"Mask Of RSS Has Come Off Again...": Rahul Gandhi's Jab On Preamble Row
New Delhi:
Rahul Gandhi weighed in Friday on the row over the words ' secular ' and ' socialist ' in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Congress MP attacked the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh - the ideological mentor of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party - after it called for a 'debate' over retaining the terms.
"The mask of the RSS has come off again," Mr Gandhi said on X, picking up where party comms chief Jairam Ramesh left off this morning. "The Constitution irks them because it speaks of equality, secularism, and justice. The RSS-BJP don't want the Constitution... they want the Manusmriti."
"They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda."
"The RSS should stop dreaming this dream - we will never let them succeed..."
RSS का नक़ाब फिर से उतर गया।
संविधान इन्हें चुभता है क्योंकि वो समानता, धर्मनिरपेक्षता और न्याय की बात करता है।
RSS-BJP को संविधान नहीं, मनुस्मृति चाहिए। ये बहुजनों और ग़रीबों से उनके अधिकार छीनकर उन्हें दोबारा ग़ुलाम बनाना चाहते हैं। संविधान जैसा ताक़तवर हथियार उनसे छीनना इनका…
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) June 27, 2025
This chapter in the row over the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' - added to the Preamble in 1976 - began after Mr Hosabale's comments Thursday, and as the BJP upped attacks on the Congress over the Emergency imposed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi a year earlier, i.e., 1975.
Critics of these terms' inclusion believe the political background - Mrs Gandhi's Congress government curtailed Parliament's powers - mean there are questions over the legitimacy of the amendment itself.
RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, demanded a 'debate' be held on retaining the terms.
Jairam Ramesh responded first for the Congress, drawing the RSS leader's attention to a Supreme Court judgement quashing a petition to remove the terms from the Preamble.
The RSS has NEVER accepted the Constitution of India. It attacked Dr. Ambedkar, Nehru, and others involved in its framing from Nov 30, 1949 onwards. In the RSS's own words, the Constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti.
The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a… pic.twitter.com/WP07XV7MuA
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) June 27, 2025
"The Chief Justice of India himself delivered a judgment on November 25, 2024, on the issue now being raised by the leading RSS functionary. Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?" the Congress leader posted on X.
The reference was to a ruling by a two-judge bench in November last year; then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar noted that past decisions by the court, including the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharti and 1994 SR Bommai cases observed "secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution".
The court similarly defended inclusion of 'socialist' in the Preamble. Its interpretation, it said, "should not be restricted to the economic policies... rather 'socialist' denotes the State's commitment to be a Welfare state... ensuring equality of opportunity and social justice."
The court also pointed out the petitions had been filed in 2020, "... 44 years after the words 'socialist' and 'secular' became integral to the Preamble", and that made the plea "particularly questionable".
The Congress has repeatedly accused the BJP of wanting to alter fundamental tenets of the Constitution, a charge it made into a poll issue before last year's federal election.
Mr Gandhi, in fact, began appearing at public events with a small, red-bound copy of the Constitution, which he would wave for emphasis during campaign speeches.
The BJP also issued equally repeated denials; Home Minister Amit Shah told NDTV the party had no intention of ever doing that, and pointed out it had already won two consecutive elections.
Each time the party had an overwhelming majority and could have changed the Constitution at will, but did not, Mr Shah told NDTV.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions in win for Trump's immigration agenda
A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.'The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.'Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make was not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges may still be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of a 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American U.S. is amongst about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are amongst and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's have uniformly ruled against the Justice Department has argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
26 minutes ago
- India Today
We can do whatever we want: Trump says deadline for reciprocal tariffs not fixed
US President Donald Trump said that the July 9 deadline for reimposing broad tariffs on imports may not be set in stone. Speaking at the White House, Trump said the date could be moved forward or backward, depending on how trade talks progress.'We have full flexibility. We can shorten the timeline, or extend it. Personally, I'd prefer to move quickly,' Trump said. 'I'd love to just notify everyone: Congratulations, you're now paying 25 per cent.'advertisementTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent signalled the possibility of an extended timeline, suggesting that agreements might still be reached by Labor Day. After a week dominated by the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and intense debate over a major tax and spending package in Congress, the Trump administration has ramped up its trade efforts. On Thursday, the US submitted a fresh proposal to the European Union, while India dispatched a delegation to Washington to continue trade discussions.'We're seeing strong interest from countries offering solid deals,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business Network.'We've got 18 key trading partners. If we can finalize agreements with 10 or 12 of them, and we're already engaging with another 20 significant economies, we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day,' Bessent on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the administration is open to shifting the July 8–9 tariff deadlines, calling them 'not critical.' She emphasised that President Trump retains the authority to move those dates as he sees fit."If countries don't come to the table, the president has the option to simply present them with a deal," Leavitt said, noting that this could involve setting reciprocal tariffs deemed favourable to US interests and responded positively to Leavitt's comments, with stocks climbing to session highs amid optimism that a more flexible approach could avert trade April, the president introduced a system of reciprocal tariffs on nearly all foreign imports. However, a 90-day grace period, expiring July 8, was granted on any tariffs exceeding 10 per cent, providing countries time to late May, Trump escalated his stance, threatening tariffs of up to 50 per cent on goods from the European Union, which had already been hit by the earlier round of tariffs.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersTune InMust Watch
United News of India
32 minutes ago
- United News of India
Emergency responsible for decision to give up the rights of Indian fishermen: EAM Jaishankar
New Delhi, June 27 (UNI) External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar today said the Emergency imposed by then PM Indira Gandhi is responsible for the persistent issue of Indian fishermen being arrested by Sri Lanka. Speaking at an event to mark the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, the EAM said that during the time an agreement was reached between India and Sri Lanka in which the rights of Indian fishermen to fish in some areas of the waters of Sri Lanka was given up. He said: 'During the Emergency, sometimes major decisions were taken, without debate. 'Today a major issue is being talked about -- that our fishermen are arrested in Sri Lanka. Do you know the reason why? 'The reason is because during the Emergency an agreement was reached with Sri Lanka in which the fishermen's rights to fish in some areas of the waters of Sri Lanka, that right we gave up. 'If there had been no Emergency, and if there had been a parliament, a truly genuine parliament, then the issue would have been debated. I do not know if the parliament at the time would have agreed to such a decision or not,' he added. He said the consequences of this decision are still visible in Tamil Nadu. The EAM was referring to the 1974 and 1976 agreements reached between India and Sri Lanka over the Katchatheevu island and rights over their respective Exclusive Economic Zone areas. Katchatheevu, an uninhabited island, was ceded to Sri Lanka under a maritime agreement in 1974. Another agreement was signed in 1976 -- when the Emergency was in progress -- that restricted the fishermen of both countries from fishing in each other's exclusive economic zones. In other remarks, the EAM urged people to remain vigilant against history repeating itself, and said that India needs an empowered public to avoid future such autocratic decisions. EAM said the image of India as the oldest and largest democracy in the world took a beating when the Emergency was imposed on June 25, 1975. He also recalled his own experiences of police raids in the hostels of Jawaharlal Nehru University. UNI RN
