Politics and history of inclusion of ‘socialist' and ‘secular' in the Preamble
RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has called for a debate on removing 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Constitution's Preamble, citing their addition during the Emergency (1975-1977) as a deviation from BR Ambedkar's original draft.Perspective: The Preamble describes India as a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.' These words were added by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.advertisementWhy are these words controversial?The terms were added during a period of quasi-dictatorship, when the government's word was the law. Critics argue they were imposed without proper debate. Some claim identification as a 'socialist' country limits policy choices. The right-wing, led by the RSS, sees 'secular' as a negation of India's Hindutva legacy.
Supporters argue the terms clarify India's syncretic culture, and define the responsibility of the government towards society, and neutrality on matters of faith.Did the Constituent Assembly discuss including 'secular and socialist' in the Preamble?Yes, some members proposed adding secular and socialist to describe India. They believed explicitly mentioning 'socialist' and 'secular' would codify the state's ideology.Constituent Assembly member Professor KT Shah made multiple attempts to include these terms in the Constitution. He argued that explicitly stating 'secular' would convey India's commitment to religious neutrality, and 'socialist' would reflect the state's aim to address economic inequalities.advertisementMembers like HV Kamath and Hasrat Mohani supported this argument.What was Dr BR Ambedkar's stand?Ambedkar, the Constitution's chief architect, opposed their inclusion. He viewed socialism as a provisional policy, not a constitutional mandate. Ambedkar believed that the future of such policies should be left to the government of the day. He argued that stating socialism as an immutable principle in the Preamble would undermine democratic flexibility. 'What should be the policy of the State are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether,' Ambedkar said.He argued that socialism was already embedded in the Constitution's Directive Principles of State Policy, making it redundant in the Preamble.Responding to Shah, he said: 'If these Directive Principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore, my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.'Ambedkar, a Buddhist, was a firm believer in India's multicultural ethos. On secularism, Ambedkar felt the term was unnecessary, as the Constitution already guaranteed it through the Fundamental Rights. He pointed out that secularism was 'already contained in the draft Preamble,' and the broader constitutional framework ensured religious neutrality.advertisementHe did not oppose the notion of secularism itself but resisted its explicit mention, believing the Constitution's structural design sufficiently upheld the principle, and the state would treat all religions equally, ensuring non-discrimination without needing the label.Did India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agree with Ambedkar?Nehru was a staunch socialist and proponent of secularism. He advocated religious freedom for all, 'including freedom for those who may have no religion.'Yet, he did not push for their explicit inclusion in the Preamble. He believed the structure of the Constitution ensured a welfare state with equal respect for all religions. Nehru's pragmatic approach echoed Ambedkar's views.To sum up: Both Ambedkar and Nehru believed the Constitution should set frameworks, not fixed policy ideologies.Outcome: The Assembly adopted the Preamble on November 26, 1949, without these terms.Why were 'secular and socialist' added to the Preamble?Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government added these terms to highlight the state's commitment to a welfare state. This reflected her commitment to poverty eradication - gareebi hataao. Secularism was added to reinforce religious neutrality to reflect the original intent of the Constitution, according to the Indira Gandhi government.advertisementThe amendment applied retroactively to November 26, 1949, which critics later challenged.The Janata Party government (1977–1980) reversed some parts of the 42nd Amendment but retained 'socialist and secular.'What has the Supreme Court said about these terms?They have been upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in Dr Balram Singh vs Union of India (2024), which dismissed challenges to their inclusion. The Court ruled that the Constitution is a living document, and can be amended by Parliament.'Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. The Preamble's original tenets—equality of status and opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice - social, economic, political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, reflect this secular ethos,' Justice Sanjay Kumar ruled.Earlier, in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368, provided the basic structure is not violated.advertisementWhy do debates about these terms persist?The debate has been fuelled by the rise of the BJP, which is seen as a party with a clear Hindutva leaning. Ironically, its politics, based on largesse and doles, is based on socialism.In 2015, the Narendra Modi government used an image of the original Preamble (without socialist and secular). Its ministers defended the decision, arguing there should be a debate on these terms.Some right-wing ideologues argue 'secular' promotes 'pseudo-secularism,' a term popularised by former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani. The BJP derides this as 'minority appeasement.'The Congress counters the terms clarify India's commitment to equality and unity, are widely accepted, and align with constitutional provisions.It says the RSS and its affiliates see secularism as a counter to their agenda of imposing Hindutva on India.The SpinEvery government has outperformed others on so-called welfarism, dishing out sops, especially before polls, and yet disses socialism.Since taking office in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has significantly expanded India's welfare initiatives, focusing on women and farmers. His administration has invested over Rs 34 trillion in the past decade, providing essentials like cooking gas, free grain, housing, toilets, piped water, electricity, and bank accounts, while enhancing a jobs guarantee program.advertisementAs part of the welfare agenda, the government delivers Rs 6,000 annually to over 110 million farmers, one of the largest cash transfer schemes globally. These initiatives, promoted as Modi's personal 'guarantees,' have reached over 900 million people.While the inclusion of socialism and secularism during a period of democratic restrictions sparked debate, the terms align with India's diverse and evolving society.The Supreme Court and successive governments have upheld these terms as integral to India's constitutional identity, and have been widely accepted since 1976.But critics continue to question their necessity and historical legitimacy, primarily for ideological one upmanship, and to question the legacy of Indira Gandhi, who, despite the Emergency, remains a towering figure.- EndsMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
JNU during Emergency: When Maneka Gandhi was left fuming and a case of mistaken identity
Three months after the Indira Gandhi government imposed Emergency, on September 25, 1975, a black Ambassador drove into the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus and stopped near its School of Social Sciences. In the car were policemen led by DIG P S Bhinder, who was close to Congress leader Sanjay Gandhi, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's younger son. They were looking for JNU Students' Union president D P Tripathi but ended up detaining the wrong man. 'Bhinder virtually kidnapped me. They were looking for D P Tripathi, who looks quite different, but arrested me instead,' recalls journalist Prabir Purkayastha. At the time, he was a PhD scholar at the School of Computer Sciences and, like Tripathi, a member of the CPI(M)'s student wing SFI. The incident took place while the students were on strike following the expulsion of student leader Ashoka Lata Jain, Purkayastha's fiancée. 'We had stopped Maneka Gandhi, the then PM's daughter-in-law, from going to her class,' he says, remembering what triggered the police response. In Emergency Chronicles: Indira Gandhi and Democracy's Turning Point, historian Gyan Prakash writes, 'On the day Prabir was abducted, Maneka arrived on campus just before 9:00 a.m. for her class in the School of Languages. She got out of her black Ambassador and walked to the elevator to go up to her classroom. As she waited, Tripathi, accompanied by other students including Prabir, asked her to heed the strike call and boycott classes. 'You are one of us, Mrs. Gandhi Junior!' Maneka exploded in anger. 'Just you wait and see. Your heads will roll on the ground!' Then she stomped off. An hour later, another Ambassador entered JNU, and Prabir was whisked off.' In his statement to the Shah Commission, which the Janata Party government set up in 1977 to investigate the excesses of Emergency, Additional District Magistrate (South) P Ghosh said South Delhi SP Rajendra Mohan had told him that Bhinder had gone to JNU to arrest Tripathi because Maneka Gandhi complained to her husband about the 'anti-government activities in JNU and Sanjay Gandhi had summoned Shri Bhinder and had asked him to take drastic action'. Tripathi, meanwhile, went into hiding, holed up in a washerman's house behind the Statesman Building on Barakhamba Road in the Capital for a few days. Two months later, he was arrested and sent to Tihar Jail, where he remained till the end of Emergency with other political detainees, including Arun Jaitley. 'Frankly, the imposition of Emergency was a surprise to all of us,' says Purkayastha. 'The Supreme Court had partially stayed her (Indira Gandhi's) disqualification as an MP and allowed her to continue as Prime Minister. But these developments happened against the backdrop of various protests, by students, youth, and workers.' The news of Emergency broke not in print, but on the radio on June 26. 'It is difficult for people today to imagine a life without cellphones and social media. So, we discovered Emergency only the next morning, without newspapers. All newspaper publications had been halted by cutting off electricity to their printing presses. We learned the news on All India Radio when Mrs Gandhi announced it,' recalls the 75-year-old. At JNU, student organisers regrouped immediately. 'The immediate response of the SFI was to create new structures that would operate during the Emergency. We began to function as smaller, more decentralised groups while coordinating our resistance,' says Purkayastha. As Opposition leaders and activists were rounded up, a politically active campus such as JNU — the irony was that it is named after the PM's father — was also targeted. On July 8, Prakash writes, the police raided the campus around 3 am and arrested around 25 students, most of them randomly. 'We had one major crackdown when a large number of policemen surrounded the campus and hostels, conducting room-to-room searches. By then, none of the student leaders were sleeping in their rooms. The few taken away were released shortly, as police had failed to net the big fish they were hoping to get,' says Purkayastha. Political life on campus was as much about discourse as it was about mobilisation. 'One thing that demarcated student politics in JNU was a vibrant culture of debate and discussion combined with mass actions. Prakash Karat, D P Tripathi, and Sitaram Yechuri were all active in student politics,' he says. The faculty also played a crucial role in campus life. 'We had Professor Bipan Chandra, who often disagreed with us but would debate as an equal; Professor Sudipto Kaviraj; Professor Romila Thapar, Professors Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik, whose writings helped us understand history and the political economy of the country,' says Purkayastha. He was detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), a preventive detention law widely used during Emergency, and taken to Tihar. 'The difference in jail then was that we were treated as political prisoners … At present, there is no distinction between political prisoners charged under criminal laws and other undertrials.' Purkayastha's detention triggered protests at JNU. 'There was widespread protest against my arrest from students and teachers. Tripathi was arrested a couple of months later. For some time, both of us shared a ward with Professor M M P Singh, the President of the Delhi University Teachers Association; Nanaji Deshmukh; and Arun Jaitley.' After six months, he was shifted to Agra Jail, 'a jail which was supposed to have been closed and demolished, but continued for the period of Emergency'. 'Even though there is no distinction between those who are targeted for political reasons and others, there was camaraderie in prison. It cut across politics, class and even the kind of offences people were charged with. The isolation was worse in Agra, where we also faced solitary confinement. For families, it became harder to visit, though Ashoka, my fiancée, still came every fortnight.' Looking back, Purkayastha says the experience strengthened his political views. It ended up not being his last brush with the law. He went on to establish the NewsClick website and was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA in 2023, accused of receiving foreign funds for pro-China propaganda. In May 2024, days after the Supreme Court invalidated his arrest, a Delhi court granted him bail. 'I was already a student activist of the SFI from my pre-JNU days. My jail period (during Emergency) confirmed my views of the nature of the State and the importance of various freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. There is no question that the freedom of the press is intimately linked to our right to speak as citizens, to our freedom of speech and expression,' he says.
Hindustan Times
28 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
BJP holds protests across Haryana on 50 years of Emergency
Gurugram: Marking 50 years since the imposition of Emergency, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Wednesday organised awareness programmes, protests and meetings across Haryana, accusing the Congress of crushing democracy and trampling the Constitution in its pursuit of power. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) organised awareness programmes and protests across Haryana marking 50 years of Emergency. (HT PHOTO) At a gathering held at Maharaja Agrasen Bhawan in Sohna, BJP state general secretary Dr Archana Gupta described the Emergency as one of the darkest chapters in independent India's history, where fundamental rights were suspended, press freedom was muzzled and political opponents were jailed. 'Indira Gandhi imposed the Emergency on June 25, 1975, murdering the Constitution and democracy. The entire nation knows how Congress crushed the soul of the Constitution for political survival,' Gupta said, warning that even today, the Congress carries forward the same dictatorial tendencies under a democratic façade. BJP leaders Govind Bhardwaj and Nagendra Sharma shared similar sentiments, accusing Congress of remaining trapped in dynastic politics. 'Whether then or now, real power has remained within the Gandhi family,' Bhardwaj said. District BJP chief Ajit Yadav said Emergency wasn't just a political crackdown but an attack on human dignity. 'Thousands were jailed, tortured, and organizations like the RSS, Jan Sangh, and ABVP were banned simply to crush dissent,' he added, asserting that under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, BJP is committed to strengthening democracy. Meanwhile, senior Congress leader Pankaj Dawar hit back, dismissing BJP's state-wide events as a political distraction meant to cover the party's own failures. Dawar accused the BJP of systematically silencing opposition leaders through fabricated cases, intimidating journalists, and turning institutions like the ED, CBI, and Income Tax Department into political tools.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
RSS leader wants a review of ‘socialist', ‘secular' in Preamble. All Emergency-era changes must go
RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale has raised an interesting point by seeking the removal of 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Constitution's Preamble. Ideological debates apart, Constitutional amendments from an illegitimate Emergency-era Parliament in its sixth year have no sanctity. All of these should go, including the remnants of the 42nd Amendment. Trump is preparing the grounds for a shift. A reformed Iran is good for everyone From fury to praise, Trump is softening toward Iran ahead of next week's talks —allowing China to buy oil, saying Tehran fought bravely. He's preparing the grounds for a shift. A reformed Iran, with reasonable nuclear guarantees in the system, is good for everybody. Some sanctions may even be lifted.
