logo
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble

Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble

The Hindu3 days ago
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ
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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'My mistake that caste census was not done in UPA tenure': Rahul Gandhi
'My mistake that caste census was not done in UPA tenure': Rahul Gandhi

Time of India

time44 minutes ago

  • Time of India

'My mistake that caste census was not done in UPA tenure': Rahul Gandhi

NEW DELHI: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Friday said it was his mistake that the UPA govt did not conduct the caste census, adding the blame lies with him and not the party. He said he is correcting the mistake now by getting the census done, pointing to the exercise by the Congress-ruled Telangana which he dubbed as a model in social data collection which has created a "political earthquake" that is not visible. At the AICC's OBC convention "Bhagidari Nyay Sammelan", which was attended by Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, K C Venugopal, Siddaramaiah, Ashok Gehlot, Sachin Pilot, Bhupesh Baghel, Gaurav Gogoi among others, Rahul said when he looks back at his 21 years in politics, he has scored well on the issues of poor, SCs, STs, minorities and women, but faltered on those of the backward classes. "I can see clearly that I faltered on one issue - the way I should have protected the OBC sections, I didn't do it. The reason was at that time, I did not understand your issues deeply," he said. Rahul said it is easier to comprehend the challenges faced by dalits and tribals because of their history, but those of OBCs are "hidden". "I regret if I knew your issues and history better, I would have got the caste census done. And I am going to correct it (the mistake) now." Modi is no big problem, Rahul tells party meet However, he argued it was a good mistake because a caste count then would not have yielded "the X-ray of society" as done by the Telangana census where now the participation of SC/ST/OBC at various levels of corporates in the state can be easily discerned. At the same time, the Gandhi scion exhorted the backwards to take the reins of the Congress. Pointing to the dais with CM Siddaramaiah, Ashok Gehlot, Sachin Pilot, Bhupesh Baghel, V Narayanasamy, he said they are the 'icons' of the OBCs, but there is a need for more of them. At one point, Rahul said PM Narendra Modi is "all show and no substance", and does not pose a big challenge. He said after meeting, and being in the room, with Modi a few times, he has realised that the PM is a balloon inflated by the media. The remark came when Rahul's rhetorical question - what is the biggest problem of the backward communities -- elicited a stray shout of Modi. "I tell you, you have hyped it in your mind. Modi is no big problem," he said. Rahul said the problem of OBCs is that their history was killed by the RSS-BJP. "When you realise this, you would know that RSS is your biggest enemy," he added. He said BJP leaders claim they will remove English from India, but their own children study in the English medium. Kharge took a swipe at Modi by asking if he would retire at 75 years of age, as suggested by the RSS. He said Modi became OBC only after he became the CM of Gujarat and added his community to the OBC list.

Look at your own country: Bombay High Court raps CPI(M) over Gaza protest petition
Look at your own country: Bombay High Court raps CPI(M) over Gaza protest petition

The Hindu

time2 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Look at your own country: Bombay High Court raps CPI(M) over Gaza protest petition

The Bombay High Court on Friday (July 25, 2025) dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the CPI challenging the Mumbai Police's decision to deny permission for a protest at Azad Maidan against the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The court observed that the Indian political organisations should prioritise domestic issues over international conflicts. A Division Bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad pulled up the petitioners for focusing on matters outside the country and said, 'Our country has enough issues to deal with. We do not want anything like this. I am sorry to say that you are short-sighted. You are looking at Gaza and Palestine while neglecting what's happening here. Why don't you do something for your own country? Look at your own country. Be patriots. People say they are patriots, but this is not patriotism. Show patriotism for the citizens of our own country first,' the Bench remarked sharply during the hearing. Senior advocate Mihir Desai representing CPI(M), informed the Bench that on June 13, 2025, his clients submitted an application seeking permission from the Azad Maidan police station to hold a peaceful protest and gathering in Azad Maidan to show solidarity with the people of Gaza, who are currently in the midst of a genocide, by calling for a ceasefire. On June 17, denying permission to the All India Peace and Solidarity Foundation (AIPSF) that police informed them that the permission to protest was being denied in exercise of their powers under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Section 68 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Mr. Desai informed the Bench that the political parties have time and again taken up several causes that has concerned India and have been conducting health and education camps. The Court noted that the CPI(M), being a registered as Indian political party, should ideally be engaging with local civic concerns. 'You are a registered party in India. Your party could have taken up issues like garbage dumping, pollution, drainage, or flooding. Why are you not protesting on these issues? We are only giving examples. Instead, you want to protest over something happening thousands of miles away and showing concern for Palestine and Gaza,' the Bench observed. The petitioners stated that the Indian government's stance and support of Palestine as a State, has been an integral part of the nation's foreign policy. In 1974, India became the first Non-Arab State to recognize Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In 1988, India was also one of the first countries to recognize Palestine as a State. In April 2024, India voted in favour of the Human Rights Council Resolution on the Right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Moreover, India is a State signatory to the Genocide Convention, 1948, and the protest which was held to condemn violence and genocide in Gaza, can in no way termed to be the foreign policy of the India State. Mr. Desai further argued that citizens have a fundamental right to protest at designated places and that disagreements with the government's foreign policy cannot be grounds to stifle dissent. He also contended that mere apprehensions of law-and-order issues, without concrete evidence, should not override constitutional freedoms. He also clarified that the protest has nothing to do with Operation Sindoor or India's border relations with neighbouring countries. CPI(M) issues statement Rejecting the petition, the court observed, 'You don't know the dust it could kick up. Whether to take a side for Palestine or Israel is their (Govt of India) work, why do you want to create such a situation that the country has to take sides on this? Why do you want to do this? It's obvious, going by the party you represent, that you don't understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country.' The CPI(M) has strongly condemned the Bombay High Court's remarks while dismissing its petition challenging the denial of permission to protest against the Gaza conflict. Calling the Court's comments unconstitutional and politically biased, the CPI(M) criticised the bench for questioning its patriotism and aligning with the Central government's foreign policy stance. 'It is regrettable to say that the Bench appears to be completely unaware of the constitutional provisions that empower political parties or the history of our country and the support and brotherly feelings of the Indian people towards the Palestinian people for their right to a homeland. The statement made by the High Court bench regarding the CPI(M) smacks of the bench aligning itself with the position of the Central Government,' the party said in a statement. The party invoked India's historical support for Palestine and urged citizens to reject what it termed a troubling judicial trend undermining democratic rights. 'We appeal to the freedom and democracy-loving people of the country to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in unequivocally rejecting this objectionable view,' the statement read.

'This is Not Patriotism': Bombay HC Rejects CPI(M)'s Plea For Permission to Protest Against Gaza Genocide
'This is Not Patriotism': Bombay HC Rejects CPI(M)'s Plea For Permission to Protest Against Gaza Genocide

The Wire

time5 hours ago

  • The Wire

'This is Not Patriotism': Bombay HC Rejects CPI(M)'s Plea For Permission to Protest Against Gaza Genocide

Law The Wire Staff The bench also stated that the foreign policy of the country differs from the stance the party has taken and warned it of potential diplomatic consequences of such protests. New Delhi: The Bombay high court on Friday (July 25) dismissed a petition filed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) challenging the Mumbai Police's refusal to grant permission for a protest in solidarity with Palestinians, Bar and Bench reported. The protest was supposed to be held at Azad Maidan, an open ground in Mumbai known for its role in the freedom struggle. A bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad, rejected the CPI(M)'s petition, observing that the party should look at its own country instead of focusing on issues thousands of miles away. 'Our country has enough issues. We don't want anything like this. I an sorry to say, you are all short-sighted. You are looking at issues in Gaza and Palestine. Look at your own country. Be patriots. This is not patriotism. People say they are patriots,' the court observed, as quoted in the report. The bench further observed that the party should take up civic issues in India. 'You are an organisation registered in India. If you could take up issues like garbage dumping, pollution, sewerage, flooding. We are just giving examples. You are not protesting on those but on something happening thousands of miles outside the country,' it said. According to the report, the bench also stated that the foreign policy of the country differs from the stance the party has taken and warned it of potential diplomatic consequences of such protests. 'You don't know the dust it could kick up... getting on to the Palestine side or the Israel side. Why do you want to do this? It's obvious, going by the party you represent that you don't understand what this could do to the foreign affairs of the country,' the bench noted. However, a similar protest took place in December last year where hundreds of protesters, including far-right groups like the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), had gathered outside the Bangladesh deputy high commission in Mumbai demanding the release of ISKCON priest Chinmoy Krishna Das, who was detained in the neighbouring country. 'Over 500 people, including sadhus, saints, and members of the public, participated in the demonstration,' VHP national spokesperson had told The Hindu at the time, adding, 'The situation of Hindus in Bangladesh is alarming." Subsequently, a memorandum was submitted to the deputy high commissioner, highlighting the group's concerns. The memorandum condemned the arrest of the ISKCON priest, citing violation of democratic and religious freedoms. Many similar protests against the genocide in Gaza and in solidarity with Palestinians have been curtailed recently, several of which were met with police action and detention. On July 19, a peaceful demonstration at the computer market in Nehru Place, Delhi, in solidarity with Palestinians, when a huge group of right-wing people arrived at Nehru Place to oppose it and started threatening, harassing the participants and raising Hindutva slogans. The police, which was present throughout, asked the pro-Palestine people protesting peacefully to leave, saying, 'You do not have permission to protest here.' Israel's ongoing military offensive in Gaza since October 2023 has left close to 60,000 persons dead, as per health ministry numbers cited by Associated Press. Tel Aviv has also enforced a blockade on humanitarian aid, pushing Palestinians to starvation. The remaining population is now on the verge of famine. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called out the international community for neglecting the suffering in Gaza, calling it a 'moral crisis that challenges the global conscience'. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store