Latest news with #DattatreyaHosabale
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
The Conscience Network: Fighting the emergency and the US battlefront
The element of equivalence between then and now is probed delicately but bravely by this book which revisits the Emergency and the resistance to it from a new angle Aditi Phadnis Mumbai Listen to This Article The Conscience Network: A Chronicle of Resistance to a Dictatorship Published by Penguin 553 pages ₹1,299 There can be no debate on the Emergency in India. It was a dark time in Indian democracy and politics for which even the Congress has offered an explanation and a qualified apology. But 50 years after the event, the mystifying demand of top Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) functionary Dattatreya Hosabale that the words 'socialist' and 'secular' be removed from India's preamble does make you wonder. The 42nd Amendment that introduced the words during the Emergency didn't just amend the Preamble which is non-justiciable
Hans India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Silence on Preamble words good
It is heartening to note that the government has not taken any decision on the removal of 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble of the Constitution. An assurance to this extent was given in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha by the Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghawal. It felt good to hear that the government has not initiated any legal or Constitutional process to remove the words from the Preamble, though RSS general Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale clarified in their official publication that these two terms were added to the Preamble during the Emergency. Dr T Ramadas,Visakhapatnam
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
RSS leader Hosabale calls for moral transformation to heal society and environment
Dattatreya Hosabale (ANI) NEW DELHI: RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Thursday said both external and internal forms of pollution must be tackled with equal seriousness, asserting that a meaningful life in today's times demands not just lifestyle changes but also a moral transformation in the society. Speaking at a book launch that was also attended by environment minister Bhupender Yadav, Hosabale said, "Today, in the context of the environment, Bhupenderji shared some important thoughts. He brought serious challenges to light and I agree with what he said." "There are two types of pollution in the environment - one external and one internal to us. To fix the external pollution, we must change our lifestyle and Bhupenderji mentioned this as well," he said. Hosabale said the "inner" pollution in human beings, which he described as traits like corruption, arrogance, deceit and laziness, is equally serious. "Humans must protect themselves from it too. For life to be meaningful and successful, we must tackle both these challenges in today's difficult times," he said. Hosabale also pointed to social divisions as part of the problem, saying a clean environment also includes mental and behavioural change. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Many Are Watching Tariffs - Few Are Watching What Nvidia Just Launched Seeking Alpha Read More Undo "There is a problem within the society as well. That environment must be improved. It begins in our minds, it starts with our behaviour and conduct.... Thinking in terms of high and low, us versus them," he said. Addressing the event, Yadav invoked India's cultural traditions to stress the need for a balance in human-nature relations. "The Paris Agreement mentions respecting cultural traditions that see earth as a mother," he said. Referring to the government's lifestyle campaign, he added, "Now, because of Mission LiFE, every environmental document around the world writes that we need sustainable development and a balanced lifestyle. These ideas originate from India and its philosophical traditions, such as vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the world is one family) and sarve bhavantu sukhinah (may all be happy)." Yadav said India's civilisational values continue to offer answers to modern ecological challenges and global frameworks are now recognising those.
News18
17-07-2025
- Politics
- News18
Time For India To Stop Wearing The ‘Secular' And ‘Socialist' Labels
Last Updated: One is a colonial, Western construct weaponised against India's civilisation; the other, an infatuation with Soviet Union and its oppressive communist economy, which finally failed The words of RSS sarkaryavah or general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale have often been the bellwether to profound and unexpected change. His statement against the decriminalisation of homosexuality under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, for instance, paved the way for the Indian Right bringing down its wall of resistance towards the reform. So, when 'Datta-ji" calls for a debate on the words 'secular" and 'socialist", which were inserted into the Preamble of the Constitution not by Parliament but through the backdoor during Emergency, his words carry both weight and edge. 'Later, these words were not removed. Should they remain or not, a debate must happen. These two words were not in Dr Ambedkar's Constitution. During the Emergency, the country had no functioning Parliament, no rights, no judiciary and yet these two words were added," Hosabale said. Has the Narendra Modi dispensation made up its mind to remove 'secular" and 'socialist" from India's Constitution? It seems so. Secularism was a European concept that evolved after a conflict between the Church and the King, he said. He argued Bharat is a dharma-centric nation, and therefore, 'secularism" was not part of the Constitution but added during the Emergency by 'one insecure prime minister". The founding parents of the Indian Constitution had extensively debated the subject before deciding not to include the two terms. On November 15, 1948, KT Shah proposed an amendment to the draft of the Indian Constitution to include 'Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States". However, BR Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, junked the proposal. He said, 'What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised in its social and economic side, are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances." Ambedkar was staunchly against codifying an ideology like socialism in the Constitution and restricting future generations from choosing their own path. 'It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether," he said. Ambedkar argued that the Constitution blueprint already had socialist principles laid down through the Directive Principles of State Policy. He pointed to Article 31 of the draft, which already prescribed a strong dose of socialism by preventing the concentration of wealth and providing equal pay for equal work. And both Jawaharlal Nehru and Ambedkar argued that the term 'secular" did not need to be explicitly mentioned in the Preamble. Ambedkar said the Constitution had already made it clear that India would not recognise any religion. Articles 16 and 19, for instance, prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion. Nehru said the notion of Western secularism did not fit Bharat's ideas of religious tolerance and respect for all cultures, ironically echoed by Ravi and the RSS-BJP ecosystem so many decades later. But Congress member of the Constituent Assembly Lokanath Misra was perhaps one of the most outspoken and unabashed voices against 'secularism". He called 'secular State" a 'slippery phrase, a device to bypass the ancient culture of the land". He argued that religion could not be divorced from life. 'If religion is beyond the ken of our State, let us clearly say so and delete all reference to rights relating to religion. If we find it necessary, let us be brave enough and say what it should be," he said. Here is a particularly impassioned—many may say politically incorrect—excerpt of his speech at the Constituent Assembly debates. 'We have no quarrel with Christ or Mohammad or what they saw and said. We have all respect for them. To my mind, Vedic culture excludes nothing. Every philosophy and culture has its place but now, the cry of religion is a dangerous cry. It denominates, it divides and encamps people in warring ways. In the present context what can this word 'propagation' in Article 19 mean? It can only mean paving the way for the complete annihilation of Hindu culture, the Hindu way of life and manners. Islam has declared its hostility to Hindu thought. Christianity has worked out the policy of peaceful penetration by the backdoor on the outskirts of our social life. This is because Hinduism did not accept barricades for its protection. Hinduism is just an integrated vision and a philosophy of life and cosmos, expressed in organised society to live that philosophy in peace and amity. But Hindu generosity has been misused and politics has overrun Hindu culture. Today religion in India serves no higher purpose than collecting ignorance, poverty and ambition under a banner that flies for fanaticism. The aim is political, for in the modern world all is power-politics and the inner man is lost in the dust. Let everybody live as he thinks best but let him not try to swell his number to demand the spoils of political warfare. Let us not raise the question of communal minorities anymore. It is a device to swallow the majority in the long run. This is intolerable and unjust." It is time for Bharat to do away with 'secular" and 'socialist" labels—one a colonial, Western construct weaponised against India's civilisation; the other, an infatuation with the rise of the Soviet Union and its oppressive communist economy, which ultimately failed. top videos View all The new India must carefully choose what it wears, what it wants to be. Abhijit Majumder is a senior journalist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India Today
16-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Socialist-secular debate: ‘Dattatreya Hosabale seeks regression, not reform'
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated July 14, 2025)On June 26, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said the quiet part out loud. He wanted a discussion on whether the words 'secular' and 'socialist' 'should remain' in the Constitution's Preamble. He said Ambedkar never used these words and argued that they were smuggled in during the Emergency. The 50th anniversary of the Emergency was seemingly a good occasion to discuss deleting them does not seek reform; what he wants is a regression. The Constitution is not an la carte menu. You cannot pick what you like and discard the rest. The Preamble reflects our national purpose. To alter its core is not debate. It is the 42nd Amendment added those words in 1976. But the idea behind them was always there. Secularism and Socialism flow through the Constitution like groundwater. You won't find secularism on every page. But dig, and it's there. Article 14 promises equality before law. Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. Articles 27 and 28 keep religion out of state institutions. Articles 29 and 30 protect cultural and educational rights of minorities. None of these need the word 'secular' to work. But the word ties them together conceptually. Secularism in India is not about hostility to religion. It means the state keeps an equal distance from all religions. It does not bow before temple, mosque or church. It protects belief. And the right not to believe. That's not alien. That's constitutional. Socialism, too, is not an alien transplant. It means social justice. It means the state must look after the weak. It means wealth cannot be the only source of power. Ambedkar didn't oppose the idea. He only warned against locking in an economic model. But the Directive Principles say enough: reduce inequality, ensure fair wages, protect the dignity of labour. These are socialist values, Indian in says the amendment came during dark times. True. But a bad moment doesn't make every act bad. Courts didn't strike down that part of the amendment. Even the Janata government, which reversed much of the Emergency's excesses, retained those words, and Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani, as important ministers in that government, raised no objection to the continuation of those Supreme Court has settled this. In Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), secularism was enumerated among the Constitution's basic features. In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994), the court said secularism is part of the Constitution's basic features. These are not footnotes. These are judgments of large constitution cannot amend the basic structure. You cannot touch the foundation without breaking the house. Parliament is powerful, but not absolute. Hosabale's demand is not about semantics. It is about reshaping the state. It is about shifting India from a secular republic to a majoritarian democracy. That's not just a constitutional problem. It's a national is not one colour, one language, one faith. It is a complex, layered society. Secularism is how we manage that diversity. Not by denial. But by respect and neutrality. You don't need the word 'secular' to act secular. But once you drop the word, you make space for its opposite. That is the risk. Words matter. That's why the RSS wants to drop them. To clear the path for something else. They want a Hindu Rashtra, not a secular republic. Let us not pretend otherwise. This is not about constitutional clarity. It's about political ambition. The Preamble is not a draft. It is a declaration. It says who we are. It says what we aspire to be. We may not always live up to it. But we do not give up on it or allow our national covenant to be rewritten by those who never believed in its words to begin with.—The author is a senior advocate at the Supreme CourtadvertisementSubscribe to India Today Magazine- EndsMust Watch
