The Sangh Parivar has been using June 25, the day Indira Gandhi declared Emergency, as an opportunity to attack Congress and to portray itself as the protector of democracy. Though Indira’s Emergency was grave, many seeds of today’s indefinite, more barbaric, undeclared Emergency under Modi’s rule were sown during Indira’s time. The country must never forget this.
But does that mean the Sangh Parivar and its BJP are truly protectors of democracy? Or are they using the Emergency as a reason to launch a comprehensive attack on democracy and the Constitution and to implement their Hindu Rashtra in its place? It has already been extensively written that during the Emergency, the RSS fully supported it.
Now, on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, in the name of opposing the Emergency, has attacked the soul of India’s Constitution and democracy — secularism and socialism — and has initiated a discussion that these two words added during the Emergency should now be removed from the Preamble.
He provides three reasons for this:
The original Constitution’s Preamble didn’t contain the words “secular” and “socialist.” The Preamble cannot be amended by Parliament, and Indira Gandhi added them during the Emergency through an undemocratic process.
Even Dr Ambedkar didn’t approve of the secular and socialist concepts. Hence, their inclusion is anti-Ambedkar.
Secularism and socialism are opposed to India’s culture and civilisation.
At a glance, the first objection is a half-truth, while the other two are absolute lies. Before exploring those lies in depth, let’s look at what the Supreme Court recently said about this argument.
Supreme Court rejected RSS’ argument six months ago
Various organisations of the Sangh Parivar and their hired advocates have repeatedly brought up this issue in public and in courts. A recent example is the case filed by BJP MP Subramanian Swamy and Sangh-affiliated advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, demanding that the words “socialism” and “secularism” be removed from the Constitution’s Preamble.
On November 25, 2024, a two-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India, after careful consideration of the plea, dismissed it, saying it had no substance and was unwarranted.
The Supreme Court gave the following key reasons:
The Preamble is a part of the Constitution, and Parliament does have the authority to amend it.
Since 1973, the Supreme Court has consistently stated that socialism and secularism are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Therefore, including these two words in the Preamble is constitutionally valid.
Moreover, the petition, filed 44 years after the amendment, lacks any significant reasoning.
The RSS should have given up its arguments then. But it continues spreading falsehoods about the Constitution because it has a long-term objective behind keeping the debate alive.
42nd amendment – Verbal expression of existing essence?
Yes, the words “secular” and “socialist” were not in the Preamble on January 26, 1950. Indira Gandhi’s government added them through the 42nd constitutional amendment during the Emergency. But does the absence of words in the preamble mean the ideas themselves weren’t in the Constitution?
The Sangh says their absence from the Preamble meant the Constitution didn’t have those values. This is a dangerous lie.
In the 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case, three years before Indira added the words, the 13-judge constitutional bench declared:
Secularism is a part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Parliament cannot alter the basic structure.
Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and reflects the basic structure.
So, even before Indira added the words, secularism was legally and constitutionally part of the Constitution’s soul.
Further affirmations
Bommai case (1994): A nine-judge bench affirmed secularism as part of the Constitution’s core.
LIC case (1995): Again, the Preamble was affirmed to be part of the Constitution.
Ayodhya-Babri verdict (2019): Five judges confirmed secularism as part of the Constitution’s foundation.
Secularism case (2024): Supreme Court’s decision again reaffirmed the same.
Thus, from 1973 until now, in multiple cases, the Supreme Court has upheld secularism and socialism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
Even if one reads the Constitution carefully, its Preamble and other sections clearly highlight the values of secularism and socialism.
Secularism and the original Constitution
There are many interpretations of secularism across the world. After detailed debates, the Constituent Assembly agreed on an Indian definition:
The Indian State will not uphold any religion.
The State will treat all religions equally.
Citizens have the full freedom to follow or not follow any religion.
No discrimination shall be made based on religion.
Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, and 29 reflect this. For example:
Article 25 says, “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion…”
The Preamble, too, states:
“…to secure to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship…”
This is precisely what secularism means. So, how can one say secularism wasn’t there in the original Constitution?
Socialism and the original Constitution
Yes, the word “socialism” wasn’t in the original Preamble, and it was added through the 42nd Amendment. But the idea?
Socialism means – in essence – equal share and equal life for all. The four aspects of socialism are: distribution of wealth for the public good, preventing the concentration of wealth, reducing rich-poor gaps and ensuring economic justice, and ensuring dignity and opportunities for all.
The Preamble says:
“…to secure to all its citizens justice — social, economic, and political…”
The Directive Principles in Chapter 4 (e.g., Articles 38, 39, 41) lay out:
State must strive for economic justice for all
Eliminate inequalities in income, status, and opportunities
Guarantee the right to livelihood, equal pay, and prevent the concentration of wealth
These are all socialist ideals, only expressed in detailed terms. The 42nd Amendment simply added the word “socialist.”
Did Ambedkar oppose secularism and socialism?
Absolutely not. Ambedkar was a great secularist and socialist. He believed political democracy must be accompanied by social and economic democracy. He even proposed state ownership of land and industries and the dismantling of Brahminical caste hierarchies. Ambedkar warned that Hindutva is incompatible with democracy, and a Hindu Rashtra would be disastrous for the oppressed.
In the final discussion on the Preamble (Oct 17, 1949) in the Constituent Assembly, some members pushed for the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular'. Ambedkar responded that the values were already embedded in the Constitution and didn’t need explicit mention — a technical, not ideological, argument.
In response to KT Shah's demand to add ‘socialist’, on Nov 15, 1948, Ambedkar said, “Today, it is widely believed that socialism is better than exploitative capitalism. In the future, society may find something better than socialism.”
He also pointed to Chapter 4 — Directive Principles — already guiding the State in a socialist direction.
So, it is clear that Ambedkar expected the State to be secular and socialist in practice. Of course, in those days, socialism was considered to be a particular way of organising society and not just an ideal. And Ambedkar felt the Constitution cannot mandate a particular form of social organisation. Hence, he was reluctant to paraphrase an essentially socialist way of economy in clear terms.
That was more of a pragmatic consideration rather than ideological, because in another work, State and Minorities, Ambedkar declares State Socialism as the egalitarian economic model and delineates how to achieve it in detail. So, to consider Ambedkar as non-socialist and non-secular is once again committing Brahminical injustice to that great soul.
Is Sangh’s ‘original Constitution’ rhetoric a ploy against reservation?
Why is the Sangh suddenly invoking the ‘original Constitution’? Is it because it wants a version without the 128 amendments, which include reservation policies?
The original Constitution didn’t include reservations. It was through the First Amendment to the Constitution that reservation for Dalits and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was provided. Even land reforms were kept out of judicial scrutiny through the first amendment. By demanding the ‘original Constitution’, which would not have even the First Amendment provisions, is the Sangh fulfilling its anti-reservation objective?
Would the Sangh also want to undo the 103rd Amendment (EWS reservation) or the 128th Amendment (women’s reservation)? Unlikely.
Even the Janata Party (precursor to the BJP), which came to power in 1977, retained the secularism and socialism added by Indira Gandhi, even after annulling other amendments through the 44th Amendment.
Many governments since then have not removed these words, despite amendments.
Savarkar’s own constitution proposed secularism!
Back in 1944, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, on behalf of the All India Hindu Mahasabha, proposed a Constitution for Free Hindustan, modelled on Free Ireland’s. It stated that no religion would be the State’s official religion; the State shall guarantee religious freedom and no discrimination based on religion.
So if today's Sanghis want to remove secularism, shouldn’t they first denounce Savarkar?
Thus, it is only a testament to prove how duplicitous the Sanghis are. They can easily metamorphose according to the needs of the time, keeping the original intent in disguise. Though Savarkar blabbered about a secular state in his constitution catering to the main mood of those times, what Savarkar and Golwalkar always demanded was to make Manusmriti the Indian constitution, which, according to them, was the best constitution in the world. Today, the Sangh demands the same in a different form.
The Sangh parivar claims secularism and socialism are foreign. And tolerance and harmony are embedded in the culture and civilisation of India. Yet, Indian history is full of bloodshed where Brahminical India was violently intolerant, slaughtering Buddhists, silencing Charvakas.
In contrast, Shramana traditions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Basava’s teachings emphasised compassion and equality. Ambedkar described India’s history as a struggle between Brahminism and Buddhism. So if socialism and secularism seem foreign, it’s only to Brahminical tradition, not to India’s pluralistic Shramana tradition.
It is about essence, not words
During the Emergency, Indira Gandhi murdered the essence of democracy and built a verbal monument to the same by including the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble. Now the Modi government wants to dismantle even that.
But after 75 years of independence, the question to be asked is not whether the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ should be retained in the Constitution.
The real question should be: Why have these objectives remained only as words?
It is because post-1991, led by the Congress, all the governments have pursued the pro-big capitalist and anti-constitutional economic policy. After the advent of Hindutva in the 90s, its hegemony has been established over the opposition parties, and secularism is bleeding under every regime. The Modi government has increased its pace, barbarity and depth.
Hence, socialism and secularism are not just a technical debate of words. It is an ideological war to replace the Constitution with a Hindutva-corporate-Brahminical order. True patriots must resist this.
Shivasundar is an activist and freelance journalist. Views expressed are the author’s own.