It is often forgotten that ‘fraternity’ is one of the core values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
It is often forgotten that ‘fraternity’ is one of the core values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity should not be treated as separate items in a trinity. In the Constituent Assembly in 1949, BR Ambedkar said, they form a federation of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the purpose of democracy.
It is often forgotten that ‘fraternity ensuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation’, along with justice, liberty and equality, is one of the core values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India, whose first line Emphasizes, ‘We, the people of India’ have resolved to ‘secure’ all the citizens of India.
responsibility of individual citizens
BR Ambedkar provided his argument with remarkable foresight: ‘We must begin by acknowledging the fact that Indian society is a complete absence of two things. One of these is equality’ and as a result we will enter a ‘life of contradictions’ on January 26, 1950.
However, the practical observance of this commitment was shaped only by the Forty-two Amendment (1976) to Article 51A(e) on Fundamental Duties.
It makes it the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and common sense among all the people of India irrespective of religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.
It is worth noting that the responsibility of bringing this is not the responsibility of the state, but the responsibility of the individual citizen. Therefore, we need to understand the meaning and relevance of this sacred will. How has this become a political theory of relevance?
A poet sums it up neatly: Those who know the Aqeeda of Ahl-e-Sayaasat; My message is love, reach the world (cult of politicians, politicians know/(My message of love, to be heard from afar)
The idea of fraternity is based on the idea that people have responsibilities towards each other. After the French Revolution it was defined in the following terms: ‘Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you; Consistently do to others the good that you wish to receive from them.’ The ambiguity of the definition suggests that the idea of fraternity was not clearly understood, despite having a place in the revolutionary slogan. It is usually viewed as a sentiment rather than a principle.
However in the Indian context, as understood and expressed by BR Ambedkar, there is a sense of inevitability in the sentiment. This is reflected in the words of this section of the Preamble where both the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation require this feeling, and thus give it a sense of urgency. Thus it becomes an essential component of citizenship which can be avoided or neglected at the cost of concept.
size of inequality
A serious factor, often overlooked, is the size that inequality takes in different segments of our society. It is economical on one floor; On others it is regional, caste and religious. Some are spelled out, others are spelled out, yet others are perceived. Sociologists have identified nine categories of people who are determined to be socially and/or politically and/or economically excluded. These specifically include Dalits, Adivasis, women and religious minorities.
Recent studies on religious minorities, who make up about 20% of India’s population, have traced the perceptions of discrimination to the core of thinking about the partition of August 1947. He argues that the violence was not just accidental, but was an integral part of it. The foundation of the nation and that the need for fraternity co-exists with the imperative need to restore social unity among sections of society.
Much of the blame for the haste displayed by decision makers has been written on the basis of the documentation provided later and, at the distance of this time, its validity cannot be completely ruled out.
A primary concern of the constitution-makers concerned with the harmonization and integration of the units of the new republic, formally described as ‘A Union of States’. In the words of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, ‘Inspiration and encouragement did not come from below but from above and unless the transplanted growth takes a healthy root in the soil, there will be danger of collapse and anarchy.’ It was hailed by VP Menon as ‘integration of people’s mind’.
In a speech in the Constituent Assembly on 22 December 1952, BR Ambedkar had called ‘conditions for the successful functioning of democracy’. He listed these as follows: Lack of clear inequalities; the presence of opposition; equality of law and administration; observance of constitutional morality; Avoiding the tyranny of the majority on the minority; The function of moral order in society and the public conscience.
Over time, uneven development has characterized the states of the Indian Union. They are characterized by regional and linguistic diversity. And so does uneven economic growth and progress, resulting in unequal levels of education, employment, social cohesion and satisfaction.
questions for leadership
Seventy-five years later, a clear assessment of the state of the republic gives us evidence of regional diversity, claims of linguistic identity and the emergence of differing political orientations. While the first two are physical and social realities, the third is the product of rich diversity. Each is real, each deviates from the hitherto prevailing approach to federal governance, and each seeks adjustment to a different framework.
Where does this brotherhood lead? Article 51A(e) of the Constitution does not differentiate between citizens in any of the categories mentioned above and makes it an all-encompassing duty. Therefore its scope is universal; Its adherence, by the same logic, is to begin at the base of the ladder of citizenship rather than at the top, but has not spared the leadership the obligation to promote and practice it.
Has this been done in practice? How often have leaders of social and political thought, incidentally or exclusively, promoted fraternity locally, within the region, or at the national level? The record is disappointing; Hence non-fraternal patterns of behavior easily emerge in our society. Does it promote national unity, apart from rhetoric? Was the bloodshed of 1947 (’10 million or one person for every 35 individuals in the subcontinent’) a harbinger of fewer people to come after that?
Hamid Ansari is the former Vice President of India, 2007–2017