When LS passed 42nd Amendment, Indira said: ‘Secular, socialist in Preamble echo Constitution'

Indian Express

a day ago

In the midst of the Emergency, the Lok Sabha in October 1976 debated and passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which brought sweeping changes to the Constitution, when the Opposition leaders had been in jail.
On October 27, 1976, participating in the discussion on this legislation, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said in the House that the inclusion of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution through it was just spelling out 'what was already there in the Constitution'.
'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist. These are not new definitions. They have guided our laws all these years. All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira told the Lok Sabha.
Recently, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale sought a discussion on whether 'socialist' and 'secular' should continue to remain in the Preamble. Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh have lent their weight to Hosabale's pitch, even as Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma have castigated the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble.
The 42nd Constitutional Amendment was passed with a special majority by both the Houses but in 1977, when the Janata Party government came to power after winning the Lok Sabha polls, it reversed almost all the changes that this law brought into force while still retaining 'socialist' and 'secular' and fundamental duties.
With the Opposition members in prison, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment got widespread support in the House, with a note of caution sounded by political scientist and Independent MP P G Mavalankar, the son of the first Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar.
P G Mavalankar, who was not arrested because of the stature of his family, also criticised the Emergency. 'I ask: are there conditions conducive to a free debate today? Is there a free press? Is the public forum in continuous and free possession of the people? Are the media of radio and TV equally serviceable to differing, opposing and conflicting viewpoints and opinions? The answer is obviously and most categorically 'No'. The publicity has been almost entirely one-sided; there has been practically a one-way traffic,' he said in the House, questioning how free the debate on the Constitutional Amendment Bill could be.
'Throughout my life, I have been wedded to socialist and secular ideals,' Mavalankar said on the insertion of the two terms, 'But I want to ask you: can we change the Preamble which was passed on 26 November 1949 and that was specifically mentioned in the Preamble which says: 'We the people of India etc?' The Preamble is a part of the Constitution, not strictly; though undoubtedly it is the key of the Constitution. Therefore, if you put words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, I am afraid a time will come when some people might say: remove the word 'democracy'. Already the substance has gone; the word may also go next time.'
Notwithstanding this dissent, the changes received support from the entire House, mainly the Treasury bench MPs.
'The objectives which we had always in view, namely, socialism and secularism, which we have tried to implement, will be more and more implemented and will be more accurately and correctly reflected in a basic part of our Constitution, namely, the Preamble,' then Union Law Minister H R Gokhale said. 'Let anyone say that 'socialism' or 'secularism' is incapable of definition. Well, if that argument were to be accepted, even 'democracy' in that sense is incapable of definition because, is it not understood in different ways in different countries? But, we understand what kind of democracy we stand for. In the same way, we understand what 'socialism' stands for and what 'secularism' stands for.'
CPI leader Indrajit Gupta said, 'It is very welcome also that the word 'secular' is being introduced. We want to understand what is the significance behind this. Because our State is a secular State, our State respects and recognises, and gives equal rights to people belonging to all religions or faiths or to people of no religion, in law.'
Indrajit Gupta also said: 'When the government itself has come forward to add the word 'secular', particularly here, I take it to mean something; I take it to mean that the secular aspect of our democracy requires to be strengthened; otherwise it is superfluous to introduce this word here… I take it that what we want to assure the people of all faiths and communities and religions particularly the minorities is that we mean to take some further action, legislative and others, to strengthen and secularise the content of our democracy.'
Supporting the Bill, Congress MP P R Shenoy dismissed as emotional the concern that sweeping changes were being made to the Constitution, with Opposition MPs in prison. 'Certain events in the country have made it necessary to lay emphasis on certain concepts like nationalism and secularism…. One of the serious objections to the Constitutional Amendment is that it should wait for certain men, men who are under detention and men who are not willing to express their views as long as there is Emergency – not that they are not allowed to express their views but they do not want to express their views until there is Emergency – and men who will occupy the seats of this House after the next elections. This objection, I feel, is more of a sentimental nature. There is no rationality behind it. In the history of a nation, time and tide wait for no man.'
Then Union Minister Swaran Singh said that the inclusion of the word secular was 'very vital for our country to grow from strength to strength and to remain united and a strong nation'. He added that the word had become very popular across India. 'You may go to the Punjab, to Gujarat, even to the South; when they make speeches in their own languages they always use the word 'secular' because it has assumed a definite meaning and that meaning is that there will be equality before the eye of the law in our Constitution with regard to people professing different religions. Not only that but more than that there is no connotational element of any anti-religious feeling but it is really respect for all religions.'
Taking a dig at the Jana Sangh, Congress MP C M Stephen said, 'There are people who are speaking about communal authority. Jana Sangh is going about with a sectarian point of view and a divisive philosophy. Therefore, it is necessary that the Preamble reminds the nation that the nation has been committed to secularism and there can be no going away from secularism. This is the sentiment of the nation; this is the will of the nation; this is the faith of the nation and the Constitution reflects the new found faith and the belief, commitment and promises which they are giving to themselves.' He added that this was the same Constitution that was given to the people in 1949, but with a few amendments.