The preamble to our constitution declares our great nation as a Socialist, Secular, Sovereign, Democratic Republic. Interestingly at the time of original adoption in the year 1950, we were known as a Sovereign, Democratic Republic. In the year 1976, Socialist and Secular were inserted by the popular 42nd amendment. At the time of 42nd amendment there was no semblance of democracy, as India was reeling under emergency rule of Indira Gandhi.
A paradoxical contrast exists between the principles laid down in our constitution and the practice. Only after the adoption of the word Socialist in our preamble, India started its sojourn into capitalism, with more and more business houses enriching our economy. Today we have been witnessing Indian majors are gobbling up many foreign businesses, competing with established business houses of capitalist countries. Even the self proclaimed custodians of socialist principles in India, are laying a “Red Carpet” welcome in Nandigram, for the capitalists to establish business houses in the state ruled by them, while fighting tooth and nail, against the same capitalists, in other states ,where the “Red brigade” is nowhere in reckoning. Dichotomy of the highest order.
Even before the inclusion of the word Secular, everyone knew we were dichotomously secular. After adopting Secular in our preamble, it had turned out to be a theocratic state. A state subsidizing a religious pilgrimage for a particular religion could only be called a theocratic state. A state throwing “Iftar” parties with all the state heads participating in it, splurging tax payers money, yet shmelessly declaring it as secular can only called as Secular Dichotomous state and not Secular democracy as claimed. The state controls the revenue of all the worshipping places of one religion, and leaving all the other religious revenue to the clergies of the respective religion. Isn’t it Dichotomy?
Our leaders are a rare breed, whose appetite for “Fusion” is unparalleled. In monarchy, when the king abdicates the throne, the Queen assumes the seat of power, as an established norm. By fusing the theory of “monarchy” and “Democracy” when the king of a state was forced to abdicate throne, his wife the Queen assumed the throne, yet retaining all the democratic principles. A combination of essence of democracy, with the spirit of monarchy. May we call it as CON’FUSION theory, and the resultant product as DEMONARCHY? Again Dichotomy of the highest order. Isn’t it appropriate to include Dichotomous Republic, along with all the other qualifying statements?