Latest news with #Hosabale
The Hindu
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously. High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS. In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution. There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter. In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.) Hosabale's objections Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.) Also Read | Preamble politics All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication. Debates on Preamble The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji. Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away. Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…' Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this. Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended. Spirit of secularism Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble. Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani: 'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.' While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances. Eternal principles Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'? These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble? There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'. Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge? With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed. Changes in 42nd Amendment The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978. It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times. Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change. Also Read | Secularism and the state That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule? 'Socialist' constraint His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about. Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name? And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles. But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew. Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
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.
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: Space In Textbook
Indian astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla's journey to the International Space Station (ISS) has already found a place in a new NCERT textbook for Class 5 released this month. The book for environmental studies has a chapter on Earth, which begins with what Shukla said in a conversation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi from the ISS on June 28: 'The Earth looks completely one, no border is visible from outside. It seems that no border exists, no state exists, no countries exist.' Addressing a gathering at a book launch in Delhi on Thursday, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said on a lighter note that he had requested Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav, who spoke before him at the event, to make a long speech so that he could get some time to formulate his thoughts. 'But he did not listen to me… I keep talking and when I do, people are troubled,' Hosabale said, making the whole auditorium break into laughter. Some wondered if this was a reference to Hosabale's recent statement seeking a debate on the inclusion of 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble during Emergency. On authoring a book, Hosabale said he did not have that capacity to write one, but when people ask, he simply says he has no time. When President Droupadi Murmu gave away the awards for the cleanest cities on Thursday, the awardees queuing up to go to the stage included some VVIPs, apart from the mayors and municipal commissioners representing their cities. While Punjab Governor and Chandigarh administrator Gulab Chand Kataria received the award for Chandigarh, Delhi Urban Development Minister Ashish Sood collected the award on behalf of New Delhi Municipal Council, though NDMC does not function under the Delhi government. For Noida, the award was handed over to UP Urban Development Minister A K Sharma. Before the award ceremony began, the awardees were reminded of the protocol — not handshakes or touching the feet of the President. Two former US ambassadors have been in the news for their high-profile appointments in the past one week. As Harsh Vardhan Shringla, former foreign secretary, gets nominated to the Rajya Sabha, his former colleague, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, has been appointed as an advisor to the US India Strategic Partnership Forum. Sandhu will also helm the foreign policy advocacy organisation's geopolitical institute. Sandhu had contested the Amritsar Lok Sabha seat in 2024 but lost to Congress's Gurjeet Singh Aujla.
Indian Express
13-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
CPM too opposed changes to Preamble during Emergency, now blaming RSS: Sangh-linked magazine
After RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's recent remarks questioning the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Constitution's Preamble sparked a row, RSS-affiliated magazine Organiser has carried a cover story on the topic. Its focus: CPI(M)'s opposition to the Emergency-era 42nd Amendment that led to the addition of the words to the Preamble. The magazine has also published a sharply worded editorial accusing the Congress and the Left of distorting the legacy of the Emergency and turning the RSS into a political scapegoat. While critics, particularly from the Left and the Congress, labelled Hosabale's remarks an ideological attack on the Constitution, Organiser's cover story by Ganesh Radhakrishnan in its latest issue sought to highlight what it called the CPI(M)'s 'original position' on the matter, one that it claimed closely mirrored the RSS's stand. Citing a 1976 pamphlet the CPI(M) published during the Emergency, the article said the party had explicitly criticised the addition of 'socialist' and 'secular', viewing them as a political manoeuvre by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to centralise power. The pamphlet, later republished in Malayalam by Chintha Publishers in 2005, warned that the amendment was part of a broader strategy to turn the Constitution into an instrument of one-party rule under Gandhi. The CPI(M)'s alternative proposal of 26 amendments at the time made no mention of 'socialist' or 'secular' either, the Organiser article claimed. According to the article, in a preface to the republished volume, senior CPI(M) leader P Govinda Pillai had opposed the amendments tooth and nail. 'Indira Gandhi wanted to portray that the declaration of Emergency and the constitutional amendments were not an expression of fascist tendencies, but rather, an effort to defeat fascist forces and implement democracy and socialism … These changes were not based on democratic consensus but on political expediency,' Pillai is quoted as saying. The article said Hosabale's recent statements had 'not deviated from its original position even today'. 'The onus now falls upon the CPM to clarify whether its stance has changed,' Radhakrishnan wrote. It also quoted CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby's remarks following Hosabale's statement to make its point. 'RSS's demand to remove socialism and secularism from the Constitution's Preamble is a direct assault on India's core values. RSS always pushed Manusmriti over our Constitution,' Baby said. Building on this, Organiser editor Prafulla Ketkar, in his editorial, accused the Congress and Left of historical revisionism. 'This year marks the fifty years of the dark days of the Emergency… Instead of recognising the personal dictatorial ambitions of Ms Indira Gandhi as the root cause of the Emergency, an attempt is being made to divert the blame to a selfless leader like JP (Jayaprakash Narayan) and a nationalist organisation like RSS,' Ketkar wrote. 'When RSS Sarkaryavah Dattatreya Hosabale spoke about how 'secularism' and 'socialism' were inserted into the Constitution during the Emergency, he was exposing this hypocrisy. Dr Ambedkar was unmistakable when he called out Communists as the enemies of the Constitution while dedicating the final draft to the nation in 1949. Various outfits with allegiance to communism have openly called the Constitution 'bourgeoisie', and most of them vowed to overthrow it someday,' he added. Ketkar accused the Congress of repeatedly trying to undermine constitutional democracy, citing Nehru's First Amendment and the UPA's proposed Communal Violence Bill, and dismissed the CPI(M)'s claims of ideological consistency. While the CPI(M) has yet to officially respond to the Organiser article, the party has maintained in the past that it opposed the Emergency and the way the constitutional changes were carried out, but supports the substantive values of socialism and secularism. The Congress has also repeatedly defended the incorporation of these principles as essential to India's democratic and plural ethos. In his address at a recent event in Delhi at the Dr Ambedkar International Centre, Hosabale said: 'During the Emergency, two words, 'secular' and 'socialist', were added to the Constitution, which were not part of the original Preamble. There was no Parliament, no rights, no judiciary functioning, and yet these words were added. That is why this matter must be discussed.'
India Gazette
11-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Odisha: Mallikarjun Kharge accuses BJP of
Bhubaneswar (Odisha) [India], July 11 (ANI): Congress chief Mallikarjun Kharge on Friday lambasted the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the centre, accusing it of 'dividing' people during the 'Samvidhan Bachao' rally and urged the youth to 'wake up' and protect the Constitution to save themselves. 'I urge the youth to wake up, rise and protect the Constitution. Only then will you be safe. BJP is dividing society and religion. They want to divide us,' Kharge said while addressing the gathering at the Samvidhan Bachao rally here. He further criticised the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the BJP for making statements against the 'poor' in the country and the Indian Constitution. The Congress chief argued that the ruling party doesn't even follow the writings of its own Constitution. 'Recently, I heard that the BJP wants to remove the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Constitution, even when their party's Constitution mentions it. In 1980, they wrote their Constitution and said that they would follow everything that is written in the Indian Constitution. But do they do it? Everywhere, RSS and BJP make statements against the poor and the Constitution,' Kharge said. The remarks made by RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale last month, demanding that the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution be reconsidered, sparked massive outrage in the political sphere, with opposition parties and leaders registering their objections. On June 26, addressing a program on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, RSS General Secretary Hosabale said that during the Emergency, terms like 'Socialism' and 'Secularism' were forcibly inserted into the Constitution, a move that needs to be reconsidered today. He emphasised that the Emergency wasn't just a misuse of power, but an attempt to crush civil liberties. Millions were imprisoned, and freedom of the press was suppressed. He said that those who imposed the Emergency and trampled the Constitution and democracy have never apologised. If they cannot apologise personally, they should do so on behalf of their ancestors. Hosabale was speaking at an event held at Dr Ambedkar International Centre, jointly organised by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (under the Ministry of Culture) and Ambedkar International Centre. (ANI)
