RSS Leader Hosabale's Call to Omit ‘Socialist', ‘Secular' from Preamble is an Attack on Constitution Itself

The Wire

21 hours ago

The statement by Dattatreya Hosabale, the general secretary of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), that a decision must be made to remove the words "socialist" and "secular" from the preamble of the constitution after a debate constitutes an attack on the Indian constitution – something which RSS and BJP find difficult to accept.
They have expressed their intent, from time to time, to review it or change in toto. However, Hosabale advanced an absurd argument that it was during the Emergency period of 1975-1977, that the two words were added to the original preamble and that the Constitution drafted by Ambedkar on November 26, 1949, never contained those words.
Vice president Jagdeep Dhankar and Union ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitender Singh have also joined the call for removal of the two words from the preamble.
Clearly, such a concerted move expresses their intent to assail the constitution which BJP and RSS has recurrently done.
What BJP's constitution says
Article II of the BJP's 2012 Constitution, dealing with its objective, states: 'The Party shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India.'
So, it is rather strange that the RSS and BJP leaders, who accept the above provision, are demanding the removal of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' from the constitution.
Supreme Court's validation of the words 'secular' and 'socialist'
On the eve of the 75th anniversary of the constitution on November 25, 2024, the Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the preamble and held that the addition of these terms could not be invalidated merely on the ground that the preamble in the original form did not contain them at the time of the adoption of the constitution.
The apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the insertions of those words after a prolonged and detailed hearing based on arguments of the petitioners who challenged such insertions and the written and oral counters filed against them.
Therefore, Hosabale's call for debate to decide the fate of the two words in the preamble is a call to reject the Supreme Court's judgement.
'Secular' mentioned in fundamental rights
Notably, part of Hosabale's argument that the word 'secular' was not there in Ambedkar's constitution is also false.
His argument collapses when seen in the context of one of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 25, dealing with the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. In this very article, the word 'secular' is mentioned under clause (2)(a).
If he has no trouble with the word 'secular' in the chapter on fundamental rights and he only wants a debate on the word 'secular' enshrined in the preamble, he should also turn to Union home minister Amit Shah who displayed his intense love for the word 'secularism' in the preamble during the Lok Sabha election campaign in 2024.
Shah had faced country-wide concerns arising out of strident claims of some BJP MP candidates contesting the elections that the constitution would be changed if the party won 400-plus seats.
The concerns around this gained huge traction and Shah could sense that BJP would confront massive electoral loss for such a boastful claim.
Amit Shah's new found love for the word 'secular'
The entire BJP leadership and cadre was banking on the firm articulations of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during the consecration of Ram Temple in Ayodhya, that ' Ram is Rashtra ' (Lord Ram is the State) and ' Dev is Desh ' (A Hindu deity is the country) for winning 400 plus Lok Sabha seats.
Those articulations were certainly contrary to the constitutional vision of India and Indian State, which is deeply rooted in secularism, held by the Supreme Court as the basic structure of the constitution.
Amit Shah was shaken by the mood of the electorate shaped by the opposition parties that by securing a huge majority in the parliament, the BJP would alter the entire constitution. So, he denied the removal of the word on more than one occasion in his election campaign speeches.
He desperately tried to negate the campaign that BJP would change the constitution and categorically said that the word 'secular' in the preamble would not even be touched.
So, what prompted Dattatreya Hosabale to generate a debate on the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the preamble to create a public opinion for their eventual deletion?
The only possible answer can be found in RSS and BJP's visceral hatred for the Constitution itself.
Indira Gandhi's farsighted vision
Insertions of the two words in the preamble of the constitution during the Emergency of 1975 testified to the vision of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to protect the constitution itself from those forces who were mobilised by RSS against her under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan.
Harish Khare in his article, 'The Emergency's True Legacy: How JP's Naivety Empowered the RSS', writes, 'Thanks to JP, the RSS, the very organisation that created the eco-system for Nathuram Godse to fire those fatal shots at the Mahatma, has worked its way to a 'respectable' place in our national imagination. Not just respect, it now has clout, patronage and veto power in our national affairs.'
Intent of Constituent Assembly on secularism
All members in the Constituent Assembly worked for establishing the Indian State anchored in secularism. Two exemplary statements to that effect are quoted here to flag the legislative intent of the assembly.
RSS and BJP, while vainly appropriating Sardar Patel as their icon, should be mindful of his sensible words uttered in the Constituent Assembly on October 14, 1949:
"I made it clear that this Constitution of India, of free India, of a secular State will not hereafter be disfigured by any provision on a communal basis."
Another eminent member of the Assembly, T.J.M. Wilson outlined the importance of the secular state on November 23, 1949, and flagged the escalating dangers to it.
"The greatest achievement, however, of our Constitution," he said, "is its secular character, and the secular State that emerges therefrom". He added, "We have achieved this secular character of the State and we have provided for it in the Constitution."
He cautioned, "But the clouds are gathering and are threatening to darken the secular character of the State and obliterate it".
"I only pray and trust," he affirmed, "that the progressive forces of this country, under the guidance and leadership of our great and beloved Prime Minister(Jawaharlal Nehru) will clear away those clouds and shall not allow our country to pass once again through that destruction and misery which most of the nations of Europe and Asia had to pass before they could accomplish this great achievement of a secular State."
That legacy of the Constituent Assembly and Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi constitute a categorical imperative to save the constitution and secularism.
S.N. Sahu served as Officer on Special Duty to President of India K.R. Narayanan.