When analyzing the ideological perspective of Indian communists, particularly the CPM, towards the Indian Constitution, we cannot ignore the observations of key Marxist ideologues and certain documents. Among these most significant figures are E.M.S. Namboodiripad, B.T. Ranadive, and P. Govinda Pillai. The book “The Indian Constitution and the Judicial System: A Marxist Inquiry,” (Indian Bharanaghatanayum Neetinyaya Vyavasthayum: Oru Marxist Anweshanam) (2005) published by Chintha Publishers, the official publishing house of the CPM, includes extensive essays by these prominent party leaders on the subject. By compiling and republishing these essays, which ostensibly challenge the core foundations of the Indian Republic such as democracy, sovereignty, the Constitution, and the judicial system, the Chintha Publishers has indeed laid bare CPM’s anti-national stances that fundamentally opposed to our Constitution and spirit of parliamentary democracy.
It is time to subject the essays, which steeped in anti-constitutional sentiment that they put even banned Maoist literature to shame, to careful reading and critical evaluation. This is essential because it reveals how the CPM views the Constitution and the judicial system of this country, not only during the period when it actively (and at times, opportunistically) sided with the Congress in 2000s, but also now, two decades later, when it has apparantly lost even the status of a national party. This contrast is especially revealing: as the CPM’s false facade crumbles, it serves to affirm a prophetic declaration made by the great visionary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who described the Communists as the enemy of the Indian constitution.
In the preface to the collection of essays that portray the Constitution of India merely as a “tool of the exploitative class,” CPM leader P. Govinda Pillai makes several anti-India remarks that, in essence, point toward a global political context of CPM’s targeted attacks against the nation and its constitution. He writes that China is, in fact, the largest democracy in the world, and that India can only be described as the largest bourgeois democracy. His assertion that only those who refuse to recognize the Chinese socialist system as democratic call India the world’s largest democracy, reflects a political arrogance that today’s CPM, under Narendra Modi’s rule, no longer dares to express. However, during that earlier period, when the Communist Party, in alliance with the then-ruling Congress, wielded behind-the-scenes influence over political, educational, and foreign policy domains, such ideological highhandedness was quite evident.
“Next to China, India is the most populous country in the world. That is why those who do not recognize the Chinese socialist system as democratic describe India as the largest democracy,” writes Govinda Pillai, openly articulating his party’s stance. “If one were to describe China as the largest people’s democracy or a proletarian democracy, then India, by contrast, can only be described as the largest bourgeois democracy.”
What is the class character of the Indian Constitution? The CPI(M) defines it in its official program as follows: “The current Indian state apparatus is an instrument of bourgeois-landlord rule, increasingly aligned with foreign finance capital and driven by the interests of big bourgeoisie in pursuit of a capitalist path of development. The nature of the state and the essence of its functioning in the life of the nation are fundamentally determined by this class character.”
The anti-constitutional content of such writings warrants special scrutiny, and CPM must be subjected to a process of social auditing on this matter. However, in the present context, the focus is on evaluating the party’s position during the Emergency period, specifically regarding the controversial constitutional amendments passed under Indira Gandhi’s leadership and examining how the CPM’s stance has shifted in the years since.
Following a recent speech by the Sarkaryavah of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Shri Dattatreya Hosabale, the constitutional amendments made during the Emergency period have once again become a topic of national debate. His remarks, delivered at an event jointly organized by the Dr. Ambedkar International Centre, Hindustan Samachar, and the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, in New Delhi drew widespread media attention.
In his address, Shri Hosabale pointed out: “During the Emergency, two words ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ were added to the Constitution, which were not part of the original Preamble. Later, these words were not removed, and there was no debate on this. Debates whether these words should remain or not must be held. These two words were not in Dr Ambedkar’s Constitution. During the Emergency, the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary and yet these two words were added. That is why this matter must be discussed.” Left-leaning media outlets and political parties have sharply criticized his comments, characterizing them as a calculated attack against the Constitution.
At this juncture, it is worth revisiting the CPM’s own position on these very constitutional amendments. In June 1976, during the Emergency, the CPM officially published a pamphlet opposing the incorporation of Socialism and Secularism into the Constitution. The party’s criticism was explicit and formal. Interestingly, the Malayalam version of this pamphlet was later republished in 2005 by the CPM’s official publishing house, Chintha Publishers, as part of the aforesaid collected volume of essays, “The Indian Constitution and the Judicial System: A Marxist Inquiry”.
Let us now examine what CPM leader and intellectual P. Govinda Pillai stated in the preface regarding the political context of this particular essay. He writes:
“The sixth essay in this collection is a particularly important document. During the Emergency, which lasted from 1975 to 1977, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, both the architect and the principal beneficiary of the Emergency, decided to introduce a series of amendments to the Constitution. These included changes aimed at destabilizing the legal basis of the Allahabad High Court verdict that annulled her Lok Sabha membership, and the subsequent ruling by Supreme Court Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, which largely upheld the High Court’s position. Her goal was to write into the Constitution provisions that would give legal backing to the Emergency and the suspension of civil liberties.”
“At the same time, Indira Gandhi wanted to portray that the declaration of Emergency and the constitutional amendments were not an expression of fascist tendencies, but rather, an effort to defeat fascist forces and implement democracy and socialism. As part of this narrative, she proposed certain amendments. For example, the Preamble of the Constitution originally described India as a ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic.’ One of the Emergency-era amendments added the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ to that phrase. Several other such provisions were introduced with the aim of shaping public opinion in favor of the Emergency. Drafts of these proposed amendments were circulated in advance to various political parties, with requests for feedback and suggestions.
The CPI(M)’s response to that invitation, including its suggested amendments to the Constitution and its critique of Indira Gandhi’s actions justifying the Emergency, form the substance of the sixth chapter. It remains a valuable and relevant document worthy of study.”
Let us examine how the CPM assessed the amendments related to socialism and secularism in the pamphlet titled “Regarding Constitutional Amendments and the CPM (Bharanaghatana Bhedagathikale Sambandhich CPM)”
“The perspectives of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) on the proposed amendments to the Indian Constitution are discussed here. After the final draft of this document was prepared, the final report of the Swaran Singh Committee, appointed by the Congress Party to recommend constitutional amendments, was published in the newspapers. Apart from suggesting minor changes concerning the jurisdiction of the High Courts that differed from its interim report, the committee recommended that the Preamble, which describes the character of the Indian Republic, should be amended to include both ‘Socialism’ and ‘Secularism.’”
“In India, while the Congress government has been consolidating capitalism, strengthening foreign-Indian joint ventures, and protecting the vested interests of landlords, it has long been claiming to follow a socialist path or to advocate democratic socialism. This political rhetoric has consistently paved the way for the recent proposal to amend the Preamble of the Constitution. In times when capitalism advances and falters, socialist ideas continue to attract people worldwide, inspiring them to strive for a socialist future. Today, leaders in various countries adopt different faces of socialism, be it national socialism, democratic socialism, or humanitarian socialism. Throughout history, ruling classes have often employed such strategies to conceal their reactionary, exploitative policies. The current amendment proposals by the Swaran Singh Committee fall into this category. One cannot ignore the reality that, under the guise of socialist rhetoric, capitalism in the country is being strengthened by empowering all reactionary vested interests.”
In this document, the CPM further seeks to expose the contradictions and absurdities surrounding these constitutional amendments, especially highlighting their implementation during the Emergency, a period marked by violent suppression of democratic rights and the imposition of anti-worker policies. The party points out the stark irony of pushing through such amendments while democracy was being systematically dismantled.
“It is precisely at this time, when trade union rights and democratic freedoms are being denied, that these constitutional amendment proposals have been brought forward. Even the publication of speeches by Members of Parliament is forbidden, and the Parliament itself is powerless to question the Executive’s actions. In reality, these amendment proposals have emerged at a moment when any meaningful debate within the country is impossible. The ruling party and its supporters relentlessly disseminate their views through all media channels accessible to the public.”
The CPM, which sought to implement ‘scientific socialism’ through revolution, could not accept India being declared a socialist country merely through a constitutional amendment. The party viewed these amendments as attempts to transform the Constitution into an instrument for one-party rule, designed to uphold the bourgeois-landlord class interests, maintain its political machinery, and grant unchecked authority to the executive branch.
“The Swaran Singh Committee Report is a tool aimed at this objective. Its goals are to: (1) attack the fundamental rights of the people; (2) undermine the basic powers of the judiciary; (3) ridicule and override the powers of the states, thereby curtailing their autonomy and democratic rights; (4) alter procedures and justice to diminish the importance of Parliament itself; and (5) through all these measures, concentrate all power under the ruling Congress Party, creating a situation where it can be wielded like a focused weapon. For this purpose, the slogan of ‘Parliamentary sovereignty’ has been raised. This, CPM contends, is the true intent behind the amendments.”
Notably, the CPM, while opposing the amendments related to socialism and secularism, did not include any similar proposals in the alternative set of 26 amendments it put forward. The party criticizes these particular amendments as merely political maneuvers by Indira Gandhi.
Moreover, instead of socialism and secularism, the CPM proposes guaranteeing the fundamental right of “all citizens to possess small arms.” Alongside this, the party calls for limiting the powers of the President, Governors, and other constitutional authorities, and demands that the right to elect Governors be vested in the State Legislative Assemblies. These alternative amendment proposals offered by the CPM serve as a clear testimony to what kind of Constitution India would have if the party were to gain power.
Pertinently, CPM Kerala State Secretary M.V. Govindan recently faced intense criticism both from within and outside the party for admitting that the CPM had aligned with the RSS during the Emergency period. The pamphlet “Regarding Constitutional Amendments and the CPM” reveals that the CPM had, at that time, shared the RSS’s viewpoint on the Emergency-era constitutional amendments. Now, as the RSS Sarkaryavah’s statement underscores that the RSS has not deviated from its original position even today, it falls upon the CPM to clarify whether its stance has changed after nearly fifty years. While some characterize the two-line statement by the RSS Sarkaryavah as an assault on the Constitution, the political observers are so curious about how the CPM and its affiliated media outlets would interpret its own extensive 27-page political document on the subject.
(The writer is a journalist and a fellow at the Centre for South Indian Studies)
Comments