Politics and history of inclusion of ‘socialist' and ‘secular' in the Preamble

India Today

27-06-2025

RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has called for a debate on removing 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Constitution's Preamble, citing their addition during the Emergency (1975-1977) as a deviation from BR Ambedkar's original draft.Perspective: The Preamble describes India as a 'Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.' These words were added by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, during the Emergency imposed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.advertisementWhy are these words controversial?The terms were added during a period of quasi-dictatorship, when the government's word was the law. Critics argue they were imposed without proper debate. Some claim identification as a 'socialist' country limits policy choices. The right-wing, led by the RSS, sees 'secular' as a negation of India's Hindutva legacy.
Supporters argue the terms clarify India's syncretic culture, and define the responsibility of the government towards society, and neutrality on matters of faith.Did the Constituent Assembly discuss including 'secular and socialist' in the Preamble?Yes, some members proposed adding secular and socialist to describe India. They believed explicitly mentioning 'socialist' and 'secular' would codify the state's ideology.Constituent Assembly member Professor KT Shah made multiple attempts to include these terms in the Constitution. He argued that explicitly stating 'secular' would convey India's commitment to religious neutrality, and 'socialist' would reflect the state's aim to address economic inequalities.advertisementMembers like HV Kamath and Hasrat Mohani supported this argument.What was Dr BR Ambedkar's stand?Ambedkar, the Constitution's chief architect, opposed their inclusion. He viewed socialism as a provisional policy, not a constitutional mandate. Ambedkar believed that the future of such policies should be left to the government of the day. He argued that stating socialism as an immutable principle in the Preamble would undermine democratic flexibility. 'What should be the policy of the State are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether,' Ambedkar said.He argued that socialism was already embedded in the Constitution's Directive Principles of State Policy, making it redundant in the Preamble.Responding to Shah, he said: 'If these Directive Principles to which I have drawn attention are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore, my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.'Ambedkar, a Buddhist, was a firm believer in India's multicultural ethos. On secularism, Ambedkar felt the term was unnecessary, as the Constitution already guaranteed it through the Fundamental Rights. He pointed out that secularism was 'already contained in the draft Preamble,' and the broader constitutional framework ensured religious neutrality.advertisementHe did not oppose the notion of secularism itself but resisted its explicit mention, believing the Constitution's structural design sufficiently upheld the principle, and the state would treat all religions equally, ensuring non-discrimination without needing the label.Did India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru agree with Ambedkar?Nehru was a staunch socialist and proponent of secularism. He advocated religious freedom for all, 'including freedom for those who may have no religion.'Yet, he did not push for their explicit inclusion in the Preamble. He believed the structure of the Constitution ensured a welfare state with equal respect for all religions. Nehru's pragmatic approach echoed Ambedkar's views.To sum up: Both Ambedkar and Nehru believed the Constitution should set frameworks, not fixed policy ideologies.Outcome: The Assembly adopted the Preamble on November 26, 1949, without these terms.Why were 'secular and socialist' added to the Preamble?Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government added these terms to highlight the state's commitment to a welfare state. This reflected her commitment to poverty eradication - gareebi hataao. Secularism was added to reinforce religious neutrality to reflect the original intent of the Constitution, according to the Indira Gandhi government.advertisementThe amendment applied retroactively to November 26, 1949, which critics later challenged.The Janata Party government (1977–1980) reversed some parts of the 42nd Amendment but retained 'socialist and secular.'What has the Supreme Court said about these terms?They have been upheld by the Supreme Court, most recently in Dr Balram Singh vs Union of India (2024), which dismissed challenges to their inclusion. The Court ruled that the Constitution is a living document, and can be amended by Parliament.'Over time, India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith. This principle is enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit discrimination against citizens on religious grounds while guaranteeing equal protection of laws and equal opportunity in public employment. The Preamble's original tenets—equality of status and opportunity; fraternity, ensuring individual dignity—read alongside justice - social, economic, political, and liberty; of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship, reflect this secular ethos,' Justice Sanjay Kumar ruled.Earlier, in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court ruled the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution and can be amended under Article 368, provided the basic structure is not violated.advertisementWhy do debates about these terms persist?The debate has been fuelled by the rise of the BJP, which is seen as a party with a clear Hindutva leaning. Ironically, its politics, based on largesse and doles, is based on socialism.In 2015, the Narendra Modi government used an image of the original Preamble (without socialist and secular). Its ministers defended the decision, arguing there should be a debate on these terms.Some right-wing ideologues argue 'secular' promotes 'pseudo-secularism,' a term popularised by former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani. The BJP derides this as 'minority appeasement.'The Congress counters the terms clarify India's commitment to equality and unity, are widely accepted, and align with constitutional provisions.It says the RSS and its affiliates see secularism as a counter to their agenda of imposing Hindutva on India.The SpinEvery government has outperformed others on so-called welfarism, dishing out sops, especially before polls, and yet disses socialism.Since taking office in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has significantly expanded India's welfare initiatives, focusing on women and farmers. His administration has invested over Rs 34 trillion in the past decade, providing essentials like cooking gas, free grain, housing, toilets, piped water, electricity, and bank accounts, while enhancing a jobs guarantee program.advertisementAs part of the welfare agenda, the government delivers Rs 6,000 annually to over 110 million farmers, one of the largest cash transfer schemes globally. These initiatives, promoted as Modi's personal 'guarantees,' have reached over 900 million people.While the inclusion of socialism and secularism during a period of democratic restrictions sparked debate, the terms align with India's diverse and evolving society.The Supreme Court and successive governments have upheld these terms as integral to India's constitutional identity, and have been widely accepted since 1976.But critics continue to question their necessity and historical legitimacy, primarily for ideological one upmanship, and to question the legacy of Indira Gandhi, who, despite the Emergency, remains a towering figure.- EndsMust Watch