Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Government
Introduction
Recently a controversy has been sparked on the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ have not been mentioned in a
government advertisement published on the event of Republic day. To defend it, the government says that
these two terms were inserted in the preamble later on. The word “Socialist” as qualifying the Republic was
added in 1975, through 42nd Amendment Act by Indira Gandhi’s government, giving it almost the highest place
in the name of equality and “Remove Poverty” Program. Since then 35 years have passed. It would be
worthwhile to assess, how much has been achieved after the change – if not much, then why? Some people
feel that inserting these terms in the Constitution limits policy choices. Even during debates in
Constituent Assembly, the chairman of Drafting Committee Dr. B. R. Ambedkar rejected insertion of the term,
‘socialist’ into preamble – “What should be policy of the state, how the society should be organized in its social
and economic side are matters which must be decided by people themselves according to time and
circumstances.”
Issue
When the Constitution was framed in 1950, the words, “Socialism” or “Socialist democracy” were not included
in it. Question arises – Why? The word “Socialist” as qualifying the Republic was added in 1975, through
42nd Amendment Act by Indira Gandhi’s government, giving it almost the highest place in the name of equality
and “Remove Poverty” Program. Since then 35 years have passed. It would be worthwhile to assess, how
much has been achieved after the change – if not much, then why?
It is said that, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not of an idea, whose time has come”, and “Today’s
theory and socio-political structures could be tomorrow’s big mistakes”. Both these, sayings fit well with India’s
After the World War-II, socialism was the wave that swept the entire world. War made almost democratic
government to play the role of a guardian, as far as its economy was concerned.
Objectives of Socialism
The principle of “Laissez faire” was the guiding principle of governance during the 19 th century. USA became
world’s largest economy having highest per capita income rate. Many European States emerged as great
imperial powers. After World War I, it turned many countries to totalitarian regimes. World War-I was the
turning point. The first one to opt for totalitarian regime was Soviet Russia. Italy became a fascist nation and
By the time, World War-II was over, socialism was the wave, that swept the entire world. War made every
democratic government to play the role of a guardian, as far as its economy was concerned. At that time, it
was not only a political or economic ideology, but also a radical philosophical alternative, which assured to
create a new integrated, caste-less, classless egalitarian society, free of discrimination and inequality.
Socialism was supposed to destroy all inequalities of race, sex, power, position or wealth and to distribute
equitably social, material and political resources of the nation. Socialism meant to place in full or in parts
means of production and distribution under State’s ownership or control, as against private ownership and free
enterprise. It believed in planned development for removing poverty and leading the nation to prosperity. In
socialist countries, Government assumes the responsibility of protecting its citizens from the shocks of every
As was the trend, in 1947, “Socialism” and “Socialist democracy” have been the buzz words. India could not
remain immune from its influence. Many of its political leaders were greatly influenced by the principle of
socialism.
Many leaders of free India, under the leadership of Pundit Nehru were very much in favour of pursuing policies
based on social justice. According to them, in order to achieve a just and equitable socio-economic order and
However, at that time itself, visionary and able statesman like Sardar Patel lashed out against those, who
believed that there could be no justice, unless its economy was based on social economy. Or that freedom was
meaningless without economic equality and social justice. He was sure, what the country needs is not “Parrot
Sardar Patel considered socialist propositions purely theoretical and academic, far away from reality. He
said, “Unlike many, who indulge in ‘Parrot cry of socialism’, I have no property of my own. Before you talk of
socialism, you must ask yourself, how much wealth you have created by your labour. If you have created
nothing, the parrot would have flown, and the cage would be empty. By experience, I am convinced that what
is necessary for us is to learn how to produce more wealth and thereafter, think what to do with it.”
Sardar Patel asked the people to realize why England took a very long time to become socialist and why
them first to come together, think what was in the best interest of the country and set people on to
constructive work. He told Manu Gandhi on 15thApril 1947, “Socialism is a term of modern age, but the concept
of socialism is not new. Lord Krishna preaches the same doctrine in Gita. One needs to have in one’s
possession, only what one requires. It means that all men are created by God and therefore, entitled to an
equal share of food, clothing and housing”. He said, “Socialism will not come by occupying positions of power
Giving practical advice to do selfless service to the people and to ensure the straightest and quickest way to
achieve a socialist order, Gandhiji said, “If you wish to establish socialism, there is only one way, in which it
can be done. Go and live among the poor in villages, live as they live, be one with village people, work for
eight hours daily, use only village made goods and articles even in your personal lives, remove illiteracy among
village people”. Gandhiji also upbraided the Communist party workers for, “Instead of having faith in India and
drawing inspiration from its unrivalled culture, you wish to introduce Russian civilization here, as if Russia was
your motherland.”
In 1950, when the Constitution was framed, the words, “Socialism” or “Socialist democracy” were not included
in it in order to keep a balance between the views of towering personalities like Gandhi, Nehru and Patel. The
Constitution of India only mentioned “To secure to all its citizen economic justice and equality of status and
opportunity”.
The influence of the socialistic principles is visible in the Constitutional directives i to the Government to:
Right to work,
declared its goal in the form of “Socialistic pattern of society” and subsequently “Democratic socialism” under
Nehru’s leadership. Pandit Nehru was convinced, “Political democracy should inevitably lead up to economic
democracy. Even in the countries, which are supposed to be highly capitalist, the tendency to economic
democracy is obvious. The tendency in other words, is towards some form of socialism.” Many policies to build
required infra-structure for the development of the nation and welfare schemes and subsidies were declared
Along with the socialist influence, Pt Nehru favoured the creation of public sector. It was a historical need at
that time to speed up nation’s development. Private enterprises neither had the resources, nor the skill, nor
inclination to invest heavily in infra-structure, where returns come much later and a huge amount of money
locked up without immediate gains. The Government alone had the resources and will to build an infrastructure
for development through planned schemes. All industries of basic and strategic importance and those in nature
of public utility services were reserved by the Government for the public sector.
Jai Prakash Narayan, a staunch supporter of socialism, criticized Pandit Nehru’s concept of mixed economy and
said, “You are trying to ride two horses, which may be possible in circus, but not in historical evolution. You
want to go towards Socialism, but you want Capitalists to help in that. You want to build Socialism with the
help of Capitalism. You are bound to fail in that”. Nehru’s concept of mixed economy, in which central planning
lived within a kind of free market ex-skeleton, later on developed all the weaknesses of socialism and
capitalism, with none of the advantages of either. Under the mixed economy, the authorities, who had the
power to give permits and licenses, .the businessmen and the industrialist, flourished.
Planned economy
Many plans were developed under planned schemes to transform the backward society into a society of equals
in a short time. The original inspiration for planned economy came from the Soviet Union.
The word “Socialist” as qualifying the Republic was added in 1975, through 42 nd Amendment Act by Indira
Gandhi’s government, giving it almost the highest place in the name of equality and “Remove Poverty”.
Politicians defined and interpreted it in their on own way, which created confusion amongst people and divided
the people. A large number of politicians are not much interested in tackling the key issues like population
explosion, terrorism, unemployment, inflation, jobs especially in present spectrum of slowing economy, law and
order, development of educational systems, development of infrastructure for the convenience of public at
Parties use it to woo different sections of society like Dalits, tribals, minorities, backward castes, youths,
Under the leadership of Mrs. Gandhi socialistic plans and policies were followed in such a way, that it had done
more damage than good. It created a closed, centralized and unproductive system, which suppressed growth.
In the name of Welfare State, the Government acquired extraordinary powers to exercise arbitrary control over
massive resources. It centralized the planning, controls and ownership, which led those in authority to abuse of
On the whole, it created a closed, centralized and unproductive system, which suppressed growth of the nation
as a whole.
The policy, in real-life situations had done more damage than good. It developed tentacles of corruption,
The Government acquired extraordinary powers to exercise arbitrary control over massive resources. It created
a domineering State controlling the smallest detail of the economic and social life of the people. It closed its
economy to the world, nationalized industries and services, initiated rigid controls on the private sector and
An unfettered market system led to grave economic inequalities, which got transformed into political
inequalities. It developed tentacles of inefficiency and red-tape-ism, corruption, scams, scandals and
callousness in almost every sphere. It created the politics of appeasement and vote banks, destroyed the work
In the name of socialism, it created a domineering State controlling the smallest detail of the economic and
social life of the people. People were made pigmies. Though in theory, sovereignty rests in the people of the
nation, they find themselves absolutely helpless. They have been enslaved by politicians, planners and
bureaucrats. It did not wipe out poverty, nor created an effective distributive system, nor equality, but it had
led almost to the loss of economic liberty. It jammed the wheels of morality and conscience. The excessive
control made people gradually loose their motivation for hard work.
Divided people into uncompromising compartments
Politicians define and interpret it in their on own way to create confusion amongst people and divide them into
uncompromising compartments. Parties use it to woo different sections of society like Dalits, tribals, minorities,
Effect on politicians
Some people regard it as one of the most misused terms in present-day political circles. It created the politics
of appeasement and vote banks, destroyed the work culture, and encouraged separatism everywhere in the
A large number of politicians are not so much interested in tackling the key issues like population explosion,
terrorism, unemployment, inflation, jobs especially in present spectrum of slowing economy, law and order,
development of educational systems, development of infrastructure for the convenience of public at large as in
In short
Ø It adopted an inward looking, import substituting path, rather than an outward looking, export promoting
route, thus denying itself the chance to share the world’s prosperity of the 70s and 80s,
Ø It set up a massive, inefficient and monopolistic public sector, to which it denied the autonomy of working,
Ø It discouraged foreign capital and denied itself the benefit of technology and world class market,
Ø It pampered organized labor responsible for lowest productivity of labor and capital, and
Opinion of Intelligentsia
In retrospect people realized that a major portion of such policies was proved to be the examples of bookish
socialism and had little relation to the burning problems of the country. By 1990, India also realized like many
other countries – what it was practicing so far was a phony, fake and tainted social justice.
It was realized, though late, that “Democratic socialism” itself is a contradiction in terms, as a socialist society
or a planned economy cannot be democratic. The experience on this front indicated that probably the objective
of social justice was unrealistic. The uneven distribution of economic power and benefits through manipulations
of polity had created major distortions and problems for the smooth administration / governance.
Milovan Djilas, a Yugoslavian revolutionary and writer, who predicted the fall of communism and fought both
Tito and Stalin, concluded on the basis of his experience, “The suppression of classes would be the first step
towards the extinction of society… There can be no society without classes. The problem is how to create a
balance between the classes, to prevent some from getting rich at the expense of others and to prevent the
oppression of one class by another. It must be recognized, however, that it will never be possible to establish
an ideal equilibrium among different social classes…The future ideology of the reformist left must not become a
barrier to the achievements of capitalism such as efficiency and the profitability of business. The central
problem is, how to distribute wealth without disrupting economic activity, while at the same time building a
society based on human solidarity…. This idealism should not be confused with the chimera of establishing a
society with rigid and permanent forms – I believe the more varied a society is, the better and more creative it
will be. There will always be injustice and inequality in the world, which will be the task of the social democrats
to combat.”
Mr. Paul Johnson, a historian of 20th century says, “The more the State grows and impedes the free exercise of
market forces, the more the quality of information deteriorates, more likely decisions based on such them
would be wrong.” A Polish communist Government planner says, “In this crazy system, we do not know, the
true cost of anything. We do not know which factories are efficient and which are hopeless. So we are
Mr. Subramanyam says, “The hypocrisy of socialism developed along with centralization of authority,
denigration of democratic institutions and strangulation of Panchayat Raj institutions as part of one integrated
political process in the country”. J Krishnamurthy said, “Working for social welfare is to fill water into a pail that
has holes. The more water is poured in it, the more it pours out and the pail remains empty.”
The experiences on Socialism along with principle of secularism, equality etc are not very encouraging.
The problem of socialism is of performance, not of faith, and the price paid by the nation for this faith has been