How the Constituent Assembly debated over ‘God’ in the Constitution

‘Do Them arsenic an Offering to Me’

Meanwhile, Kamath was intent connected creating history. “In this august House, the archetypal Constituent Assembly of India, of our Bharata Varsha,” helium went on, “which has done the ages renewed itself astatine the Divine Fountain, fto america consecrate this Constitution by a Solemn dedication to God successful the tone of the Geeta: “Yatkaroshi yadashnasi Yajjuhoshi dadasi yat Yattapasyasi Kaunteya Tatkurushwa madarpanam” [Whatever you do, immoderate you eat, immoderate you connection arsenic oblation to the ineffable fire, immoderate you bestow arsenic a gift, and immoderate austerities you perform, bash them arsenic an offering to Me].” Kamath’s words projected India and “her people” arsenic manifestations of an “ancient civilization” (CAD, Book 5: 440). In this, helium was seconded by VI Muniswamy Pillay (Member from Madras).

M Thirumala Rao (Member from Madras) called Kamath’s amendment “unfortunate”, for it should not person been “subjected to the ballot of a House of 3 100 radical whether India wants God oregon not.” His chap subordinate from Madras, B Pattabhi Sitaramayya, suggested that the amendment beryllium promptly “disposed of” (CAD, Book 5: 441). Hirday Nath Kunzru, the salient state fighter, and subordinate from United Provinces, called it “a substance of the deepest regret that a substance that concerns our innermost and astir ineffable feelings should person been brought into the arena of discussion.” He saw the amendment arsenic being “inconsistent with the Preamble, which promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, religion and worship to everyone.” Accordingly, invoking the sanction of God could easy construe into a “narrow, sectarian spirit, which is contrary to the tone of the Constitution” (CAD, Book 5: 441). Chaudhury, who had earlier, mock-seriously projected adding the sanction of the ‘Goddess’ to the Preamble, reinforced Kunzru’s sentiments. He claimed to person been “very sadly disappointed” by the amendment, and the information that his content “in a Goddess” was met with ridicule by members who seemed to explicit enactment towards the God-amendment. “I beryllium to Kamrup wherever the Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped,” added Chaudhury (CAD, Book 5: 441). When an ‘Honourable Member’ interjected to reason that “God includes Goddess”, the President astutely observed that it was “bad arsenic it is that we person brought successful the sanction of God successful our discussion. We should not go flippant astir it” (CAD, Book 5: 441).

BR Ambedkar stoically suggested that Kamath “may beryllium asked to withdraw” the amendment. The second was steadfast successful his resolve. The substance was enactment to vote, and the Assembly voted against Kamath’s amendment, 68 to 41. “This, Sir, is simply a achromatic time successful our annals,” remarked an indignant Kamath. “God prevention India” (CAD, Book 5: 442). But the substance was acold from resolved.

Neither a Godly nor a Gandhian Constitution?

Shibban Lal Saksena (Member from Central Provinces) begged to determination the adjacent amendment, which projected to adhd to the Preamble:

In the sanction of God the Almighty, nether whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation from slavery into Freedom, by unsocial adherence to the eternal principles of Satya and Ahimsa and who sustained the millions of our countrymen and the martyrs of the Nation successful their heroic and unremitting conflict to regain the Complete Independence of our Motherland … (CAD, Book 5: 444).

Brajeshwar Prasad (Member from Bihar) opposed the amendment connected grounds that the Indian Constitution was “not a Gandhian Constitution” (CAD, Book 5: 445). Meanwhile, that time itself, Prasad’s ain amendment, that of including the operation ‘secular cooperative commonwealth to found socialist order’ was besides negatived connected grounds that it attempted “at making the Constitution a socialist alternatively of a wide antiauthoritarian document” (Jha 3175). Be that arsenic it may, pursuing Prasad’s objection, JB Kripalani, subordinate from United Provinces, tried to impressment upon Saksena that it was “not behaving america to ballot connected this amendment. We indispensable beryllium precise sparing of the usage of the sanction of the Father of the Nation.” It would lone beryllium consistent, therefore, with the emotion and respect that the Assembly had for Gandhi that his sanction beryllium not incorporated “into this Constitution that whitethorn beryllium changed and reshaped astatine immoderate time” (CAD, Book 5: 445). Saksena saw merit successful withdrawing his amendment. However, Govind Malaviya, who was awaiting his turn, present moved his amendment, which sought to introduce:

By the grace of Parameshwar, The Supreme Being, Lord of the Universe (Called by antithetic names by antithetic Peoples of the world). From Whom emanates each that is bully and wise, and Who is the Prime Source of each Authority, We the radical of Bharata (India). Humbly acknowledging our devotion to Him, And gratefully remembering our large person Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the innumerable sons and daughters of this onshore who person laboured, struggled and suffered for our freedom, And (CAD, Book 5: 445).

Malaviya’s amendment was negatived connected relationship of some ‘Parameshwar’ (God) and Gandhi being ruled retired arsenic imaginable entries into the Preamble by the rulings connected the erstwhile amendments. Later, that day, Kripalani outlined that the Assembly’s decisions connected matters of spiritual state “were not deviating from the basal principles which we person laid down successful the Preamble” (CAD, Book 5: 452). In 1 way, Kripalani’s words anticipated what would aboriginal travel to beryllium known successful different discourse arsenic the doctrine of the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’ — arsenic codified successful the Supreme Court ruling successful the Kesavananda Bharati lawsuit (1973) — implying that the Constitution had a psyche that could not beryllium altered.

Not a ‘secular’ Constitution either?

On November 25, Jagat Narain Lal (Member from Bihar) expressed his dissent towards the “avoidance of the sanction of God” successful the discussions that ensued connected October 17. As helium reminded the Assembly, overseas Constitutions, including the Constitution of South Africa, for instance, acknowledged ‘Almighty God.’ Thus, India, “which has ever remained spiritual and has retained its spiritual quality and which has produced 1 of the top spiritual personalities successful the satellite successful modern times too,” should person introduced “the sanction of God” successful the Preamble, according to Lal. Furthermore, helium argued, “the words ‘secular State’ should not person travel into the Constitution.” Thus, arguably, if the Constitution work that “the State should not interfere with immoderate religion” oregon “that the State should person a spiritual and motivation outlook, alternatively of saying that it should beryllium secular,” a “lot of misunderstanding” could person been avoided (CAD, Book 5: 948).

Lal’s statement becomes much important if seen successful the airy of his chap subordinate from Bihar, PK Sen’s comments from November 23. According to Sen, it was a gross misconception to deliberation that “all interaction with God oregon religion has been, arsenic it were, abandoned by it, arsenic if it is simply a godless Constitution, arsenic if by calling it a Secular Democratic Republic it has really go secular oregon godless.” In Sen’s reading, the Constitution had not “banished religion” oregon that “innermost religion of antheral successful a Providence that shapes our ends and our idiosyncratic narration betwixt america and our Maker.” Rather, the Constitution had “banished religions, that is to accidental the struggle betwixt 1 religion and another.” In different words, the Indian Constitution recognised that ‘all religions are true, that not lone is determination an essence of information successful each religions but that each religions are divinely sent and dispensations of God, tin determination beryllium immoderate trouble whatsoever, tin determination beryllium immoderate struggle whatsoever betwixt 1 religion and another.’ Sen’s plea successful favour of recognising the pluralism of the Indian Constitution ended with the somewhat extremist proposal that, successful the foreseeable future, “the connection ‘secular’ whitethorn … adjacent beryllium removed from the Constitution” (CAD, Book 5: 831).

Does India privation a Constitutional ‘God’?

The aforesaid chronicle — though perchance unfinished and broadly delineated — lends itself to immoderate pressing inferences of large modern relevance. First, India’s law parents sought to uphold the Constitution’s durability adjacent if that required “deliberate (and necessary) ambiguity successful dealing with perchance explosive issues of spiritual identity” (Chiriyankandath 2008). Second, the proceedings of October 17, 1949, telephone for a larger survey of the place, politics, and semantics of ‘God’ wrong the Constituent Assembly Debates, with a presumption to deriving what has been precocious identified arsenic “a spiritual jurisprudence” successful Constitutional Law (Kishore 2020). This recalls erstwhile Solicitor General of India, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, terming the Constitution arsenic “our beatified book”. Third, the Assembly was perspicacious capable to spot that the conception of spiritual state for each should not beryllium monopolised by the spiritual rights of a bulk of Indians. Finally, particularly erstwhile seen successful the airy of India’s twenty-first period spiritual awakening, revolving astir the politicisation of Hindu rights, a batch of its intelligence fodder and its antitheses find robust practice successful the Assembly Debates from implicit 70 years ago.

It would beryllium churlish not to consciousness roused to survey the Assembly Debates for a deeper investigation of however the drafters of the Constitution saw God. As renowned jurist Granville Austin said backmost successful 1966; “One trial of a constitution is whether it tin supply a durable model for authorities successful the midst of large societal and economical change. This, the Indian Constitution has done truthful far” (Austin xiii). However, arsenic calls for amending the Constitution turn much resolute and diversified, however acold the Constituent Assembly Debates tin themselves usher america — particularly with respect to whether ‘India wants [a constitutional] God’ — is yet to beryllium seen.

Arup K Chatterjee teaches astatine O P Jindal Global University and is the writer of The Great Indian Railways (2018), Indians successful London (2021) and Adam’s Bridge (2024).

References
Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1966.

Chiriyankandath, James. “‘Creating a secular authorities successful a spiritual country’: The statement successful the Indian constituent assembly.” Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 38.2 (2000): 1-24.

Constituent Assembly Debates, Book 5. Volume X—6th October to 17th October 1949; Volume XI—14th to 26th November 1949; Volume XII—24th January 1950. New Delhi: Jaico, 2014.

Jha, Shefali. “Secularism successful the Constituent Assembly Debates, 1946-1950.” Economic and Political Weekly 37.30 (2002): 3175-3180.

Kishore, Pranjal. “Law and Faith: Constitution arsenic the Touchstone for Interpretation.” The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, January 6, 2020. https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/article30275265.ece#sixteen16.