Constitutional Crisis: 5 Alarming Truths Behind the Push to Drop ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular

The RSS leader’s demand to remove “socialist” and “secular” from India’s Constitution ignores three critical realities. First, while these terms were formally added in 1976, they reflect principles embedded since independence—evident in original Article 25 (using “secular”) and decades of welfare policies. Second, the Supreme Court recently upheld these words as part of the Constitution’s “basic structure,” making their removal legally untenable. Third, the move contradicts the BJP’s own constitution that pledges allegiance to socialism and secularism, exposing ideological dissonance.

Beyond semantics, erasing these terms risks dismantling India’s foundational commitment to religious equality and social justice. “Secular” mandates state neutrality in a diverse nation, while “socialist” binds governments to address stark wealth inequality. Constituent Assembly visionaries like Sardar Patel explicitly called India a “secular state” in 1949, warning against communal division. This isn’t about editing text—it’s about preserving a covenant that protects marginalized communities and sustains India’s pluralist democracy.

Constitutional Crisis: 5 Alarming Truths Behind the Push to Drop ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular

The recent call by RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale to remove “socialist” and “secular” from the Constitution’s Preamble isn’t just a political disagreement—it strikes at the heart of India’s identity. To understand why this matters, we must move beyond partisan rhetoric and examine three critical dimensions: historical truth, legal sanctity, and the lived reality of Indian pluralism. 

1. The Flawed Historical Argument

Hosabale claims these words were illegitimately inserted during the Emergency (1975-77), absent from Ambedkar’s original 1949 draft. While technically true, this ignores crucial context:  

• The 42nd Amendment (1976) merely made explicit what was always implicit in the Constitution. As the Supreme Court noted in its November 2023 verdict upholding the terms, they reflect the “spirit of the Constitution.”  

• “Secular” appears in original Article 25(2)(a), while socialist principles shaped land reforms and wealth redistribution policies since independence.  

• Constituent Assembly debates reveal Sardar Patel’s unambiguous declaration in 1949: “This Constitution… of a secular State will not be disfigured by communal provisions.” 

2. The Supreme Court’s Binding Wisdom

In dismissing petitions against these terms just months ago, the Court didn’t merely validate their inclusion—it affirmed they represent the Constitution’s basic structure, beyond parliamentary amendment. Hosabale’s “debate” call effectively challenges judicial authority, risking constitutional anarchy. 

3. The Stark Political Contradiction

The BJP’s own constitution pledges allegiance to “socialism, secularism, and democracy.” This dissonance reveals a deeper tension:  

• 2014-2024: BJP leveraged constitutional institutions while RSS affiliates questioned their foundations.  

• Election Realpolitik: Amit Shah’s 2024 insistence that “secular won’t be touched” contrasted with Hosabale’s post-election call—exposing a struggle between electoral pragmatism and ideological goals. 

Why This Isn’t Just Semantics 

Removing these words would:  

• Erode Minority Safeguards: “Secular” legally obligates state neutrality in religious matters—critical in a nation with 200+ million religious minorities.  

• Undermine Social Justice: “Socialist” (despite flawed implementation) commits the state to reduce inequality—a mandate in a country where top 10% hold 77% of wealth.  

• Normalize Constitutional Erosion: As T.J.M. Wilson warned in 1949, “clouds threaten the secular state.” Today, those clouds are partisan attacks on foundational words. 

The Human Stake 

This debate isn’t about terminology—it’s about whether India remains a transformative constitution designed to uplift marginalized communities, or becomes a majoritarian document. When leaders dismiss terms encapsulating the state’s duty to farmers, laborers, and religious minorities, they dismiss India’s weakest citizens.  

Constitutional Vision vs. Revisionism 

Indira Gandhi’s 1976 amendment crystallized what Nehru, Patel, and Ambedkar embedded in the Constitution’s architecture: India’s survival depends on balancing pluralism with socioeconomic justice. The RSS’s objection isn’t to a word—it’s to this equilibrium.  

As former President K.R. Narayanan’s aide S.N. Sahu implies, defending these terms is about preserving the Indian republic’s soul. The Constitution’s preamble isn’t a menu to edit—it’s our nation’s compass. Tampering with it risks losing our way entirely.