Hosabale remarks on Preamble: Rahul says RSS ‘mask has come off'
A day after RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale sought a discussion on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular' should remain in the Preamble, Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said 'RSS mask' has come off once again, and that the Constitution troubles them 'because it speaks of equality, secularism and justice'.
Opposition parties, including the CP(I)M and the RJD, too, condemned Hosabale's remarks
'…they want 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,' said Gandhi in a post on X. 'RSS should stop dreaming this dream – we will never let them succeed. Every patriotic Indian will defend the Constitution until their last breath.'
Congress MP and communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh, meanwhile, referred to the November 25 Supreme Court order which dismissed petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the 42nd amendment — through which the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added to the Constitution's Preamble the Emergency period in 1976,
Ramesh said these terms have achieved 'widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by 'We, the people of India' without any semblance of doubt'.
'The Chief Justice of India himself delivered a judgment on November 25, 2024 on the issue now being raised by a leading RSS functionary. Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?' he said.
Ramesh said that the RSS and the BJP 'have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution'. 'This was Mr. Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem,' he said.
On Thursday, Hosabale had said, 'The words socialist and secular were added to the Preamble. No attempt was made to remove them later. So, there should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building (Ambedkar International Centre) named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose Constitution did not have these words in the Preamble.'
RJD chief and former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad said: 'The country's most casteist and hateful organisation RSS has called for changing the Constitution… They do not have the guts to cast an evil eye on the Constitution and reservations provided therein…'
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said: 'Invoking the emergency to discredit these principles is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS colluded with the Indira Gandhi Government during that time for its own survival… To use that period now to undermine the Constitution reflects sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.'
On November 25, a bench of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution also extends to the Preamble and rejected the argument that the words could not have been added retrospectively in 1976 to the original Preamble which has a cut-off date of November 26, 1949.
In a statement, Congress MP and whip in Lok Sabha, Manickam Tagore, said: 'The RSS always wanted the Constitution to be attacked, and to be removed… We all know RSS stands for Manuvad and they want to spread hate. They call themselves a cultural organisation, not a political one. We all know the attack on words like secularism and socialism is an attack on the Constitution and parliamentary democracy. We will fight for the Constitution.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
38 minutes ago
- The Print
Shivraj seconds Hosabale's call for review of insertion of secularism, socialism in Preamble
'Secularism is not the core of our culture. That is why there should indeed be a discussion about it. The word 'secularism' was added during the Emergency—there should be deliberation on removing it,' Chouhan said to a question on whether these terms should be removed from the Preamble. These words, according to the senior BJP leader, were not part of India's civilisational ethos and had been inserted during the 1975 Emergency. New Delhi: After Dattatreya Hosabale of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan joined the bandwagon demanding a rethink on the relevance of the words secularism and socialism in the Constitution. In Varanasi, the Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare also described India as 'an ancient and great nation' founded on the principle of Sarva Dharma Sambhav—equal respect for all faiths. He emphasised that India, as a civilisation, has long upheld religious harmony and mutual respect across traditions. 'This is the India that, not today but thousands of years ago, said 'Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti'—Truth is one, the wise call it by many names,' he said, quoting ancient scripture to underline India's pluralistic tradition. 'This is the India that says 'Munde munde matir bhinna'—every mind is different. It respects differing thoughts and forms of worship.' Citing Swami Vivekananda's historic speech in Chicago, Chouhan added, 'No matter which path you follow, ultimately all lead to the same supreme truth.' A day earlier, Hosabale had forcefully argued for reviewing the inclusion of secularism and socialism in the Constitution. The RSS general secretary said the two terms were inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency—bypassing public debate—and were not part of the Constitution originally drafted by Chouhan also questioned the relevance of socialism in contemporary India, asserting that Indian philosophy already embodies egalitarian values through its ancient teachings. 'Atmavat sarvabhuteshu—to see oneself in all beings—is India's fundamental thought. The entire world is one family—this is India's spirit. Live and let live, let there be goodwill among living beings, let the world be well,' he said. 'Sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah—may all be happy, may all be free of illness—this is India's true sentiment. That's why we don't need socialism,' Chouhan said. 'We've been saying it for years—Sia Ram may sab jag jani—see everyone as one and the same. There is no need for imposed socialism.' The nation, the Union Minister said, must seriously reflect on this (removal of secularism and socialism from the Constitution. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: 'Mask comes off' as RSS wants 'Manusmriti', says Rahul on call to drop 'secular' from Constitution
The Hindu
38 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Uttarakhand HC clears path for panchayat polls
New Delhi The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday vacated its interim stay on the upcoming panchayat elections, allowing the electoral process to move forward while directing the State government to respond to allegations regarding irregularities in the reservation roster. A Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Alok Mahara passed the order while hearing multiple petitions challenging the reservation allocations for the rural body elections. The stay, originally issued on June 23, just two days after the State had announced the election schedule, had stalled polls that were set to take place on July 10 and 15, with results scheduled for July 19. Over a dozen petitions were filed by residents from various districts, raising concerns about repeated allocation of seats to the same social groups over successive terms. The petitioners alleged that such practices violate Article 243 of the Constitution and go against various Supreme Court judgments. They contended that seats for block pramukh and district panchayat president were not being rotated fairly among different categories. In response, the state government informed the court that it had revised the previous reservation roster following observations made by the National Commission for Backward Classes, necessitating a new list for the current elections. After examining submissions from both sides, the court noted that while there were some instances of repetition in reserved seats, the number was negligible when compared to the total number of seats. It also observed that new panchayats had been created following delimitation, contributing to the apparent irregularities. 'Petitioners have raised various contentions, including the validity of Rule 4(4), and argued that even general category seats reserved for women should fall within the 50% reservation ceiling. Prima facie, this argument does not appeal to the Bench,' the court noted in its order. The court has directed the State Election Commission to release a revised election schedule, extending the previously announced dates by four days. It also ordered the state government to file its response to the allegations within three weeks. The matter will next be heard on July 28.
India Today
an hour 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
