
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously.
High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS.
In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution.
There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter.
In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.)
Hosabale's objections
Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble.
All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.)
Also Read | Preamble politics
All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication.
Debates on Preamble
The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji.
Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away.
Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…'
Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this.
Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended.
Spirit of secularism
Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble.
Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani:
'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.'
While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances.
Eternal principles
Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'?
These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble?
There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'.
Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge?
With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed.
Changes in 42nd Amendment
The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978.
It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times.
Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change.
Also Read | Secularism and the state
That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule?
'Socialist' constraint
His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about.
Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name?
And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles.
But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble.
I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew.
Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
MP calls for delisting converted tribal people from ST category
1 2 3 Jaipur: In a significant move, Udaipur MP Mannalal Rawat has brought attention to a controversial demand in the Lok Sabha, calling for the removal of religious converts from the Scheduled Tribes (ST) category. Speaking in Lok Sabha Monday, the BJP MP advocated for applying the same criteria to STs as currently applicable to Scheduled Castes (SCs), where conversion to non-Hindu faiths leads to disqualification from constitutional benefits. Rawat, who has strong ties with the RSS-affiliated Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM), highlighted what he termed a "legal loophole" that has persisted for 75 years. Quoting studies and reports, Rawat said converted tribals continue to receive reservation benefits in education, employment and welfare schemes despite abandoning traditional tribal customs and practices. "This is a direct blow to the rights of genuine tribal communities in Udaipur, Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh and across the country. Limited resources are being diverted to those who no longer preserve tribal identity, weakening socio-economic development efforts," he told TOI. Referring to Article 342 of the Constitution, which governs Scheduled Tribes, Rawat noted that currently does not include any disqualification clause related to religious conversion. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo The MP, who took voluntary retirement from a Rajasthan govt service to contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, alleged that Christian missionaries and other groups have been conducting forced conversions in tribal areas through financial inducements. "They have devised a formula: change your belief system but not your legal identity. This poses a serious threat to tribal culture and traditions," Rawat said. According to the 2011 Census, Rajasthan has approximately 97,000 Christians, primarily concentrated in Jaipur, Ajmer, Dungarpur and Banswara. As a key strategist for JSM's nationwide campaign, Rawat has been instrumental in organising rallies and outreach programs across several states with significant tribal populations, including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. Rawat was hand-picked by senior RSS members from Udaipur to address several long-pending issues, including the contentious demand for the de-listing of converted tribal people from Scheduled Tribe benefits. The demand for de-listing converted tribal people has been a long-standing agenda of RSS-affiliated organisations, though it faces complex constitutional and social implications.


Time of India
8 hours ago
- Time of India
Congress slams BJP men in BHU's EC
Lucknow: The Congress party opposed the inclusion of BJP MP (from Chandauli) Mahendra Nath Pandey and Mayor Ashok Tiwari in the executive council of BHU. "Instead of choosing academicians, the university appointed politicians and people with known RSS backing. This move is akin to ruining a world-renowned university and turning it into an RSS office," said Ajay Rai, UPCC president. He added, "The politicisation of the executive council is unfortunate and we demand an immediate end to this politicisation and that qualified individuals be made members of the council." Emphasising that the RSS influence in this council is condemnable, Rai stated: "We raised this issue last year, suggesting that the council should include academicians, vice-chancellors, scientists and important figures from the education sector who were honoured with prestigious awards like Padma Shree or Padma Bhushan." tnn However, the Central govt, which already influenced BHU with RSS ideology, repeated its low-level actions." Rai asserted that the situation in BHU deteriorated over time. "When there was a vice-chancellor at BHU, there was no executive council and now when there is an executive council, there is no vice-chancellor. The situation is so dire that BHU became a victim of corruption rather than a centre of education, with chaos and corruption everywhere. In a prestigious institution like BHU, justice and ethics are being strangled," Rai said.

The Hindu
11 hours ago
- The Hindu
V.S. Achuthanandan' s last journey draws thousands
At around 12.15 p.m. on Wednesday, the specially arranged bus carrying the mortal remains of former Chief Minister and senior Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader V.S. Achuthanandan entered Pazhaya Nadakkavu Road at Paravur in Punnapra North grama panchayat. The cortege took more than 22 hours to cover a distance of around 150 km from Thiruvananthapuram to Paravur, as thousands lined the route to pay their last respects. As the vehicle reached Velikkakathu, his house at Paravur, it was greeted by emotional cries of 'Kanne Karale from party workers and supporters. Amid a sea of mourners, his body was gently taken out of the bus and carried into the house, marking his final homecoming. After a brief pause inside the house, the mortal remains were brought out and placed in the courtyard, allowing the public to offer their final tributes. What followed was a moving display of love and reverence for a leader who had devoted his life to the people. Thousands had gathered, many arriving as early as Tuesday evening, some travelling from distant corners of the State and even beyond, to bid farewell. The queue of mourners waiting patiently to pay their respects stretched over two kilometres, bearing silent testimony to the deep emotional bond Achuthanandan shared with the masses he served for decades. 'I've seen many leaders come and go, but there was no one like V.S. He was one of us — simple, honest, and fearless. Today, as his body entered this road for the last time, it felt like a family member was returning home,' said Ramakrishnan K., a resident of Kuttamangalam in Kuttanad. There were also people who had travelled from distant places. 'When we shouted 'Kanne Karale it came from our hearts. He stood for the poor, for justice, and never compromised. His memory will stay alive in every corner of Kerala,' said Abdul Hakkim from Valad in Wayanad. From Velikkakathu, the mortal remains were taken to the CPI(M) Alappuzha district committee office around 2.45 p.m., where thousands more paid their respects. The body was later taken to Recreation Ground around 5.30 p.m. for the public to offer tributes. Despite heavy downpour, a large number of people turned out to say adieu to their beloved leader. By the time the cortege reached Punnapra-Vayalar Martyrs' Memorial at Valiya Chudukkad around 9 p.m. the farewell had become a powerful and emotional moment in the collective memory of Alappuzha.