'RSS never accepted Constitution': Political outcry over call to review 'secular' and 'socialist' in Preamble; opposition tags it 'largest casteist and hateful organisation'
Screenshot from the event.
NEW DELHI: Opposition parties strongly criticised RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's suggestion to review 'socialist' and 'secular' words in the Preamble, viewing it as an attack on the Constitution's essence.
At an Emergency-focused event, Hosabale had stated that these terms weren't in Ambedkar's original Preamble and suggested reconsidering their inclusion. Union minister Jitendra Singh supported this view, noting these weren't part of the original Constitution.
The Congress and CPI(M) voiced strong objections following the RSS's proposal to review these terms, which were incorporated during the Emergency period and weren't in Ambedkar's original draft.
Rahul Gandhi posted on X: "The Constitution irks them because it speaks of equality, secularism, and justice. The RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution; they want 'Manusmriti'. They aim to strip the marginalized and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda."
Kerala chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan criticised the move, noting the RSS' previous association with Indira Gandhi's government.
"RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call to review secularism and socialism in the Indian Constitution is a brazen attempt to dismantle the core ideals of our Republic. Invoking the emergency to discredit these principles is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS colluded with the Indira Gandhi Government during that time for its own survival.
To use that period now to undermine the Constitution reflects sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.
Secularism and socialism are not additions; they define India. Every citizen who believes in democracy must raise their voice against this communal agenda," he wrote on X.
Left parties and RJD suggested this was part of a broader plan to alter the Constitution.
Congress' Jairam Ramesh highlighted the BJP/RSS's historical opposition to the Constitution since November 30, 1949. Taking to X, Ramesh wrote, "The RSS has NEVER accepted the Constitution of India.
It attacked Dr. Ambedkar, Nehru, and others involved in its framing from Nov 30, 1949 onwards. In the RSS's own words, the Constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti. The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution.
"
"This was Mr. Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continues to be made by the RSS ecosystem.
The Chief Justice of India himself delivered a judgment on November 25, 2024 on the issue now being raised by a leading RSS functionary. Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?" he added.
The party's official stance emphasised their commitment to protecting constitutional values.
K C Venugopal pointed out that the Supreme Court had established socialism and secularism as fundamental to the Constitution's structure.
"The RSS' single-minded focus to destroy the Constitution is never hidden for too long. Beyond the BJP's lip service to the Constitution, their hidden agenda has always been to distort and destroy our Constitution - because it stands against the core fascist beliefs of the RSS-BJP.
A senior RSS member surely knows that the Supreme Court declared socialism and secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Yet, to take this stand is a clear insult to the Constitution, a rejection of its values, and a direct attack on the Supreme Court of India as well. The people of India know very well the devious means deployed by the RSS to spread poison and divide this country. We will never let them succeed in this mission, and will defend the Constitution to the hilt," wrote Venugopal.
RJD president Lalu Prasad expressed concerns about threats to social justice and communal harmony.
"The country's largest casteist and hateful organisation, RSS, has talked about changing the Constitution. They don't have the courage to even glance at the Constitution and reservations. Why do people with an unjust character harbour such hatred in their minds and thoughts towards democracy and Baba Saheb's Constitution?" wrote Lalu in Hindi.
The CPI(M) Politburo issued a statement defending the inclusion of these terms as reflective of freedom fighters' core values. CPI general secretary D Raja emphasised the importance of defending the Constitution.
BJP responded by accusing Congress of historical constitutional violations and called for acknowledgment of Emergency-era transgressions instead of creating diversions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
"Pathetic failure...no right to stay in their post": Sukanta Majumdar slams Mamata govt over Kolkata rape case
Union Minister and West Bengal BJP President Sukanta Majumdar strongly criticised the West Bengal government on Saturday following back-to-back crimes reported from educational institutions, including the recent RG Kar Medical College rape case. He said the government had no right to stay in their post if it could not ensure a safe environment for students. Majumdar emphasised that female students are not safe in West Bengal's educational institutions, citing the RG Kar Medical College incident and the latest law college case. While speaking to ANI, Majumdar said, "Both the incidents (recent and RG Kar rape case) happened inside an educational institution... Inability of the state government to stop these is a pathetic failure... Someone should take responsibility," Majumdar said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo He condemned the state government's pathetic failure in stopping these incidents and questioned their ability to maintain law and order and demanded that someone take responsibility for these failures, suggesting that the government has no right to remain in power if it cannot ensure safety. Reacting to the state government's justification, he further said, "You say police can't be everywhere... It must be at least accepted that the government is not able to maintain an environment of safety, and with such failures, they have no right to stay in their post." Live Events Earlier, Kolkata Police arrested the guard of the South Calcutta Law College , where a female student was allegedly gang-raped. Kolkata police said, "Guard of the Law College, Pinaki Banerjee (55) has also been arrested in the case." A female student was allegedly gang-raped inside the South Calcutta Law College in Kolkata's Kasba on Wednesday. Earlier, the police had arrested three accused within 24 hours. The three accused, named as Monojit Mishra (31), Zaib Ahmed (19), and Pramit Mukhopadhyay (20), were former students or staff members of the same law college. According to the police, the accused named in the FIR will be produced before the ACJM of Alipore, South 24 Parganas, with a prayer to remand them to Police Custody for a proper investigation into the case. The National Commission for Women (NCW) took suo motu cognisance of the incident on Friday. Taking immediate notice, NCW Chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar expressed deep concern and wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, urging a time-bound investigation under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Meanwhile, the alleged gangrape has triggered a political row between the leaders of the ruling TMC and the opposition BJP.
Hindustan Times
38 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Preamble not changeable yet changed during Emergency: V-P Jagdeep Dhankhar amid RSS call row
The Preamble of a Constitution is not changeable, but it was changed in 1976, said Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday. His remark came amid an ongoing controversy over the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seeking removal of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble. "We must reflect", said Jagdeep Dhankhar as he reminded people that the Preamble of the Constitution was changed in 1976. (PTI) While Dhankhar agreed that the Preamble is the "seed" on which the Constitution grows, he also reminded people that it was changed during Emergency in 1976, and the the words "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" were added to it. "We must reflect," Dhankhar said, underscoring that when B R Ambedkar formulated the Constitution, he must have "surely focused on it". He also said that India is the only country that has seen the Preamble of its Constitution undergo a change. What is the Preamble row? RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has objected to the use of words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution, and has sought their removal. The demand has sparked a controversy, with the BJP defending it and the Opposition calling it an insult to the Constitution and its framers. Hosabale argues that these terms were forcibly added to the Constitution and need to be reconsidered in the present times. 'Those who did such things are today moving around with the Constitution's copy. They have still not apologised... Apologise,' he said, in a veiled dig at Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi. This is not the first such call seeking removal of these terms. In November last year, the Supreme Court dismissed a series of petitions challenging the 1976 amendment. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment used to bring about these modifications in the Constitution was introduced by the erstwhile Indira Gandhi-led government during Emergency, from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. 'Mask of RSS has come off' Congress says the RSS is calling for modifications to the Preamble as it is upset that the document is not "inspired by Manusmriti". Rahul Gandhi also joined in the criticism for this call. "The mask of RSS has come off again," he said. "RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda," the Congress leader posted on X. Meanwhile, several BJP leaders have echoed the call raised by the RSS general secretary, saying secularism has been imported from the West and and does not represent Indian culture. "The basic sentiment of India is equality of all religions... Secularism is not the core of our culture," former Madhya Pradesh CM Shivraj Chouhan told news agency ANI. Many other BJP leaders believe that any citizen would amplify RSS's demand as the modifications made during Emergency were not part of the original Constitution written by Dr B R Ambedkar. (With PTI, ANI inputs)
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
US birthright citizenship: Supreme Court decision limits nationwide injunctions on Trump's birthright citizenship order
In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court (SC) made a partial ruling on President Trump's executive order (EO) regarding birthright citizenship. Deciding on the procedural issue, the SC held that judges of federal district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block a government policy (The birthright citizenship-EO, in this case). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It is important to note that the SC did not decide whether the EO itself is constitutional or not – this issue is still being examined by the federal district courts. WIDE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: The order, which has upended decades of precedent and curtailed federal courts' power to issue injunctions, is seen as having wide-reaching, onerous ramifications, which would not be restricted to just the issue of birthright-citizenship. Jath Shao, immigration attorney, explained, 'This would potentially mean that every affected party would have to file a lawsuit on their own, and not benefit from being similarly situated. This may also mean that activists have to fight in multiple jurisdictions, and can't just win nationwide relief in one federal courtroom anymore.' Todd Schulte, President at said, 'Moreover, we are deeply concerned this will create new incentives for an administration to press ahead on unlawful, harmful actions by placing a new, substantial burden on any harmed individuals, for whom seeking relief and justice will now be more challenging.' Abhinav Tripathi, immigration attorney and founder of Protego Law Group, said, 'This decision to limit nationwide injunctions is a major shift in how unlawful federal policies can be challenged. While class actions remain available, they are no substitute, especially in urgent immigration matters where delay can mean detention, deportation, or family separation. Class certification takes time, often excludes many affected, and lacks the immediacy that nationwide injunctions once provided. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This ruling in short, fragments relief, weakens judicial oversight, and concentrates power in the executive, undermining due process and equal protection at a structural level.' Greg Siskind, co-founder of Siskind Susser, an immigration law firm, viewed that federal courts could be brought to a screeching halt as thousands of separate lawsuits are filed. And now ordinary people will need to file suits to protect their constitutional rights, no matter how many courts say a policy is unconstitutional. Jeff Joseph, President, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), said, 'In a 6-3 decision, the SC has limited the ability for district judges to grant universal relief in cases where the government is facially violating the Constitution in ways that have implications for the entire country. Now, plaintiffs will have to go through the burdensome process of establishing a nationwide class of similarly situated individuals and then seek a nationwide injunction. Or cases will have to be filed on an individual and piecemeal basis, resulting in chaos in the courts. By requiring piecemeal suits and protection in this manner, the Court is setting American families up for failure. For example, if a young scientist, here on an H-1B visa, who is working and contributing to our economy, gives birth, she would need to join a class action suit or sue individually to try to fight for her child's constitutionally guaranteed right. This is impractical and will result in clogging up the courts on an issue that facially violates the Constitution and should not even be under question. The Constitution is clear—birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Once again, the rule of law is the loser today with this decision.' THE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EO: According to the EO, US citizenship is denied to children born in the United States if they are not born to at least one biological parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Thus, if the mother is in the US lawfully but temporarily (eg: as a visitor or on a non-immigrant visa – be it a dependent visa like H-4 or even a work visa) and the father is not a green card holder or US citizen, the child even if born in the US will not get automatic American citizenship. TOI had analysed the EO. Read also: Previously, three different lower courts (federal district courts) had issued orders that stopped this EO from being put into effect across the entire country. These were the district courts of Maryland, the Western District of Washington and Massachusetts. The Supreme Court's new ruling means these original court orders will now only protect the specific individuals, organisations, and states that filed the lawsuits against the executive order. The 22 protected states are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, plus Washington D.C. and San Francisco. For everyone else not involved in those lawsuits, the government will be allowed to start implementing the executive order in 30 days. According to Cyrus D. Mehta, founder of a NY-based immigration law firm, 'The order means that the practice of extending citizenship to the US-born children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary residents and visitors would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the measure. The only way out is to file a class action. Or each person would have to make an individual constitutional challenge.' Rajiv Khanna, managing attorney at said, 'The injunctions blocking the policy remain in effect for 30 days, giving time for new legal strategies. The reality check: This creates a complex patchwork. The policy remains blocked in the 22 states that sued, but could theoretically be implemented elsewhere, though the practical challenges of selective enforcement are enormous.' Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney, was aghast. He posted on a social media platform, 'Anyone who wants to challenge Trump's illegal executive order on birthright citizenship (it's illegal because there is a federal law on this), has to sue INDIVIDUALLY to secure their child's citizenship. A truly moronic decision. (The court did NOT rule on the legality of Trump's order, just the process to challenge it).' "Nearly 3,50,000 lawsuits a year to verify citizenship, that is what the Supreme Court ordered. Nice work for lawyers. Terrible for America!", he quipped. THE SPECIFIC FALL OUT: David Leopold, an Ohio based immigration attorney, on a social media platform, pointed out the dissenting voice of Justice Sotomayor, who said, 'Newborns subject to the Citizenship order will face the gravest harms imaginable. If the order does in fact go into effect without further intervention by the district courts, children will lose, at least for the time being, 'a most precious right,' and 'cherished status' that 'carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society. The order will cause chaos for families of all affected children, too, as expecting parents scramble to understand whether the order will apply to them and what ramifications that will have.' Indeed, the ramifications could be gut-wrenching as newborns could face deportation even as their parents remain lawfully in the country (eg: those on temporary work visas). Bhumireddy Sai Srinivas Reddy, a high court advocate in India and an Indiana based legal consultant raised some important issues. 'While the SC has allowed the executive order to take effect after 30 days, it hasn't provided a clear framework for how it should be enforced or challenged. This opens the door to a troubling scenario — what happens if different federal courts issue conflicting rulings? For instance, if the Southern District of Indiana blocks the order but the Northern District allows it, does that mean a child born in one district qualifies as a US citizen, while another child, born just a few miles away, does not?' 'This could lead to a situation where families might be forced to seek jurisdictions with favorable court rulings to secure citizenship for their children. It also raises the question of whether citizenship will now depend on the location of the hospital where the child is born or the legal residence of the parents,' he added. SUMMING UP: 'The SC's ruling today undermines equal justice under the law. The Court's decision means that constitutional protections now depend on which state you live in or whether you can afford to file a lawsuit,' was a statement given by Senator Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee. 'Today's decision emboldens President Trump's unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship, designed to stoke fear and persecute immigrant communities. It also fails every American who looks to the court to serve as a check to ensure that the executive branch follows the law. The SC is supposed to serve as a safeguard against presidential overreach, not incentivize it. We must heed Justice Jackson's warning that today's decision will permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued,' added the statement. Ben , AILA's executive Director, summed up: 'Rather than try to defend an obviously unconstitutional executive order directly, the Trump administration manipulated the legal process to avoid swift judicial review, delaying justice for those affected and setting the stage for confusion and chaos. And today, the SC played along.' ' Instead of stepping in to declare this EO unconstitutional, the SC has greenlit a prolonged and punishing legal battle across the country. We are now facing the prospect of hundreds of individual lawsuits and likely multiple class actions to protect a right that is plainly guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a shameful dereliction of duty. By refusing to allow federal judges to block an executive action that clearly violates the Constitution, the SC is forcing millions of individuals affected by this Executive Order to bear the full burden of seeking justice on their own. This not only imposes an enormous cost—financially and emotionally—on those families, but it also squanders government resources litigating the same issue over and over again. Birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, nor is it a vague legal question; it is a cornerstone of American democracy enshrined in the Constitution. This decision fails us all, fails the courts, and fails our Constitution,' said Johnson.
