Ist and 17th Amendments in Shankari Prasad's case (AIR 1951 SC 458) and Sajjan Singh's case (AIR 1965 SC 845). The Court upheld the right of the Parliament to amend the Constitution even so as to abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights. The bourgeoisie was now firmly established as the ruling class but the forces of change were not satisfied with the abolition of Zamindaries. They wanted Land Reforms of a far-reaching character. Slowly the forces of change gained momentum and mounted an attack on the ruling class. The insistence on land reforms led to half-hearted legislations in various States imposing ceiling on the holding of agricultural land. This vitally affected the bourgeois land owners. It was the bourgeois land owners that went to Court this time to protect themselves and this time it was they that challenged the right of Parliament to abridge or take away any of the fundamental rights. The Supreme Court obliged and, going back upon its earlier views in Shankari Prasad's case and Sajjan Singh's case, the Supreme Court in Golak Nath's case (AIR 1967 SC 1643) denied to Parliament their right to amend the Constitution so as to abridge or annul any of the fundamental rights. While in Shankari Prasad's case and Sajjan Singh's case, the bourgeoisie in its revolutionary fight against feudal forces successfully asserted the absolute right of Parliament to amend the Constitution the same bourgeoisie in resisting the revolutionary forces in Golaknath's case successfully denied that very right to Parliament and asserted the immutability of fundamental rights. These cases are not accidents but they are 'facts of life' and facets of the continuing class struggle. Golaknath's case soon came under vigorous attack by Acadamics, Lawyers, Parliamentarians and other forces of revolutionary change. The Supreme Court was called upon to reconsider the matter and in Kesha-vananda Bharathi's case (AIR 1973 SC 1461) the Full Court decided that Golaknath's case had been decided wrongly. Even as the forces of revolution appeared to succeed in getting the decision in Golaknath's case reversed, the bourgeoisie secured a victory by persuading the Court to rule that Parliament did not have the power to amend the Constitution so as to alter its basic structure. What the basic structure was, was not explained by the Court, which reserved to itself the right to adjudicate upon every future amendment of the Constitution, whether such amendment altered the basic structure or not. So another citadel was built around Constitution. Of course both the bourgeoisie and the forces of change are using the decision to contend that whatever amendment is disadvantageous to them alters the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus in Mrs. Gandhi's case the Court struck down the amendment of the Constitution which sought to give blanket immunity from challenge to the election of the Prime Minister and pronounced the election to be valid despite the judgment of any Court. On the other hand in Minerva Mill's case (AIR 1980 SC 1789), the Court struck down those provisions of the 42nd Constitution Amendment Act which conferred immunity from challenge to legislation made to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in part IV, i. e. the chapter on Directive Principles. In the early days of the Constitution, in Gopalan's case (AIR 1950 SC 27), Gopalan, a communist, was detained without trial under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act with a view, it was said, to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. Gopalan claimed among other grounds that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19, clauses (a) to (e) and (g) generally, and clause (d) in particular had been denied to him as the law providing for preventive detention did not prescribe a fair procedure. His argument was that the provisions of Art. 19 should be read into the Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court denied freedom to the communist detenu on the ground that he was not entitled to claim procedural fairness as a fundamental right. The Court held that Article 22 was not controlled by Art. 19 and, therefore, the validity of a law providing for preventive detention could not be judged in the light of the test of reasonable restrctions prescribed by Art. 19 (5) of the Constitution. But years later, when the question involved was the right to property, the Court, in the banks nationalisation case, showing a great sensitivity, went back upon the view in Gopalan's case and held that a law providing for acquisition of property had to satisfy the requirements not only of Art. 31, but also of Art. 19 of the Constitution. Thus via the right to property, though not via right to personal freedom, procedural fairness was secured to the citizen and it certainly is a potent weapon, capable of being wielded by revolutionary forces in appropriate situations. In Shivkant Shukla's case (AIR 1976 SC 1207), the Supreme Court dealt what then appeared to be a mortal blow to all progressive forces when it held that during the period of emergency, entry to the Court was totally barred to anyone claiming the writ of habeas corpus. But the resurgent classes asserted themselves and soon in Maneka Gandhi's case (AIR 1978 SC 597) and in a series of other cases Art. 21 has been invigorated and now a law encroaching upon the fundamental rights to personal freedom and liberty cannot be arbitrary unfair or unreasonable, but has to satisfy the requirements of Arts. 14 and 19. The attitude of the Court has, of course, been equivocal or ambulatory, now appearing to be progressive, then appearing to be regressive. The reason is obvious. The Court belongs to a class, but possesses a conscience by which I simply mean a historical consciousness without implying any moral overtones. When the class consciousness takes over, we have Gopalan, Golaknath, Minerva Mills, etc., when historical consciousness takes over, we have Maneka Gandhi, Waman Rao (AIR 1981 SC 271) and such other cases. On the legislative front there have been a few constitutional amendments, generally by fits and starts, claimed to pave the road to socialism. The 25th Constitutional Amendment provided that no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles laid down under Arts. 39 (b) and 39 (c) shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the rights guaranteed by Art. 14 or Art. 19. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment extended the immunity granted by the 25th Amendment to laws made to secure all or any of the Directive Principles and not merely laws made to secure the principles specified in Cls. (b) and (c) of Art. 19. The 42nd Amendment also introduced the word socialist into the preamble of the Constitution. The Congress Party which was then in power was responsible for these amendments. As if not to be outdone, the Janata Party when it came at power, introduced the 44th Constitution Amendment doing away with the right to property as a Fundamental Right. It is patent that none of these constitutional amendments take us very much further on the road to socialism. All that has been done is to give immunity to certain legislations from challenge in Courts. There has not been any constitutional amendment or legislation aimed at bringing about a fundamental change in the structure of the society. These constitutional amendments that have actually been made are mischievously suggestive. There is an underlying implication that the Courts are obstructing the path of progress. That is far from correct. It is true that the Supreme Court has revealed a tendency to fidget and stumble whenever property rights are involved and has functioned as a speed-breaker, rather than as a forerunner of change. But Parliament and the Executive have done little enough to make India a socialist State but every time the Courts stumbled they have cleverly exploited the situation to provide alibis for themselves. It is not judicial pronouncements, but the somnolence and half-heartedness of Parliament and the lethargy and indifference of the Executive that have blocked the way of progress. I have already said that there has been no constitutional amendment and no legislation aimed at bringing about a change in the structure of society. Halfhearted legislations there have been and whole heartedly they have been strangled at birth or in infancy by the Executive by their failure to implement them. True, zamindaries have been abolished; Privy Purses have been abolished; Insurance and Banks have been nationalised; Coal, transport and power have more or less been nationalised; but has poverty ceased and has illiteracy been wiped out ? Who has reaped the harvest of these 33 years of independence and who has benefited by the much advertised mammoth projects and development programmes? Why have the benefits not reached the masses of the people? How come the monopolist and the rich farmer alone have been benefited ? Why are inequalities becoming wider ? If colossal expenditure has been incurred on irrigation and power projects, if agricultural credit has been improved and if the inputs into agriculture have correspondingly increased, have the benefits reached the poor farmers and agricultural workers ? Have not all the benefits gone to the rural elite, who dominate the rural scene and the local administration and fashion the pattern of expenditure of such services ? Has this not resulted in the further widening of the gap between the upper classes and those at the bottom of rural society ? Have not industrial empires been growing from strength to strength? What has been the result of nationalisation of banks and insurance except to make available to industrial Maharajas and Nawabs the savings of the people? Has there not been fantastic concentration of wealth and economic power? Have Golak Nath, Keshvananda Bharati and Minerva Mills stood in the way of Parliament or the Executive curbing the concentration of wealth and the growth of economic power?  British socialists regarded public ownership of industry as a necessary first step towards, the ultimate ideal of socialism. So when the labour party came to power in the thirties, after some deliberation, they opted for the public corporation as the appropriate form of public ownership. With the British example before us, the Government of India also opted for the public corporation as the appropriate form of public ownership and there has been a rush of public sector corporations all over the country. Such industries as have been taken over by the State, have been handed over to public sector corporations. But, unfortunately, this has been done without investing the workers in the industry with any right to an effective share in the direction and control of the industry. The result has been that the technocrats of the public enterprises have forgotten their mission and have turned into a new order of plutocrats. They have been claimed and absorbed by the class from which they spring, the bourgeoisie. So the technocrat of the public enterprise, like his mentor of the private enterprise wants to claim unbridled power aimed at disarming the working classes. For this purpose it is claimed that the Public Sector Corporation is neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State, an utterly unethical argument to my mind. Thus the bourgeoisie continues to rule the roost through the bureaucracy and the newly established public sector corporations. So the Public Sector Corporations instead of accelerating the destruction of the evils of capitalism and expediting the blessings of socialism, have succeeded in establishing a new oligarchy of technocrat-cum-politicians investing them with unbridled power of manipulation. You may well gather the attitude of these corporations when I tell you that one of the Public Sector Corporations, the National Textile Corporation has filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court questioning the constitutional validity of the Water Prevention of Pollution and Control Act.  I mentioned at some point that there have been some half-hearted legislations which have never been properly implemented by the Executive. The Land Reforms Legislations in various States are examples of such legislations. Apart from innumerable exemptions which were given to avoid the provisions of the Acts, even the date of coming into force of the Acts was often so delayed that every opportunity was accorded for evading the Act. If the Parliament and the State Legislatures really mean business, how is it that they have never bothered themselves about the implementation of the laws enacted by them. There are various Committees such as, Estimates Committee, Public Accounts Committee, Subordinate Legislations Committee, Privileges Committee and so on. But there is no such Committee as a Parliamentary Law« Implementation Committee to vigilantly watch the performance of the Executive in the matter of implementation of the laws enacted by Parliament and to appraise and evaluate what has been done to implement the legislation. We read from the newspapers that considerable time is expended in Parliament on discussing issues of privilege and other like questions, but we never read of any discussion in Parliament or in State Legislature about any review of the progress achieved in the matter of implementation of laws intended to achieve socialism. Why cannot the Houses of Legislature insist that whenever a law is made to further a Directive Principle of State Policy, it shall be the duty of the Executive to submit monthly reports of progress to special Parliamentary Committees appointed for that purpose.  I have said enough to indicate that it is not the Judiciary, but the Parliament and the Executive that have failed the people. The primary constitutional responsibility has always been and is on the Parliament and the Executive, but they have wholly failed to discharge that responsibility. The Judiciary has acted almost as if it were hand in glove with them in spite of the seeming occasional conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary. However, in recent years the Judiciary has shown a greater awareness of its responsibilities in a socialist State, despite the limitations arising from the very Constitution of the Courts and the sphere of their activity. Vital, social, economic issues come but rarely before the Courts and when they do come up, there are several constraints on the power of the Court to decide and lead. But the Courts have been responding to the call of progress as evident from some recent decisions of the Court. As for example, where industry for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, was defined, where the limits of the expression distribution of material resources of the community was widened, where the principle of equal pay for equal work was given a constitutional status, where the workers' right to be heard in certain company disputes has been recognised and where pension has been declared to be a right and not a reward. These cases, it has to be mentioned, have been decided, despite opposition from the Executive. It is for you, participants in the seminar, to discover and advise on the ways and means of activising the Legislatures, the Executive and the Judiciary to positively and resolutely march forward towards the goal of a socialist State.

Author Name: Hon’ble Justice O Chinnappa Reddy