 Good evening friends. Today we are connecting with a person when we were in what we say in the baby steps of this Beyond Law series. We had connected with Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, one of the youngest additional from Mr. Janu. And again, after a year, we connected with him. As usual, he's not only kind enough to accept our invite, but at the same time, he's quite humble. And after connecting with him, I realized that he's grounded just like a grass. They say the biggest of the storms cannot shake you up. And today, when we are talking about a lot of talks are going on, not only on the social media and otherwise regarding socialism, secularism and constitution. Yes, as a student of law, one always discusses all these issues. But I think these issues of late have picked up and there's a lot of debate on these aspects. And despite the fact that he is a pressing engagement, we mutually agreed that be that as it may, we should take the session forward. We understand that it's a weekend. And despite the weekend, we agreed to take a topic forward so that people can understand and enjoy the weekend, not only with good food, but also with the good insights coming from a speaker who is not only an additional solace general in the Supreme Court of India and whose large judgments are reported. Without taking much time, I would request Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee to take things forward and explain what is all this debate about socialism, secularism and the constitution. Over to you, Vikramjit. Thank you. I was part of and I like to think myself that I was part of when this series began. And it's been a wonderful series. I see the YouTube videos being circulated and it's such a pleasure and honor to have been a part of it when it began. And so it's honored to be back again. And the other thing is who can ever refuse Vikasti? Vikasti, as you know, is extremely persuasive. So there's no question of refusing because not only that, but because also the very importance of the series, which is now very widely circulated. I would also, before I begin, I would also like to apologize because I know that the series was scheduled to be started off a little earlier this talk, but because of reasons which could be on my control, we had to push back this at my request. So apologies for that. That being said, I think let us now return back to the topic which I wanted to address and which I wanted to put forward for your discussion and for your consideration. I think the topic which I would like to speak on is socialism and secularism and the constitution. The two words are, I think the most contested words in the constitution, in constitutional law, in constitutional thinking today in India. We read very regularly about the use of these words. These words are used very often. They're used as part of politics. They're used as part of constitutional law. And there is a large scale discussion about these two terms, which we are used to. Now, arguably, and this is arguably socialism and secularism are two most important values which have been inserted into the constitution. Now, we all know what is the history of the insertion of these two words. These two words were not there at the time of the original framing of the constitution and then subsequently, during by the 42nd amendment, very controversially during the time of the emergency, the pre-animal was amended and these two words were inserted into the constitution. However, and this is something which is to be noted that when the 44th amendment happened and during the Janta government and various different provisions of the 42nd amendment were undone, the two words of socialism and secularism being part of the pre-animal was actually retained in the constitution. Now, the question which therefore arose is how do you define these two words? And this is something which I would like to speak on the rest of the talk. But for the purposes of discussion, the purposes of noting of what happened in history, there was an attempt to define the word secularism. L. M. Singhvi who was the father of Dr. A. M. Singhvi was supposedly given the task of defining the word secularism, which Kulud being inserted in the constitution, but that sort of never came about. As for socialism, I think there is various different kinds of socialism from the time when this constitution was framed and we will address those issues. But the fact is socialism has... Yeah Vikram, I think... And these were not there at the time of the original constitution, framing of the original constitution is what is the legitimacy of these words in the constitution. And two, how have we read these terms and what is the history of these terms in the Indian context? How are we using it today? How does the courts interpret these words? And most importantly, and this is a question which I will try to answer right at the end, if we define socialism and secularism in our own way, in our own terms, however way we want it to, then what remains of these words? Because if we sort of define secularism in our own way as tolerance and socialism only as Gandhian socialism, then what remains of these words? What is the use of these words? And what purpose does it serve anymore? These are the broad questions which I would like you to keep in mind when you go ahead. But at the present moment, I will try to sort of discuss both these words separately. The first word is socialism. Socialism has a very long history. It's not... The idea is not new. I as a... As you know, I... The earliest I can trace the word socialism in sort of any Indian literature is of Bongkim Chandra Chatterjee. Bongkim Chandra Chatterjee. The reason why Bongkim Chandra Chatterjee is important is all of you may recollect. Bongkim Chandra Chatterjee is Chottabaddhaya, as we Bengalis call him, was also the person who wrote Anand Mart in which Vande Mataram was written. So Bongkim Chandra Chatterjee Chottabaddhaya was, of course, deeply at that present moment, a creature of his times. And he wrote an essay called Sammya or Shamma, as we say in Bengali, or Sammya or equality, as we say, which explored the contemporaneous debates of socialism, which were at that point of time floating in India. It's another matter that he later said that he didn't quite support those... He retained those views which he wrote in that essay, but he did articulate it. That's the first sort of indicator of, you know, socialism which I see, which is being discussed in history of any sort. The second and something which is extremely important, you know, is Swami Vivekananda. Amongst various different questions, questions were put to him as to whether he was a socialist and he famously answered, I am not a socialist. I don't believe in equality, but if speaking for the poor makes me a socialist, I'm willing to claim the label, because I said a half a bread is better than no bread. Of course, he was deeply concerned for the poor and he always distinguished himself that he was not, though he was actually not a socialist, he didn't mind being called a socialist. In fact, very interestingly, his brother, Krupendana Tattak, was a member of the communist party. But Swami Vivekananda is very clear that he did not contribute to communism. He was clearly aware of the debate, but he had various different arguments against socialism, including the one which he said that you can't have perfect equality. Perfect equality means death in many ways, his spiritual death in many ways. So, you know, that was his view, but he definitely was concerned that was his view of socialism or pro-poor, having a pro-poor outcome. I think Mark Magan also came across from a similar point of view, his conceptions of bread-labor, his conceptions of trust, the shape which he had, where he said the rich should own property as a trustee for the poor and should act as trustees of simple living, high-thinking things were all, you know, which he said was his own socialist ideas. And he had a regular debate with the socialist office times, his younger socialist office times. And he always said his version of what he said of pro-poor approach was better and more akin with Indian culture. Now of course, these differences with Mahapagandhi during the time of independence was extremely huge with the socialist office times. The Congress, the Indian national Congress, first adopts the word socialist during the Karachi Congress. And at the Haripura Congress, which is where the entire debate of socialism was Gandhian socialism actually comes to the fore during the debates which happened at the Indian Congress. And where the two protagonists were on one side, those speaking about a Gandhian approach to poverty, was Sardar Patel, was very strongly defended an Indian approach to socialism and he sort of castigated socialism because according to him socialism was not of large Indian religion. And on the other side was was being led by Netaji Shubhash Chandrabaugh. So as to what version of socialism, what would be our version of the court, these are questions which we've always had. And but it's interesting that when Shubhash Bose, who was the great socialist champion at the Haripura Congress, sort of laid out his vision of what he considered socialism and what he termed in his own words, Samyavad as in his equation of his version, which he considered a third way socialist way, which was different from that of, from that of the western socialism of Soviet India, for that matter. And he said it combines three that three components, one our ancient civilization, he says to our struggle against the British. And three, he said our ideas of modernism, which we have modern ideas of liberal ideas, which we have got from, from the West for better. And he turned it as, as the best way as India's way towards, towards having a proper approach to society, which was very key to have a forward thinking India, the way he wanted to move towards socialism was planning. Now, planning is extremely important, extremely interesting that the first planning committee of the Congress was was international Congress at that point of time, which was a body which incorporated every literally everybody was consistent of the very famous scientist, Begnath Shah, was again that very famous architect engineer, and from South India, great administrator, Vishweshwarya Ji, and was chaired by Jawaharlal Neb. And that was the first sort of committee which was formed at the Hariborah Congress under Subhash Bhush's presidential. Now, there were always socialists present within the Congress, they were the socialists of that sort of look like Jayatrakash Narayan, there was Ramana Luya, who were always present and who were always a very important force within the Congress, but, but they were they never were the Congress mainstream, as we all know the Congress mainstream was always with down the and Mahapagandhi and Mahapagandhi's approach to how to address problems of the poor. Close to independence, close to independence, there were the entire conception was how we have a socialist society. So in person to that, there were sort of two plans which were formulated, one was planned by Vishweshwarya, which, which he came out with a plan of you know how he wanted India to function. The other is is the famous plan which we know as the Bombay plan, where India's biggest industrialists actually got together and formulated a plan of how to take India forward. There were two Bombay plans which are available on the net, which you can see where actually the biggest industrialists said that we should be in charge of production and the government should be in charge of distribution. But this was basically a formulation of the top industrialists of their day as to what would be their interpretation, what would be their plan to take India forward. And as you know, planning was extremely important part of socialism. Now, at the time of framing of the of the constitution, at the time of constitution assembly, there were large debates as to whether to put socialism into the constitution or not. And it's interesting that that socialism didn't actually succeed. And most of the provisions which the socialists actually pushed forward and which were actively at the forefront of what the demands of the socialists were put into the director principle state policy, that is basically made unimplemented, you know, unimplementable. Now, but there were retained the influence of socialist in various different measures in the right to property, in the right to equality, which was extremely nuanced right to equality, which said that, you know, as we all know, that equals that there should be reservation, there would be affirmative action. There was the doing away with titles. There was a restricted right to property. And there were restrictions even on right to think of profession, right to carry on trade or business. So these were restricted largely under the influence of socialists who were extremely important at that point of time in the politics of India in the constitution assembly, who were an important voice. But nonetheless, their major demands were not made legally implementable. They were kept in the director principle state policy. Now it's important for us to sort of, you know, just as an indicator what were the socialist provisions in the constitution in the DPSS. One, I'll just enumerate some of them. One is article 38, in which says that the object of the state would be to promote a social and to promote a social order which promotes social economic justice. And the object of the state would be to minimize inequalities of income status and facilities. Article 39, which says state shall strive to ensure that the ownership of material resources are distributed to serve the common good. And this could be sort of construed to be a Gandhian sort of take on pro-poor policies. But the next is exclusive when it says that the operation of the economic system does not result in concentration of wealth or means of production. Means of production as we all know is treated. It's clearly a Marxian term, because Marx used that. So, you know, there is that sort of indicator as to the influence of socialist thinking in the constitution. And there is also equal pay for equal work and that's protection of workers' rights. There's an explicit article 41, which says, you know, you have to protect the right to work 42, 43 and 43A, numerous injunctions to protect workers' rights. We were all deeply influenced by socialist thinking. Now, coming to what the, how did the Supreme Court handle it? In, you know, the Supreme Court, in the first era of Supreme Court, there was this, all of us know, there was a huge debate about land reforms back and forth about land reforms. Eventually, the amendments made to the constitution and the amendments trying to, you know, the court would always talk about protecting the right to property and which was interpreted at that point of time to be, you know, against the court because the, because agrarian reforms were struck down and so on and so forth. So, in the beginning, the court took in the question of land reforms, which I think was finally sought at the time of during the Janta government when right to property was effectively taken out as a fundamental right and put as a constitution right in the constitution. So, that was a great debate back and forth where Supreme Court largely stood on the side of right to property. And the government then wanted to amend the constitution to ensure that in many ways land reforms, which were key socialist principle was enunciated, was incorporated into the constitution and into law. Next issue, which was extremely important was the question of nationalization. All of us know that back nationalization, RC Uber, you know, how the court interpreted it and the court basically accepts in the end accepts nationalization. Liberates, you know, we know those of those large number of Supreme Court judgments on protecting Liberates, chief amongst them, one of the major amongst them, Firestone, where again Justice Krishnayar's large number of the Liberates judgments was actually by Justice Krishnayar, who became very famous, you know, protecting the right of labor and employment and employment rights. And Firestone was one of the major judgments. On affirmative action, again, I think the social justice reservation, I think the key, most brilliant was the most important was of course, which we all know as the Mandal Commission case where the court sort of came out with a very nuanced form of equality of treating equals as unequals. And in India, I've construed an equality in a very, in the exact terms. And I always say this as actually pronounced equality saying that equality means in India does not only mean equality, economic equality class in India does not only mean class as an economic class, but class in India also means the incorporation of caste, which was a unique formulation, which I think this formulation of Ramana Loeyaji was brought into into constitutional law by Indra Soni, which sort of accepted that principle without technology, where it came from. But this formulation already existed because it was formulated by Ramana Loeyaji. Now, there is also this entire question, the other questions of workers' rights and where does workers' rights, we all know that there was all these workers' protection, ad hoc appointments, giving appointments to workers, ensuring employment. In any ways, the culmination of that was where basically all this was put to an end. And the entire contractual regime and the court very, very clearly said that people have been employed under the cover of what cannot get, cannot be regularized. So in many ways, if we consider Firestone, etc., etc., during their points of time in 1970s to be the height of socialist approach of the court, we can sort of take as Uma Devi when the court becomes takes a more market approach, takes a more free market approach to law. I'm not saying that it's clearly in many of those issues and all of them could be traced to provisions of the Constitution. But nonetheless, if you sort of take it broadly, I would put it at two ends of the scale. Most interestingly, and this is something which I would formulate and leave to your thinking, is that when it was asked, the court was asked as to what was the Indian formulation of socialism, what interestingly, in D. S. Nakaraj says, so people are interested, he says it's a mixture of Gandhianism and Marxism. So it is completely Indian in many ways. I would say that it's more modern here, but that there are Marxist provisions in the Constitution as I saw there are indicators of Marxist thinking in the Constitution. But the approach and the way it's been worked out has been completely Indian. I would say that it has, it is more close to the thinking of Mahatma Gandhiji's Sargodaya. And in parallel in today's world, it would be about the Indial Pathayaji's Antiyodaya, which is sort of an indicator of last person to the line, of the line. And Sargodaya means, you know, sort of Piti and Daya for everybody. So I think if we have an interpretation of the Constitution today, I think the closest interpretations of what sort of adopts is Gandhianism, which is a sort of shorthand word of the conception of Sargodaya. You know, I would like to think that the court has had three phases. The first is the liberal phase, post-constitutional phase in Indian socialism, when it spoke about property rights protected. It's second was the socialist phase in the 70s and 80s, where it sort of accepted by nationalization, accepted in many ways workers rights and was a pre-proponent of if all of us recall of even tenants rights and various pro-socialist causes. And then turning around of all this in the libertarian phase is the liberalization which happens in the post-90s. So that's the phase which sort of takes socialist demands. So maybe the interpretation of the court has varied from time to time and context to context. Now, coming to the other word which I sort of said that I will discuss as part of the talk is secularism. Secularism has, you know, people in our history discuss a long history of secularism, starting from Ashoka, Alkuba, Arshwarda. But I don't want to go into that because, you know, I don't know what sort of governance Ashoka had and Albar had or Arshwarda had at that point. And yes, they may have been tolerant, but, you know, we don't have constitutional law which goes back in that law. It would be difficult for us to take out Chanakya's Arthashashtra or Arbarnama and sort of try to translate what sort of constitution thinking may be. We have indicators of that, but I don't think we can draw final conclusions of what sort of state policy arose based on these sort of principles or based on these dates. I know that there are big edicts of Ashoka indicating what sort of ideology he said, but it's very difficult to make out an argument in constitutional law based on these sort of declarations. But if we have to trace the word secularism, secularism as we know it, I think it could be traced in constitutional law as we know it today from the 1858 declaration which happens after 1857. As we all know, 1857, a large component of 1857 was the perceived attempt of the British to impose religion on the people of the country, so which led to wide-scale rebellion across the country. So 1858, once the British sort of win against the first war of independence fails and the British win, 1858, there is the declaration of Queen Victoria's declaration in 1858. And in 1858, it's explicit that even though we construed this to be a Christian empire, however, there will be no interference in the religion. People, that becomes a late motive of British Indian judicial thinking. If anyone knows what is the history of that, we'll talk about a large number of judgments both in Diren Takata High Court or Bombay High Court, Bombay High Court famously in Sunabai, which says that all this we may not agree with the contents of the religion, but we will not interfere in religion because it is not the job of the courts or the government to interfere in the religious feelings of the people. If you can recollect before 1858, there was an interference in religious thinking. If you recall, Sati was banned at that point of time and there were reforms both in Muslim law and Hindu law, which could be traced back during that specific point of time when the British, before 1858, so much so both Hindu law and Muslim law, which were amended and which were changed, were famously referred to as the Hindu law and the Anu-Mahmatan law because the changes which were brought in by the British. After 1858, it ends. The government decides that it will treat all religions equally, even though ironically it had its own religion, explicitly it had its own religion. Up to Government of India Act and all Governments of India Act specifically, and this is interesting to note, all Governments of India Act specifically acknowledged the role of the Anglican Church. However, including the 1935 Government of India Act. However, interestingly, it said that the government shall not interfere into the religious beliefs of the people and decides to keep away from that. Now, of course, you know, this needs to be said that of course, I don't want to go through the politics which happens before partition. But I'll just say this, that when partition happened, even Baba Sai and Ambedkar in the Constitutional Assembly specifically said that this constitution has been, this country has been formed on the basis of a communal majority. It says because the majority was formed because of the community. So even that was accepted when the Constitution was framed. However, something which needs to be noted and noted very specifically is there was a clear consensus that we were going to have a secular state. And this was across the board. Shama Prushad Mukherjee, Shama Prushad Mukherjee who was a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly and during the violence which preceded partition on numerous, on numerous occasions, at that act, the then Muslim government which was running Bengal at that point on the ground that it was not acting in a secular manner, that there was discrimination between different regions. So, and at the Constitutional Assembly, even when Shama Prushad Mukherjee was a participant, it wasn't clear across the board, across the spectrum, whether one thinks that it was given that the Constitution was secular, that the state which India wanted to form was a secular state. Interestingly, and this is at the time the Constitutional Assembly debates, Sardar Patel at the time of framing of the minorities rights in which the reporter, which was submitted by Sardar Patel spoke very eloquently on protection of minority rights, but he also stressed that it's important for the minorities to be willing to merge themselves eventually in being Indians and being part of part of being Indians. So, he said, so he though he sort of spoke against separatism, minority separatism, he said eventually, you know, we have to protect minority rights because, you know, they have, we have to look after them till they can be part of the mainstream. You know, so, secularism and the Constitution, after the Constitutional Assembly debates was never explicitly a part of the Constitution, but it was taken to be across the board to be sort of inherent in the Constitution. There was protection of minority rights in Article 29 and 30, and very interesting the Constitution in Article 26 actually gave, which is unusual in any Constitutional world, give a group right to religion, which is very unusual, but all of us who live in India know that there are different interpretations of every religion that we know in India. Every religion has different sex and irrespective of where they are from, and they have their own interpretations. The Constitution of India, unusually for any other Constitution, protected that. The Supreme Court posting dependence, you know, from the very beginning, it was very clear that it believed that from the word go that secularism actually meant toleration, that everybody should tolerate everybody. The state should stay away from, you know, as they would say, Sarvatharmasamavad, treat everybody equally, the state should treat everybody equally. As I said, a history of which would be sort of traced to 1858, and the way the British approached governance of this country. From Sardar to Herupinsaid, now which is not like the excommunication case, Bombay's communication case, this was the British one before, which very explicitly upheld. Kishananda Bharati sort of said that secularism is basic structure because what was explicit, you know, this was implicit in the Constitution, and it sort of pushed forward the formulation, which was there before, but it sort of came to the public and came to be enthanced as a principle of constitutional law when it formulated that secularism actually means Sarvatharmasamavad, equal distance from all religions. And that famous formulation from the Panishads which said, ekam sadh debra bahuda vadanti, that is one truth. And, you know, people look at it from, the wise look at it from different angles. You know, when I was looking at it, and there's only one parallel which I could find, and it's interestingly that parallel actually comes from Indonesia. Indonesia is another secular country, multiracial secular country. Indonesia has a principle called pinak tundar ikka, which means that, you know, you may have different perceptions, but there is one truth, but the different perceptions of that truth. And it comes from a Javan, old Javanese sort of interpretation of governments, which said that, you know, there has to be amenity between different religions. It was said in context of Shaivite, Hindus and Buddhists and their differences, but then that came to be sort of dominant thinking in Indonesia and still sort of exists today, as you all know, through Panjshila, which is part of the governing principles of Indonesian constitution. But there are these wonderful parallel, irrespective of nominally what religion, dominant religion exists in these two countries, but the Indian heritage which underlines all this is very, very similar that, you know, there is one truth and people should look at it you know, differently. But sort of this seems to have been, again, the courts taken since areas Ahmedabad where the court took that point of view. The point of departure, this is something which is interesting to discuss off this principle secularism comes in Esalbomai. Esalbomai is of course those judgments which happen where governments of the BJP governments are dismissed on the grounds that they have violated principles of secularism, even those governments which were actually never involved in in the Ramchana movement, but merely because BJP was construed to be part of the Ramchana movement, so all governments were dismissed and Supreme Court upheld those dismissals and Supreme Court then formulated what is called positive secularism that you have to secularism is positive, you have to act in terms of, you know, positively to ensure that you're secular. Interestingly, the Supreme Court also sort of at that point of life adopted in Esalbomai an interpretation which was very American, it said there should be a wall between the judge and state and which is like the American formulation of the American Constitution says there's a Chinese wall between the judge and state. Now this is of course a very American formulation of secularism of religion and religion in judge and state, but this is not something which is very Indian at all. Now of course the Supreme Court walked back from that, walked back from that in Ismail Falooji, which is the Ramchana movement, first part of the Ramchana movement judgment which happens at that point in Terry Motors, when it's sort of Justice Parma again came back to that principle that we have to be the definition of secularism is, you know, toleration and equal toleration, everybody on the state should serve them some above and state should stay away from all religions and all religions should tolerate each other and it has, it sort of came away from that principle of positive secularism, a Chinese wall between the church and the state which is an extremely westernized formulation. Interestingly, the Balasai Thakari judgments with also Justice Parma was then presided over that bench as well, sort of said that this is part of Indian culture and, you know, with these judgments also known as the Hindu judgments, but he basically came to formulation that what you are construing is Hinduism today, it's part of Indian culture and in many ways, little bit, indistinguishable. Most interesting and this is, so this Supreme Court finally comes around in Bal Patil where for the first time the court sort of decries the fact that there can be sort of attempts to create identities and it says that, you know, identity formation on the way, on this religion itself, something to be decried because at the end of the day you all have to become Indians. So in the end, you know, I would sort of, in conclusion, I would say that we seem to have, the court seems to have defined both these words secularism and socialism in some way. I think secularism, it's very, very clear, the courts have defined secularism as that. That's the definition which is very different from the western formulation of secularism which sort of says that there has to be a wall between the church and the state. Now, of course, this is a raging debate in France, there is a different conception of secularism people are saying is a lacy thing, which means that equality, everybody is forced to be equal and irrespective of religion. But, you know, we have our own formulation, whether we call it secularism, whether we call it toleration, but basically religion between religion and the state. But I don't think secularism is a word which defines that because secularism has a very clear connotation of what it means. And I always say that you can't call a horse a dog because it is something else. The two animals are different. Apples and oranges are not the same thing. Same thing with socialism. Socialism, we've come to define socialism as, in some time, India's not another court has said that socialism is a mixture of Gandhianism and Marxism, but increasingly, Krishna in his judgments continuously said there's the integral yoga of socialism. Basically, you have an Indian version of socialism, which is more akin to something like Sarvodaya. So my view is that if you're going to have these terms, which are completely Indian, which are completely moved from the meanings of these actual meanings of these terms, why keep them at all? What is the relevance of the wine system them at all? We know that these, and as I said, you know that these terms are implicit into the constitution. There are clear, clear consensus that these are extremely implicit in the constitution, implicit because in India, historically, culturally, civilizationally, we've always believed in toleration. In India, there is no government which can ever say that it's against the poor. So it has to have all these two governing principles which implicit in the constitution. Why need to use Western equivalences of that? These are, these are legitimate questions. And most importantly, and most importantly, we also have to realize that the amendments to the preamble of the constitution was made in a, in a peculiar context, was made by Indira Gandhi, Srimati Indira Gandhi during, during the time of the emergency and was made because of the politics of that time. I'm not passing a value judgment, it was clearly motivated because there were two competing parties, there was the Jansang, there was the Swarajya party and sort of both were made in the politics of, of those times. And why be hostage to that? These are, these are genuine questions and all of us know both these terms, the validity of both these terms and whether they're valid, invalid, whether amendments were valid or not are pending before the court and the court is sort of looking into it. We don't know when that will happen. These are questions which need to be considered. I as a person sort of endorse what Babasaheb said in relation to this entire debate, that's my personal stand. My personal stand is, is that I'm sort of illustrated with what Babasaheb said. K.T. Shah who was socialist at the, in the constitution assembly debates sort of tried to insert the words, these two words socialist, I think they were, he tried to insert them four times and four times the constitution assembly actually rejected these two words to be inserted in the constitution even though there was quite an explicit sort of agreement and that these were implicit into the constitution. So there was no question of debate about them but it rejected it. And in the end, I think when there was a final attempt which was made by K.T. Shah which was sort of struck down by, which was rejected by the constitution assembly, Babasaheb gets up and says very, very interesting that, you know, these are value-related terms. Why burden the constitution which is for future, which is to govern future generations with values which mean, mean different things in the future. Why constrain them? Why not allow them to think for themselves? And that is actually what we have done. We've defined these two words in our own terms. We know what we mean by, when we use these terms, we mean very different from what these terms mean in the West. And therefore, I would say that, you know, my agreement with Babasaheb is, Babasaheb Amitkar is quite in that these two words are implicit. These two conceptions of governance both of, as we say, toleration as well as being appropriate are implicit in the constitution. But I am skeptical of using Western equivalent terms which have, which are value-related in themselves because they come from very westernised background into the constitution. Thank you very much. The staff had gone by this time. Therefore, I had to do the self-service for all this. So, two questions have come. Rishabh Soni says what was Mahatma Gandhi's view on socialism according to you? According to me, as I said, Mahatma Gandhi's view was largely on two principles. One was Sarvodaya, which means you can't have an English translation of the word Daya. Daya for everybody. Sarv means for all. And the other was trusty, which said that the rich should put proper trusty for the poor. And rent labour, everybody should work for them. Yes, we understand. Rishabh Soni says what are the challenges of our cultural practices in the name of secularism? As I said, you know, if you remove the western terminology of that, I don't think in the way the court interprets it. I don't think there are, if it's about Sarvodharma Samavav and Ekamsa Vipravadant, then I don't think there should be a problem. I think all the problems arise is when we insert the westernised conceptions of secularism into Indian constitution law, to which Babasaheb actually, Babasaheb Ambedkar actually models it. There were two questions. I was just trying to watch it on the YouTube. You don't have any questions. So you have actually rightly subtly put across as to how we have all developed in the way of secularism and secularism. And what the Lobo is normally said, sabka saap sabka vikas, that is the entire concept for the purposes of where you personally feel that the society can build together. And what we normally say that I is illness and we is wellness. So as long as we are all living in togetherness, that's the best way to move across in the society. And I feel that if we imbibe that we have to pull each one up, push down the line, the BPR level etc will all improve. And it's always going to betterment for the society at large. So it was good to connect you Victor on the platform and congratulations for shifting to the new accommodation. And everyone stay safe and stay blessed. Yeah. Thank you.