THE PATH TOWARDS A PLURALIST CIVIL SOCIETY

Print

THE CONTEXT: Recently, during the inaugural session of the new Parliament, controversy erupted after Members were gifted copies of the Indian Constitution, where the Preamble appeared to have omitted the terms ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’. This was followed by civil society debate on whether either of these terms defined the true spirit of the Constitution.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS:

• Preamble enforcing the republican character: The enactment of the Constitution is seen as the culmination of a decades-long process of dialogue among contending political actors, with focus on character of the envisaged republic. The preamble explicitly enforce this legitimising ends of the republic in terms of securing justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), and equality (of status and of opportunity) to all Indian citizens.
• Spirit of the term ‘we the People’: The emphasis on the revolutionary potential of the Constitution is rooted in the spirit of “We the People.” The reduction of sovereignty of the “political community” to mere state sovereignty, reduces the constitutional promises. The Constitution can only remain a living force in our democracy as long as the phrase, ‘we the people’, can somehow approximate to a citizens which effectively discharges its agency as vigilant participants.
• Tendency to marginalize non-elite counter-sphere: There is distinction between the elite public sphere and the non-elite counter-sphere in civil society. There is an inertia of the elite public sphere in addressing constitutional challenges. It highlights the potential danger of marginalizing non-elite counter-sphere movements as emotional or sectional. There is potential loss of liberatory potential if the counter-sphere is not given equal standing in civil society.
• Popular sovereignty: The meaning or character of our popular sovereignty is often treated as a convenient myth or as a purely abstract assumption in our civil society discussions. In this respect, the constitutional scholar Sarbani Sen argued in her book, The Constitution of India: Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations, the revolutionary potential of the Constitution inheres in this very spirit of popular sovereignty.

DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE

Ambedkar’s framing of the Preamble and his emphasis on morality as a governing principle:

• R. Ambedkar had framed the Preamble for a “way of life, which recognizes liberty, equality, and fraternity as the principles of life and which cannot be divorced from each other.
• Liberty cannot be divorced from equality; equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity.
• Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative”.
• Equally, he refused to harbour naive presumptions about the self-perpetuating character of these constitutional principles.

Gandhi’s concept of ‘Swaraj’ as a creative process of self-realization and the importance of dialogue and empathy:

• It is enlightening to juxtapose Ambedkar’s plea for a transcendent civil morality with Gandhi’s conception of swaraj or ‘self-rule’. In the monograph, Unconditional Equality: Gandhi’s Religion of Resistance (2016), historian Ajay Skaria explains that ‘Swaraj’ for Gandhi did not confine itself to a mechanistic self-rule, but a creative process of self-realisation through which one might reach out towards a more secure and substantive plane of freedom and equality.
• The means to achieve Swaraj was thus ‘satyagraha’ which is defined as “truth force” and “love force”. For Gandhi, sovereign power is not exemplified only in the state. Rather, every self is deeply divided, and sovereignty is universal which is always exercised by the self.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Engage in dialogue: There is a need to move beyond chauvinistic pride and engage in honest, introspective dialogue. It can be done by promoting empathetic engagement and dialogue to foster mutual understanding. This is not the shallow but the commonplace mode of dialogue but a form of debate focused on achieving a framework of objectively correct knowledge.
• Understand the position of alternative views: The particular form of dialogue stressed by Gandhi, Ambedkar and modern theorists of deliberative democracy seeks to understand the position of the ‘other’. It is through this empathetic engagement with the concerns and the world views of ‘others’ that we can build a stable foundation of mutual self-understanding, thus opening up possibilities for genuine solidarity.
• Inclusive and plural civil society: There is a need to advocate for an inclusive and plural civil society that recognizes the equal standing of all communities. It is like having a civil society that functions as the handmaiden of an authoritarian state.
• Encourage active participation: There is a need to encourage active participation in civil society, especially from non-elite counter-sphere movements. But the alternative is a civil society with little self-knowledge beyond chauvinistic pride, and little agency beyond being the handmaiden of an increasingly authoritarian state.

THE CONCLUSION:

It becomes clear that a progressive civil society in India can only be a plural civil society, if it is structured on the free and equal participation of every community. In this respect, emphasizing the need to understand popular sovereignty as a dynamic force rather than a static concept is the need of the hour.

UPSC PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTION

Q. Can Civil Society and Non-Governmental Organisations present an alternative model of public service delivery to benefit the common citizen? Discuss the challenges of this alternative model. (2022)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION

Q. Highlight the significance of inclusive dialogue, empathy, and a pluralist civil society for the true realization of constitutional principles.

Source: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-path-towards-a-pluralist-civil-society/article67811543.ece