Jul 25 2014 : Mirror (Pune)
In the name of God
Most of humanity thinks of God only when there is reason to fear the outcome of wrongdoing
We have witnessed a spate of swearingin ceremonies to constitutional offices in recent weeks – ranging from ministers to judges. Although the Indian Constitution has two options in the form of assuming office — “do swear in the name of God” and “solemnly affirm” — an overwhelming majority invoked God when entering office.In a society that does not set great store by affirmations in affidavits and is yet inextricably intertwined with religious practices, this is arguably a good trend. Yet, since most of humanity thinks of God only when there is reason to fear the outcome of wrongdoing, the trend in how public office is assumed, can be disheartening.
The Indian Constitution sets out the forms of the “oaths or affirmations” applicable to various situations. While an “oath” is a vow or promise, an “affirmation” is a positive declaration. The oath is a promise (a swearing in the name of God) to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution while the affirmation is a solemn declaration that person making it will indeed do so.
Does the form of promising or declaring one’s allegiance to the Indian Constitution at all matter? Or, can the manner of stating allegiance at all be treated as form rather than substance? The founding fathers of the Constitution discussed this at some length. A peek into their deliberations is interesting. Some of them had wanted the very Preamble to the Constitution to contain an invocation to God and lamented that God found place only in the oath of office. Others questioned with dripping sarcasm if the draftsmen of the oath had taken permission from God to be named in the Constitution since they seemed to claim to know God.
Providing the option came in as an intended solution for agnostics who do not believe in God.
Some members of the Constituent Assembly who were willing to accept provision of both options quibbled over whether the oath in the name of God should come first in sequence or if the solemn affirmation should — the phrase that
came first would be the first among equals in their view, indicating some form of superiority.An argument for removing the option of swearing in the name of God was that even providing for such a classification led to identification and indication of whether a person was a believer or an atheist, which would be contrary to the spirit of democracy. A member who firmly asserted his belief in the existence of God, quoted from the Irish Constitution to show that even in a Roman Catholic nation, the President takes an oath in the name of the people of his nation and submits to the severest punishment from the State for potentially breaking his oath, without invoking God.
It was only much later (in 1972) that Ireland would remove a reference to the primacy of the Roman Catholic faith from her Constitution, but the form of oath did not refer to God. The Constitution of the socially-diverse-but-politicallyChristian United States of America too does not have the invocation of God for the President’s oath. The words “So help me God” and the kissing of the Bible are customary practices that dif
ferent Presidents adopted on their own. Recently, Tulsi Goddard, a Hindu elected to the US Congress (incidentally, not of Indian origin) took her oath with her hand placed on the Bhagavad Gita.B R Ambedkar, who had introduced the reference to God into the oath of office with his drafting, has clearly been proven wrong today in one respect. He had argued: “It is only Christians, Anglo-Indians and Muslims who swear [in the name of God]. The Hindus do not like to utter the name of God.” He defended bringing God into the secular constitution to enable invocation of “the governing force of the Universe as well as individual lives” as a sanctioning force for adherence to constitutional provisions that did not entail specific punishments for violations.
There was one member who seems to have been prescient about how the Republic would turn out. Tajamul Husain found the oath quite unnecessary. His argument: “… 99 per cent of the witnesses who go into the witness box and take an oath or affirmation mentioning Almighty God, go to tell the untruth.”
The Indian Constitution sets out the forms of the “oaths or affirmations” applicable to various situations. While an “oath” is a vow or promise, an “affirmation” is a positive declaration. The oath is a promise (a swearing in the name of God) to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution while the affirmation is a solemn declaration that person making it will indeed do so.
Does the form of promising or declaring one’s allegiance to the Indian Constitution at all matter? Or, can the manner of stating allegiance at all be treated as form rather than substance? The founding fathers of the Constitution discussed this at some length. A peek into their deliberations is interesting. Some of them had wanted the very Preamble to the Constitution to contain an invocation to God and lamented that God found place only in the oath of office. Others questioned with dripping sarcasm if the draftsmen of the oath had taken permission from God to be named in the Constitution since they seemed to claim to know God.
Providing the option came in as an intended solution for agnostics who do not believe in God.
Some members of the Constituent Assembly who were willing to accept provision of both options quibbled over whether the oath in the name of God should come first in sequence or if the solemn affirmation should — the phrase that
came first would be the first among equals in their view, indicating some form of superiority.An argument for removing the option of swearing in the name of God was that even providing for such a classification led to identification and indication of whether a person was a believer or an atheist, which would be contrary to the spirit of democracy. A member who firmly asserted his belief in the existence of God, quoted from the Irish Constitution to show that even in a Roman Catholic nation, the President takes an oath in the name of the people of his nation and submits to the severest punishment from the State for potentially breaking his oath, without invoking God.
It was only much later (in 1972) that Ireland would remove a reference to the primacy of the Roman Catholic faith from her Constitution, but the form of oath did not refer to God. The Constitution of the socially-diverse-but-politicallyChristian United States of America too does not have the invocation of God for the President’s oath. The words “So help me God” and the kissing of the Bible are customary practices that dif
ferent Presidents adopted on their own. Recently, Tulsi Goddard, a Hindu elected to the US Congress (incidentally, not of Indian origin) took her oath with her hand placed on the Bhagavad Gita.B R Ambedkar, who had introduced the reference to God into the oath of office with his drafting, has clearly been proven wrong today in one respect. He had argued: “It is only Christians, Anglo-Indians and Muslims who swear [in the name of God]. The Hindus do not like to utter the name of God.” He defended bringing God into the secular constitution to enable invocation of “the governing force of the Universe as well as individual lives” as a sanctioning force for adherence to constitutional provisions that did not entail specific punishments for violations.
There was one member who seems to have been prescient about how the Republic would turn out. Tajamul Husain found the oath quite unnecessary. His argument: “… 99 per cent of the witnesses who go into the witness box and take an oath or affirmation mentioning Almighty God, go to tell the untruth.”
