As RSS calls for amending Preamble, why it puts BJP in a tricky position

Indian Express

2 days ago

When the RSS general secretary says that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble to the Constitution should be reviewed, it is more than a casual call for a debate, for the Sangh is measured in its utterances.
Dattatreya Hosabale's comment last week is not the first time the issue has come up. BJP Rajya Sabha MP Rakesh Sinha moved a Private Member's Bill in 2020, and others have petitioned the courts. The Supreme Court examined the matter, and in 2024, a two-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjeev Khanna upheld the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble.
It is true, as the RSS says, that B R Ambedkar, and indeed Jawaharlal Nehru, did not feel it was required to explicitly include secularism and socialism in the Preamble when the Constitution was being framed. Ambedkar felt the idea was embedded in the essence of the document and did not need an overt expression.
In 1976, Indira Gandhi decided to include the words in the Preamble amid the Emergency when fundamental rights were suspended, the press muzzled, the judiciary's oversight role withdrawn, and Opposition leaders in jail. In the preceding months, there had not been any demand for their inclusion in the Preamble, and there was hardly any discussion on the matter before it happened. The change came as part of the 42nd Amendment that concentrated power in the hands of the executive.
Whatever be Mrs Gandhi's motivation — whether it was to insert 'socialist' to retain the support of the USSR, or add 'secularism' to make amends and send a signal to Muslims who were angry about enforced sterilisations during the Emergency — the Janata Party government chose not to remove the two words from the Preamble. The government, of which the BJP's precursor Jana Sangh was a part, clearly thought it politically prudent to retain them even though it undid many of the Emergency provisions through the 44th Amendment.
The two 'S' words that have suddenly become so controversial did not create a kerfuffle back then and a few questioned if India was, or should be, a secular and socialist nation. Over the years, socialism has evolved into a widely accepted generic concept, understood as economic and social justice for the last person. PM Narendra Modi is more of a social-welfarist than several of his predecessors. Secularism, too, had near-universal acceptance till it began to be equated with minority appeasement.
The RSS wants to turn the clock back. But in politics, sometimes it's easier to do than undo. To remove 'secular' from the Preamble today will signal that India is now moving towards a Hindu Rashtra. It is like talking about undoing reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes given after Independence (22.5%), or quota for the Other Backward Classes (27%) that was given in 1990 following the Mandal Commission report. V P Singh had once said even if he wanted to undo the Mandal decision, he could not go back because it could lead to widespread violence. When RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in 2015 spoke about moving beyond reservation, the resulting backlash only helped bring Lalu Prasad and Nitish Kumar to power in Bihar.
The timing of the Sangh's move today is of as much interest as the move itself. After the fulfilment of its core agenda — Ram temple, Article 370, Uniform Civil Code — the Sangh may want to push its agenda further in its centenary year as it looks to create a Hindu civilisational entity.
The response, or otherwise, of the BJP to Hosabale's comment is instructive. Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan — who has been one of the Sangh's favourites for BJP presidentship — was the first to endorse the idea. Chouhan said 'sarva dharma sambhava (all religions are equal)' and not secularism (the French concept of separation of church and state) was a part of Indian culture. His Cabinet colleague Jitendra Singh also spoke in the same vein as did Chief Ministers Devendra Fadnavis and Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The RSS's suggestion can complicate an already difficult situation for the BJP brass. First, the party will have to decide what it will do about the allegiance to secularism that is mentioned in its party Constitution. In 2014, PM Modi said that secularism 'flows in our blood'.
Second, the BJP's NDA allies, on whom the party is dependent in its third term, are not likely to bite the bullet easily. Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) leader Chirag Paswan has already made it clear he is not in favour of amending the Preamble.
Third, it will give another handle to the Congress to target the BJP. Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has already said the BJP prefers the Manusmriti to the Constitution. Samajwadi Party leader Akhilesh Yadav has also accused the party of quietly going for a change in the Constitution because it is unable to openly oppose reservation for Dalits and OBCs. Both the BJP and the Opposition are manoeuvring to get the support of Dalits and OBCs. The ruling party knows how fraught with risks any talk of changing the Constitution can be, given that the Opposition's narrative dented it in the Lok Sabha elections last year and brought the party down to 240 seats.
There is a growing perception today about the Constitution. The founding document (also, Constitutional secularism) is identified with Ambedkar, more than was the case in the 1970s and 80s. And Ambedkar is equated with Dalits and Dalits with reservation. Even though the RSS is saying it wants to return to the Preamble approved by Ambedkar, we do not know which way the cookie will crumble.
Both the Congress and the BJP realise the Constitution is a live political issue today and observing the 50th anniversary of the Emergency is more than a mere recall of what happened then. We can discuss what kind of secularism suits the country. We can accept or reject the French model, and back the Indian concept that emphasises the equality of religions before the state. However, at the end of the day, secularism is not a luxury for a diverse nation such as India. It is a necessity that enables us to co-exist as one entity.
(Neerja Chowdhury, Contributing Editor, The Indian Express, has covered the last 11 Lok Sabha elections. She is the author of How Prime Ministers Decide)