By the time this is read, someone in the Sangh parivar may again have proposed “debating” the removal of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ from the Preamble of the Constitution. This time it was RSS general-secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, who on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency demanded that these words be struck off. His justification: they were not in the original Constitution and were added by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. The deeper message: these values are redundant.
Let us be clear. This is not a constitutional correction. It is not an academic argument. It is a political proposition — a vision of a different India. One that is not secular or socialist. One that replaces Dr Ambedkar’s vision of an inclusive republic with a narrow Hindu-first, market-driven order. This vision of the future is regression dressed as reform.
Two visions, two Indias
India as envisioned in the Constitution is plural, inclusive, democratic. It is secular — not because it rejects religion but because it upholds the idea of equal respect for all faiths. It is socialist — not because it abolishes enterprise but because it promises justice — social, economic and political — for all.
The model proposed by the Sangh is a Hindu Rashtra in spirit and a corporate enterprise in action. Religion takes centre stage — not as a matter of private belief but as a political instrument. Markets decide not just wealth but also worth. In India’s unequal society, the minorities must know their place, and the poor must know their limits.
Published: undefined
This new India is not the result of a new constitutional vision. It is the old dream of those who opposed the Constitution in 1950, those who did not salute the flag in 1947, and those who have long derided the very idea of equality between castes, communities and citizens.
What the Constitution actually says
It is true that the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were added to the Preamble via the 42nd amendment in 1976. But it is false to argue that the ideas were not already embedded in the text. Article 14 guarantees equality. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion. Articles 27 and 28 keep religion out of public education and taxation. Articles 29 and 30 protect minority rights in culture and education.
These are not incidental; they are foundational. In Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In S.R. Bommai (1994), it reiterated that the Indian State cannot promote one religion over another. The Kesavananda Bharati judgement came before the 42nd amendment and Bommai reiterated this position after. They are binding law. They are settled morality.
Similarly, ‘socialism’, in the Indian context, refers to the idea of a welfare state. Directive Principles like Article 39 (distribution of material resources for the common good) and Article 43 (living wage) embody this vision. The Indian model was never one of free-market fundamentalism. It was and tries to be a model of social justice through constitutional democracy. Over the past decade, however, inequality has galloped, growing to unprecedented levels, not seen even during the British Raj.
Published: undefined
Why this attack, and why now?
The call to remove these words is not sudden — it is the culmination of a long ideological project. Since the time of the Constituent Assembly, there have been forces uncomfortable with the vision of a modern India. Forces that prefer Manusmriti to the Constitution; who believe in hierarchy, not equality; who invoke ancient ‘civilisational values’ to mask present-day power politics.
They never fully accepted the idea that a Dalit, a Muslim, a tribal, a woman, or a poor farmer has the same claim on the Indian republic as anyone else. But now, emboldened by an electoral majority and the current political drift, they seek to write that ideology into law.
They forget one thing, though: the Constitution does not belong to Parliament alone. It belongs to the people — and the people did not choose Hindu Rashtra. They chose fraternity. They did not choose majoritarianism — they chose equality. They did not choose laissez-faire — they chose a State that protects the weak.
A word of caution and a word of hope
For those targeting the Preamble, remember: the Preamble is not cosmetic — it is a covenant. To erase its words is to attack its soul. With your temporary majorities, do not presume to retain what you like and throw out what you don’t.
For defenders of the Republic, this is the time to draw a Lakshmana Rekha. We must say clearly: this Constitution is ours — our inheritance, our weapon, our duty. We do not accept edits from those who never accepted its first draft. We do not bow to those who never stood up for its values.
Sanjay Hegde is a senior advocate in the Supreme Court of India
Published: undefined
Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram
Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines
Published: undefined