‘Socialist', ‘Secular' And The Sangh: RSS Reignites Preamble War
Last Updated:
Speaking at an event marking 50 years since the imposition of Emergency, Dattatreya Hosabale questioned the legitimacy of their inclusion into the Preamble in 1976.
Triggering a fresh debate on Constitutional amendments during the period of Emergency, Dattatreya Hosabale, RSS General Secretary, spoke about two of the most contested words in India's Constitution -socialist and secular.
Speaking at an event marking 50 years since the imposition of Emergency, he questioned the legitimacy of their inclusion into the Preamble in 1976, when Parliament functioned under duress, and the Constitution was amended without open democratic deliberation.
'Shouldn't there be debate on whether these terms truly align with India's ethos and founding vision," Hosabale asked addressing the gathering stressing on the need of a fresh debate.
The reaction from the Congress was immediate and sharp. Calling it a 'deliberate assault on the soul of the Constitution," the Congress accused the RSS and BJP of systematically attempting to undermine BR Ambedkar's legacy of a just, inclusive, and democratic society in India.
Calling the speech as one of the old propagandas of the RSS, Congress, in a statement, said that this was not just a suggestion, but a continuation of their long-standing agenda. They also cited recent election speeches where BJP leaders openly declared their need for over 400 seats to 'rewrite the Constitution, 'hinting at the possibility of removal of these two words.
'The people of India saw through their agenda and gave them a resounding answer," Congress added in their statement referencing the 2024 verdict.
Even as the RSS pushes for introspection and public deliberation into the forced additions of the Emergency era, the Congress vows to protect it as an 'unbreakable wall" against any such amendment or revision. With such a controversy taking shape of a political battle, the Preamble has once again become ground zero in India's political and ideological war.
The RSS has never minced words when it comes to the inclusion of socialism in the Preamble. Even though, seniors of the Sangh have not spoken about it publicly until now, the Sangh literature and other documents have multiple mentions of the inclusion as 'imposed' .
Explaining the reason behind Sangh's opposition to the word – Socialist – a senior functionary said, 'Sangh is not against social welfare or social justice. But RSS does not agree with any idea that is primarily a western import. It doesn't align with Bharat's idea of social-cultural-economic concept. Bharat has traditionally believed in self-reliance. It is a very post-independence foreign idea imported by Congress."
For the Sangh, socialism is not just an economic idea — it is foreign ideological implant, alien to Bharat's civilisational values.
Socialism for the RSS is an idea adopted in Nehruvian India, and it built its edifice on state supremacy. The RSS also believes that Socialist idea is based on centralised planning, and a thinly veiled contempt for faith, family, and tradition, which are seen as pillars on which Indian society rests.
Meanwhile, the idea of the RSS for an inclusive Indian society stands on the other side of that spectrum which includes a decentralised, family and community driven and more importantly a dharma-based worldview, rooted self-reliance, and spiritual continuity.
RSS rejected the Socialist views as it essentially spoke about class struggle and class conflict, which are Communist ideas. Socialism, in practice, made the state as the power centre. RSS feels that state-controlled and centralised power always tried to replace temples with institutions, communities with committees. The RSS never subscribed to this. It holds that civil society is the soul of nation-building.
For the word 'Secular', Sangh has always maintained that India has been a 'secular' land traditionally and culturally. It is in India's character and it also reflects through its state policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
33 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
After video with ‘second wife', Uttarakhand's ex-BJP MLA suspended by party for ‘indecent conduct'
Former BJP MLA from Jwalapur, Suresh Rathore, has been expelled from the party for six years for alleged 'indecent conduct'. According to the state media in charge of the BJP, Manveer Singh Chauhan, the party had taken cognizance of a viral video on social media showing Rathore with his second wife, without having divorced his first wife. Calling it 'indecent conduct', he said the party had issued him a show-cause notice, seeking an explanation for his conduct. The video of the former MLA went viral on social media, wherein he is with the Saharanpur-based actress Urmila Sanawar, introducing her as his second wife. This had led to objections from the Congress after they called it a violation of the Uniform Civil Code. The code prohibits polygamy. Chauhan said that the response submitted by Rathore was not satisfactory to the organisation. 'He was found guilty of repeatedly violating the party's code of conduct and social decorum. Acting on the directions of state president Mahendra Bhatt, he has been expelled from the party for six years,' Chauhan said. After his video had stirred controversy, Rathore backtracked from his statement and said that it was part of a film. The Congress spokesperson, Garima Dasauni, said that this was an example of the BJP's immoral politics and double standards. 'If it was truly an act, then should we now believe that every public behaviour of BJP leaders is scripted like a film? And if it was real, then was the party's show-cause notice nothing but a farce?' Dasauni had said earlier this week. She added that the BJP initially remained silent, and only when public outrage grew over the former ruling party MLA's violation of the Uniform Civil Code did the party issue a notice. 'This once again exposes the BJP's opportunistic politics and its pretense of seriousness towards women's dignity,' she added. Aiswarya Raj is a correspondent with The Indian Express who covers South Haryana. An alumna of Asian College of Journalism and the University of Kerala, she started her career at The Indian Express as a sub-editor in the Delhi city team. In her current position, she reports from Gurgaon and covers the neighbouring districts. She likes to tell stories of people and hopes to find moorings in narrative journalism. ... Read More
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
File FIR against channels that showed teacher as Lashkar terrorist killed during Op Sindoor: J&K court
A local court in J&K on Saturday directed the police to register an FIR against some news channels that had aired the photograph of a local religious seminary portraying him as an LeT terrorist killed in Kotli in Pakistan occupied Kashmir during Operation Sindoor. The teacher Qari Mohammad Iqbal of Qari Mohalla was in fact killed during cross-bordering shelling by Pakistan in Poonch on May 7. India launched Operation Sindoor and hit nine terror sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir in retaliation to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 in which 26 people were killed. Referring to a report by SHO Poonch that two news channels had initially aired that Iqbal was a Pakistan terrorist, later withdrew it and issued an apology following clarification, Sub Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Poonch, Sjafeeq Ahmed, said, 'the subsequent apology by the news channels does not cure the mischief already caused''. 'An apology may have mitigating value at the state of sentencing, but does not preclude the statutory duty of police to register an FIR once a cognizable offence is disclosed,' the judge observed, directing the SHO of Poonch Police Station to register an FIR under Sections 353(2) (public mischief) ,356 (defamation) and 196(1) (outraging religious sentiments) of BNS, 2023, read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 'While freedom of the press is a vital part of democracy protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds such as defamation, public order, decency and morality,' the judge said. 'In the present case, the act of branding a deceased civilian teacher of a local religious seminary as a Pakistani terrorist without any verification, particularly during a period of India-Pakistan hostilities, cannot be dismissed as a mere journalistic lapse,' he said. 'Such conduct amounts to public mischief and defamation, capable of causing public outrage, disturbing social harmony, and tarnishing the reputation of the deceased and the institution he served,'' the judge said. '… In today's digital era, misinformation can spread rapidly, creating confusion and unrest,' the judge said. An application seeking registration of an FIR against the news channels was filed by advocate Sheikh Mohammad Saleem, who claimed that the news channels not only displayed his name and photograph portraying him as an LeT terrorist, but also linked him to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. Referring to the SHO's report that the family members of the deceased did not lodge any complaint and the broadcast of the news had originated from Delhi, the judge said there is no legal bar to any person with knowledge of the offence, including a public spirited citizen, to initiate such action. The SHO's second contention about the territorial jurisdiction in view of broadcast originating from Delhi also fails in the light of Section 199 BNS which provides that when an act and its consequences occur in different places, jurisdiction arises in either location, the judge said. In the present case, the consequence of the broadcast — defamation, emotional injury and public unrest — occurred in Poonch, where the deceased resided, served and was martyred, he pointed out. Earlier, Iqbal's family members had served legal notice through advocate Sheikh Shakeel Ahmed to both the news channels seeking damages of Rs 5 crore each.
