Latest news with #42ndConstitutionalAmendment
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Ordinance and more (Week 117)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of daily subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Polity and Governance to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for June 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Which of the changes in the Constitution took place during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment? 1. Amendment of the Preamble 2. Amendment of the Seventh Schedule 3. Amendment of Article 105 4. Insertion of new article 31D Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation — The words 'socialist' and 'secular' were added to the Preamble through the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act of 1976, which made wholesale changes to India's founding document. While the Janata government reversed most of these changes through the 44th Amendment in 1978, the Preamble was left untouched. — There were following changes in the Constitution that took place during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment: Amendment of the Preamble, Amendment of the Seventh Schedule, Amendment of Article 105, Insertion of new article 31D, Amendment of article 31C, Insertion of new article 39A, Insertion of new article 43A, Special provisions as to pending petitions under article 226, Power of the President to remove difficulties and more. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. For complete list of amendments/changes: Article 15 of the Constitution of India explicitly prohibits discrimination based on: 1. religion 2. race 3. caste 4. nationality 5. place of birth Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 3, 4 and 5 (d) 1, 2, 3, and 5 Explanation — Secularism is a theme that permeates through the Constitution in several other provisions. For instance, secularism is a key facet of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. — Article 15 explicitly prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. — Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. These rights against the state make the Constitution inherently secular. — The Supreme Court has consistently highlighted this viewpoint. Even before the 42nd amendment changed the Preamble, a 13-judge court in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati decision concluded that secularism is a fundamental aspect of the Constitution that cannot be removed. — 'The secular character of the state, according to which the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on the ground of religion only, cannot likewise be done away with,' according to the current administration. — In the 1994 Bommai decision, which dealt with Centre-State relations, the Supreme Court reiterated secularism as a fundamental aspect of the Constitution. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. The Shah Commission submitted its findings on: (a) misuse of government power, preventive detentions, press censorship, and the sterilisation campaign. (b) the 2002 Gujarat riots. (c) on sexual assault and violence against women after the Nirbhaya case. (d) allegations regarding assets of former CJI K. G. Balakrishnan. Explanation — To investigate the widespread abuse of power during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977, the then newly elected Janata Party government headed by Prime Minister Morarji Desai appointed a commission of inquiry under former Supreme Court Chief Justice J C Shah in May 1977. — The Shah Commission reported its findings in 1978, detailing the alleged abuse of power by politicians and bureaucrats, particularly those close to former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's son Sanjay, during the Emergency. — Justice J.C. Shah, former Chief Justice of India, headed the Shah Commission of Inquiry, which was created in May 1977. Its mandate was to look into excesses committed between June 25, 1975 and March 21, 1977. — The Commission looked into the abuse of government power, preventive detentions, press censorship, and the sterilisation drive. — It gathered evidence through public hearings, testimonials, and official documents. From 1978 to 1979, the Commission submitted three reports. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (Other Source: With reference to the Preamble, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court, in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, described the Preamble as 'a key to open the mind of the makers'. 2. The Supreme Court had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — The Preamble is a vision statement to the Constitution, or as the Supreme Court described in its 1961 ruling in In Re: The Berubari Union, 'a key to open the mind of the makers' of the Constitution. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — In 1950, when the Constitution was adopted, the Preamble read: 'We, the People Of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic' that would secure to all its citizens 'Justice… Equality… Liberty… and Fraternity'. — The 42nd Amendment in 1976 changed this to '…Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…' and added the expression 'integrity' to the description of fraternity as a right, which now reads 'assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation…'. — The additions to the Preamble made no substantive changes to the Constitution. As the SC had noted in Berubari Union, '[the] Preamble is not a part of the Constitution, and it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power…' Hence, statement 2 is correct. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Consider the following pairs related to events and the associated year: 1. Nationalisation of 14 major commercial banks – 1970 2. Abolition of Privy Purses – 1981 Which of the pairs given above are correctly matched? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — With Indira Gandhi taking a clear leftward turn — she nationalised banks in 1969, abolished privy purses in 1971, and won the Lok Sabha elections later that year with the campaign slogan 'Garibi Hatao' ('End Poverty') — the inclusion of 'socialist' was intended to indicate the Constitution's alignment with the Prime Minister's economic roadmap. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution provides for an Address by the President to either House or both Houses assembled together. 2. The matters referred to in the Address by the President to the Houses are discussed on a Motion of Thanks moved by a Member and seconded by another Member. 3. The scope of discussion on the President's Address is very wide and the functioning of the entire administration is open for discussion where members can also refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India but affects the functioning of states as well. Which of the following statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Explanation According to When does the President address the Parliament? — The Constitution provides for an Address by the President to either House or both Houses assembled together [Article 86(1)]. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — The Constitution also makes it incumbent upon the President to address both Houses of Parliament assembled together at the commencement of the first Session after each General Election to the Lok Sabha and at the commencement of the first Session each year and inform Parliament of the causes of its summons. [Article 87(1)]. — The matters referred to in the Address by the President to the Houses are discussed on a Motion of Thanks moved by a Member and seconded by another Member. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — The scope of discussion on the Address is very wide and the functioning of the entire administration is open for discussion; the limitations inter alia are that Members should not refer to matters which are not the direct responsibility of the Government of India, and the name of the President should not be brought in during the debate since the Government, and not the President, is responsible for the contents of the Address. Hence, statement 3 is not correct. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. (source: Which of the following Committee/Commissions was constituted to address the demand for reservation and other affirmative actions for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs)? (a) Nanavati Commission (b) Kirit Parikh Committee (c) Kalelkar Commission (d) Kelkar Committee Explanation — As soon as the 1951 Census was completed, the government in January 1953 decided to constitute a commission headed by then Rajya Sabha MP, social reformer and journalist Dattatreya Balkrishna Kalelkar, popularly called Kaka Kalelkar, to look after the demand for reservation and other affirmative actions for the other backward classes (OBCs). — On March 18, 1953, then President Rajendra Prasad formally inaugurated the Kalelkar Commission. Speaking on the occasion, both President Prasad and Prime Minister Nehru expressed the hope that the 'labours' of the commission would pave the way for a 'classless' society in India. Nehru, who disliked the term 'backward classes', even remarked that it was wrong to label any section as backward, even if they were so, particularly, when 90% of the people in the country were poor and backward. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. With reference to Ordinances, consider the following statements: 1. The President may return the recommendation of the Cabinet once if she feels it warrants reconsideration; if it is sent back (with or without reconsideration), she has to promulgate it. 2. In D.C. Wadhwa & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1986) Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Governor repeatedly re-promulgating ordinances without legislative approval. Which of the above given statements is/are true? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — Under Article 123 of the Constitution ('Power of President to promulgate Ordinances during recess of Parliament'), 'if at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such Ordinances as the circumstances appear to him to require.' — An Ordinance 'shall have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament'. But the government is required to bring an Ordinance before Parliament for ratification — and failure to do so will lead to its lapsing 'at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament'. — Since the President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, it is in effect the government that decides to bring the Ordinance. The President may return the recommendation of the Cabinet once if she feels it warrants reconsideration; if it is sent back (with or without reconsideration), she has to promulgate it. Hence, statement 1 is correct. — If, for whatever reason, an Ordinance lapses, the only option for the government is to reissue or re-promulgate it. In 2017, the Supreme Court examined a case where the state of Bihar re-promulgated an Ordinance several times without placing it before the legislature. (Krishna Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Bihar) — A seven-judge Bench of the court, which included now Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud, reiterated that legislation should normally be done by the legislature, and the Governor's power to issue an Ordinance is in the nature of an emergency power. — The court clarified that there might be circumstances permitting the re-promulgation of an Ordinance — however, it said, repeated re-promulgations without bringing the Ordinance to the legislature would usurp the legislature's function, and would be unconstitutional. — The court declared the actions in that case to be 'a fraud on constitutional power', and said that the Ordinances were re-promulgated in violation of the SC judgment in Dr D C Wadhwa and Ors v. State of Bihar and Ors (1986). — In D C Wadhwa, a challenge was mounted against the power of the Governor to re-promulgate various Ordinances in Bihar, after 256 Ordinances were promulgated between 1967 and 1981, out of which 69 were re-promulgated several times and kept alive with the permission of the President. Hence, statement 2 is correct. — A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court headed by then CJI P N Bhagwati held that 'an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor to meet an emergent situation shall cease to be in operation at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature.' Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 115) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 116) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 116) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X. Manas Srivastava is currently working as Senior Copy Editor with The Indian Express (digital) and leads a unique initiative of IE - UPSC Essentials. He majorly writes on UPSC, other competitive exams and education-related projects. In the past, Manas has represented India at the G-20 Youth Summit in Mexico. He is a former member of the Youth Council, GOI. A two-time topper/gold medallist in History (both in graduation and post-graduation) from Delhi University, he has mentored and taught UPSC aspirants for more than four years. His diverse role in The Indian Express consists of writing, editing, anchoring/ hosting, interviewing experts, and curating and simplifying news for the benefit of students. He hosts the YouTube talk show called 'Art and Culture with Devdutt Pattanaik' and a LIVE series on Instagram and YouTube called 'You Ask We Answer'.His talks on 'How to read a newspaper' focus on newspaper reading as an essential habit for students. His articles and videos aim at finding solutions to the general queries of students and hence he believes in being students' editor, preparing them not just for any exam but helping them to become informed citizens. This is where he makes his teaching profession meet journalism. He is also the editor of UPSC Essentials' monthly magazine for the aspirants. He is a recipient of the Dip Chand Memorial Award, the Lala Ram Mohan Prize and Prof. Papiya Ghosh Memorial Prize for academic excellence. He was also awarded the University's Post-Graduate Scholarship for pursuing M.A. in History where he chose to specialise in Ancient India due to his keen interest in Archaeology. He has also successfully completed a Certificate course on Women's Studies by the Women's Studies Development Centre, DU. As a part of N.S.S in the past, Manas has worked with national and international organisations and has shown keen interest and active participation in Social Service. He has led and been a part of projects involving areas such as gender sensitisation, persons with disability, helping slum dwellers, environment, adopting our heritage programme. He has also presented a case study on 'Psychological stress among students' at ICSQCC- Sri Lanka. As a compere for seminars and other events he likes to keep his orating hobby alive. His interests also lie in International Relations, Governance, Social issues, Essays and poetry. ... Read More
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
When LS passed 42nd Amendment, Indira said: ‘Secular, socialist in Preamble echo Constitution'
In the midst of the Emergency, the Lok Sabha in October 1976 debated and passed the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which brought sweeping changes to the Constitution, when the Opposition leaders had been in jail. On October 27, 1976, participating in the discussion on this legislation, then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi said in the House that the inclusion of the words 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble of the Constitution through it was just spelling out 'what was already there in the Constitution'. 'The founding fathers of our Constitution and of our country had intended Indian society to be secular and socialist. These are not new definitions. They have guided our laws all these years. All we are doing now is to incorporate them in the Constitution itself for they rightly deserve to be mentioned there,' Indira told the Lok Sabha. Recently, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale sought a discussion on whether 'socialist' and 'secular' should continue to remain in the Preamble. Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh have lent their weight to Hosabale's pitch, even as Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma have castigated the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment was passed with a special majority by both the Houses but in 1977, when the Janata Party government came to power after winning the Lok Sabha polls, it reversed almost all the changes that this law brought into force while still retaining 'socialist' and 'secular' and fundamental duties. With the Opposition members in prison, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment got widespread support in the House, with a note of caution sounded by political scientist and Independent MP P G Mavalankar, the son of the first Lok Sabha Speaker G V Mavalankar. P G Mavalankar, who was not arrested because of the stature of his family, also criticised the Emergency. 'I ask: are there conditions conducive to a free debate today? Is there a free press? Is the public forum in continuous and free possession of the people? Are the media of radio and TV equally serviceable to differing, opposing and conflicting viewpoints and opinions? The answer is obviously and most categorically 'No'. The publicity has been almost entirely one-sided; there has been practically a one-way traffic,' he said in the House, questioning how free the debate on the Constitutional Amendment Bill could be. 'Throughout my life, I have been wedded to socialist and secular ideals,' Mavalankar said on the insertion of the two terms, 'But I want to ask you: can we change the Preamble which was passed on 26 November 1949 and that was specifically mentioned in the Preamble which says: 'We the people of India etc?' The Preamble is a part of the Constitution, not strictly; though undoubtedly it is the key of the Constitution. Therefore, if you put words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, I am afraid a time will come when some people might say: remove the word 'democracy'. Already the substance has gone; the word may also go next time.' Notwithstanding this dissent, the changes received support from the entire House, mainly the Treasury bench MPs. 'The objectives which we had always in view, namely, socialism and secularism, which we have tried to implement, will be more and more implemented and will be more accurately and correctly reflected in a basic part of our Constitution, namely, the Preamble,' then Union Law Minister H R Gokhale said. 'Let anyone say that 'socialism' or 'secularism' is incapable of definition. Well, if that argument were to be accepted, even 'democracy' in that sense is incapable of definition because, is it not understood in different ways in different countries? But, we understand what kind of democracy we stand for. In the same way, we understand what 'socialism' stands for and what 'secularism' stands for.' CPI leader Indrajit Gupta said, 'It is very welcome also that the word 'secular' is being introduced. We want to understand what is the significance behind this. Because our State is a secular State, our State respects and recognises, and gives equal rights to people belonging to all religions or faiths or to people of no religion, in law.' Indrajit Gupta also said: 'When the government itself has come forward to add the word 'secular', particularly here, I take it to mean something; I take it to mean that the secular aspect of our democracy requires to be strengthened; otherwise it is superfluous to introduce this word here… I take it that what we want to assure the people of all faiths and communities and religions particularly the minorities is that we mean to take some further action, legislative and others, to strengthen and secularise the content of our democracy.' Supporting the Bill, Congress MP P R Shenoy dismissed as emotional the concern that sweeping changes were being made to the Constitution, with Opposition MPs in prison. 'Certain events in the country have made it necessary to lay emphasis on certain concepts like nationalism and secularism…. One of the serious objections to the Constitutional Amendment is that it should wait for certain men, men who are under detention and men who are not willing to express their views as long as there is Emergency – not that they are not allowed to express their views but they do not want to express their views until there is Emergency – and men who will occupy the seats of this House after the next elections. This objection, I feel, is more of a sentimental nature. There is no rationality behind it. In the history of a nation, time and tide wait for no man.' Then Union Minister Swaran Singh said that the inclusion of the word secular was 'very vital for our country to grow from strength to strength and to remain united and a strong nation'. He added that the word had become very popular across India. 'You may go to the Punjab, to Gujarat, even to the South; when they make speeches in their own languages they always use the word 'secular' because it has assumed a definite meaning and that meaning is that there will be equality before the eye of the law in our Constitution with regard to people professing different religions. Not only that but more than that there is no connotational element of any anti-religious feeling but it is really respect for all religions.' Taking a dig at the Jana Sangh, Congress MP C M Stephen said, 'There are people who are speaking about communal authority. Jana Sangh is going about with a sectarian point of view and a divisive philosophy. Therefore, it is necessary that the Preamble reminds the nation that the nation has been committed to secularism and there can be no going away from secularism. This is the sentiment of the nation; this is the will of the nation; this is the faith of the nation and the Constitution reflects the new found faith and the belief, commitment and promises which they are giving to themselves.' He added that this was the same Constitution that was given to the people in 1949, but with a few amendments.
Hans India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Term ‘Secular' misused for vote bank politics
Kakinada: Senior BJP leader and Citizens Initiative secretary Duvvuri Subrahmanyam has backed RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's recent call for a debate on removing the word 'Secular' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said the term, inserted during the 42nd Constitutional Amendment on December 18, 1976, without proper debate, has now become a burden to the nation. Speaking at party meeting, Subrahmanyam alleged that the word is being misused by certain political leaders to mislead voters. He claimed that its removal is now essential. He recalled that the term was added during the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to divert attention from the Allahabad High Court's ruling against her and the growing anti-corruption movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan. With opposition leaders jailed, there was no parliamentary debate before including the term 'Secular' in the Preamble, he said. He said that India was already a tolerant nation and questioned the need for the term after Partition created Pakistan as a separate nation for minorities. Quoting Dr BR Ambedkar, he said that inserting such terms imposes restrictions on future generations. He also cited Constituent Assembly members like Krishna Iyer and Loknath Mishra, who opposed the inclusion of the word 'Secular' at the time.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Speaker seeks fresh commission to probe Emergency atrocities
Assembly speaker Vijender Gupta on Saturday demanded the formation of a new commission to revisit and investigate the atrocities perpetrated during and after the Emergency because those 'guilty have not been brought to justice yet.' Chief minister Rekha Gupta at the 'mock parliament' session on Saturday. (Sanjeev Verma/HT Photo) Gupta was addressing a symposium titled 'Bhartiya Loktantra aur Samvidhaan ka Sabse Andhkaarmaya Daur: Na Bhoolein, Na Shama Karen' organised at the Delhi Assembly to mark the 50th anniversary of the Emergency (1975–77). Gupta said investigation into the Emergency's aftermath remains incomplete. 'The Shah Commission Report 1978 could not undertake a comprehensive examination of the full scale of human rights violations and administrative excesses. It is imperative that a new commission be formed to revisit and investigate the atrocities perpetrated during and after the Emergency. It is important to note that those guilty of imposing emergency haven't been brought to justice,' said Gupta. Union minister Jitendra Singh, who also attended the event, said, 'The brief but dark period between 1975 and 1977 impacted every citizen in some form — fundamental rights were suspended, press freedom was muzzled under rigid censorship, and thousands were detained without trial. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment, passed in 1976, even extended the term of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies from five to six years — a move that was rightly overturned by the 44th Amendment in 1978, restoring the people's faith in democratic processes,' said Singh. Delhi chief minister Rekha Gupta, who spoke at a 'mock parliament' organised by the Delhi BJP's women wing at Maharashtra Sadan, said, 'During the Emergency, anyone who raised their voice against the government was imprisoned without appeal, argument, or law.' 'Thousands were jailed overnight. Newspapers were banned on Indira Gandhi's orders. Even national icons like Manoj Kumar were banned, and a forced sterilisation campaign created an atmosphere of terror. The Emergency imposed by the Congress must be remembered so that the Constitution is never murdered again, and such a period is never repeated in India… understanding why the Emergency is called a 'black chapter' is crucial — so that such a day is never repeated and no such threat ever returns to India. It must be remembered regularly to prevent recurrence,' said Gupta.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Preamble not changeable yet changed during Emergency: V-P Jagdeep Dhankhar amid RSS call row
The Preamble of a Constitution is not changeable, but it was changed in 1976, said Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar on Saturday. His remark came amid an ongoing controversy over the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seeking removal of the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble. "We must reflect", said Jagdeep Dhankhar as he reminded people that the Preamble of the Constitution was changed in 1976. (PTI) While Dhankhar agreed that the Preamble is the "seed" on which the Constitution grows, he also reminded people that it was changed during Emergency in 1976, and the the words "socialist", "secular", and "integrity" were added to it. "We must reflect," Dhankhar said, underscoring that when B R Ambedkar formulated the Constitution, he must have "surely focused on it". He also said that India is the only country that has seen the Preamble of its Constitution undergo a change. What is the Preamble row? RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has objected to the use of words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution, and has sought their removal. The demand has sparked a controversy, with the BJP defending it and the Opposition calling it an insult to the Constitution and its framers. Hosabale argues that these terms were forcibly added to the Constitution and need to be reconsidered in the present times. 'Those who did such things are today moving around with the Constitution's copy. They have still not apologised... Apologise,' he said, in a veiled dig at Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi. This is not the first such call seeking removal of these terms. In November last year, the Supreme Court dismissed a series of petitions challenging the 1976 amendment. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment used to bring about these modifications in the Constitution was introduced by the erstwhile Indira Gandhi-led government during Emergency, from June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. 'Mask of RSS has come off' Congress says the RSS is calling for modifications to the Preamble as it is upset that the document is not "inspired by Manusmriti". Rahul Gandhi also joined in the criticism for this call. "The mask of RSS has come off again," he said. "RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda," the Congress leader posted on X. Meanwhile, several BJP leaders have echoed the call raised by the RSS general secretary, saying secularism has been imported from the West and and does not represent Indian culture. "The basic sentiment of India is equality of all religions... Secularism is not the core of our culture," former Madhya Pradesh CM Shivraj Chouhan told news agency ANI. Many other BJP leaders believe that any citizen would amplify RSS's demand as the modifications made during Emergency were not part of the original Constitution written by Dr B R Ambedkar. (With PTI, ANI inputs)
