When it was written in the Preamble of the Constitution that 'We, the people of India, adopt this Constitution', there was a very serious discussion on this issue in the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution was completed on November 26, 1949, but before that, in his address in the Constituent Assembly in October, Baba Saheb Ambedkar had made it clear that this Constitution derives its original source, its authority and its entire sovereignty from the people.
By giving the right to one vote to the men and women of independent India without any discrimination, Babasaheb had ensured that the rise of the Indian state would be through the use of this one vote. Therefore, if all the members of the Constituent Assembly can proudly say that they have done the work of writing the Constitution on behalf of the people of India and have made it omnipotent in the Constitution, then there is nothing wrong.
Therefore, the 'fraternity' spoken of in the Preamble is a symbol of people's power. Baba Saheb also made it clear in his address that the entire concept of empowering people is enshrined in the Constitution.
In October 1949, Baba Saheb gave a satisfactory answer to the question raised by Acharya Kripalani of the Samajwadi Party in the Constituent Assembly that the Constitution should give more rights to the people. He said that any government that would be formed in independent India would be called the people's government. Acharya had a strong objection to the fact that a minister of the then interim national government used to call the government 'our government' and not 'people's government'. To this, Baba Saheb's reply was that in this democracy, any person in office will get supremacy only by people's power. When we apply Babasaheb's theory in the present political context, we find that today's politicians, despite being elected by the people, are becoming victims of self-praise. This applies equally to the leader of every political party, whereas we have adopted the parliamentary system of democracy and have implemented a system in which the participation of all the members of the ruling party and the opposition can be ensured.
Therefore, on Republic Day, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's statement that differences should be respected in a democracy is perfectly logical and constitutional. But on the other hand, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge's message of January 26 that all Indians should be ready to protect the Constitution is also well considered. Obviously, Mr. Kharge, being the Leader of the Opposition, has every right to say this. Their intention seems to be to strengthen the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution draws the blueprint of the whole of India and tells that this country belongs to the people living in it, among whom harmony and love should remain in every situation. The Sangh chief also said that it is very important to maintain harmony among the people of India. The framers of the Constitution also had the diverse culture of India in front of them. He knew that the Indian nation was not built on the basis of any particular religion or religion, but on the basis of diverse social, economic and geographical culture. This culture is such that Muslim citizens take part in preparations to celebrate the festivals of Hindus. The reason for this is not economic alone, but also the social structure in which both Hindus and Muslims work together to build India. Therefore, the goal before the framers of the Constitution was very clear. The goal was to give equal status to every citizen. For this reason, the Constitution made India a geographical state and not an ideological state. When we refer to the Ganga-Jamuni culture, we convey the message that India is a 'Triveni' in which all types of citizens are included. They may be Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs or Christians or any other religion, but they are all respectable Indians. This is the fraternity our Constitution gives us. This fraternity or harmony is because all kinds of citizens have equal rights. Along with these rights, civil duties were also added to the Constitution, but this amendment was added in the Emergency period 1976.
Therefore, when India is a territorial state, we can put any anti-national action on the test of fundamental constitutional rights and duties. On the other hand, it is also quite clear that our true loyalty to democracy should also be fruitful from these facts because by holding elections only after five years, we do not follow all democratic values, but pledge to run the entire country's system according to the Constitution. So, it is not happening. In this light, if we verify the statements of RSS chief Bhagwat and Congress chief Kharge, we will find that differences exist, but these differences should be judged only strictly by the touchstone of the Constitution. Because only the Constitution can show us the way. The RSS chief is giving legitimacy to dissent or dissent, the first condition of democracy, and the Congress chief wants to protect this Constitution. But civil liberty is the essence of a democracy. It has a well-defined interpretation in the Constitution, which the three pillars of Indian democracy – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – always protect. It is not without reason that the framers of our Constitution did not make the judiciary a part of the government, but put the responsibility of seeing the governance of the country as per the Constitution. Therefore, it is the duty of every citizen of India to live in harmony with each other so that India can become strong.