Constitutional Crossroads: The Ideological Tensions Shaping India’s Democracy 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Constitution Day letter urging citizens to prioritize constitutional duties highlights a core ideological tension within the ruling BJP, as its foundational philosophy of Integral Humanism, which favors a unitary state and is skeptical of Western concepts like secularism, exists in contradiction with key constitutional principles including explicit federalism, secularism, and socialism—a conflict manifesting in real governance debates over center-state relations, the Preamble’s terminology, and the very concept of constitutional morality.

Constitutional Crossroads: The Ideological Tensions Shaping India’s Democracy 

As India marked Constitution Day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s public letter urging citizens to prioritize their constitutional duties represented more than ceremonial rhetoric. Beneath this reaffirmation of faith in the 1950 document lies a complex ideological landscape where the ruling BJP’s foundational philosophy—Integral Humanism—exists in tension with constitutional principles, raising profound questions about India’s governance direction. 

The timing is significant. Opposition parties have increasingly centered electoral campaigns on the argument that the BJP intends to amend India’s foundational charter, making Modi’s constitutional endorsement both a political response and an ideological statement. 

The Contested Vocabulary of Nationhood 

The current debate crystallizes around two words inserted into the Preamble during the 1976 Emergency: ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’. For the Sangh Parivar, these terms represent ideological impositions rather than organic developments. RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale recently called for a debate about their removal, suggesting they distort India’s constitutional identity. 

The government’s official position, clarified by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal in July, maintains there are “no current plans” to amend the Preamble. Yet the intellectual disagreement persists. RSS and BJP leaders frequently cite B.R. Ambedkar’s own arguments during Constituent Assembly debates that explicit inclusion was unnecessary because secularism was woven into fundamental rights and socialism into directive principles. 

This philosophical dispute reveals deeper divergences. The RSS believes Hindu ‘dharma’ is inherently secular and that India fundamentally constitutes a Hindu nation—a vision at odds with the constitutional conception of secularism as equal respect for all religions without state affiliation. 

Integral Humanism: A Philosophy at Odds with Constitutional Structure 

The BJP’s adoption of Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism as its guiding philosophy in 1985 created what the article describes as “an ideological contradiction that the party has to confront”. This philosophy presents several points of friction with constitutional arrangements: 

Table: Key Tensions Between Integral Humanism and Constitutional Principles 

Upadhyaya’s lectures explicitly criticize federalism as creating a contradiction between principle and practice: “We made our Constitution federal, whereby what we have adopted in practice, we have rejected in principle”. This philosophical preference for unitary governance contrasts with India’s increasingly vocal regional politics, where opposition-ruled states like Kerala, West Bengal, and Tamil Nadu accuse the central government of eroding federal principles. 

The Political Imperative Versus Philosophical Consistency 

The BJP faces a practical dilemma. To participate in electoral politics, the party must swear allegiance to constitutional principles its philosophical foundation questions. The Representation of People’s Act requires parties to commit to socialism and secularism—a legal necessity that prompted the BJP to adopt what it terms “positive secularism” defined as ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhav’ (equal respect for all religions). 

This balancing act creates what might be termed constitutional dualism: public adherence to constitutional norms alongside philosophical reservations about their foundations. Modi’s Constitution Day letter skillfully navigates this tension by emphasizing duties over debates about terminology, focusing on practical constitutional implementation rather than theoretical disagreements. 

The Prime Minister’s personal narrative—highlighting how the Constitution enabled “a humble and economically disadvantaged person” like himself to reach the nation’s highest office—powerfully reinforces constitutional legitimacy while sidestepping philosophical objections. 

Federalism Under Stress: Where Philosophy Meets Governance 

The tension between Integral Humanism’s unitary preference and India’s federal reality manifests in concrete governance conflicts: 

• Center-State Relations: Multiple opposition-ruled states accuse governors of acting as “agents of the Centre,” intervening in state institutional functioning. 

• Legislative Overreach: The controversial farm laws, later repealed, were seen as central encroachment on matters in the State List. 

• Financial Imbalances: Centrally sponsored schemes that require significant state financial contributions create friction in fiscal federalism. 

These practical governance issues give philosophical disagreements tangible consequences. As the article notes, several southern states have expressed particular concern that “federalism is in retreat and the Centre is usurping states’ powers”. 

Constitutional Morality Versus Cultural Morality 

Another layer of tension emerges in competing conceptions of morality. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s reported debate with former President Pranab Mukherjee highlighted this divergence. When Mukherjee equated morality with legality, Bhagwat questioned whether the reverse held true, suggesting the need to free India’s legal system from “foreign influences”. 

This exchange reveals a fundamental question: should constitutional morality derive from the document itself and its interpretation, or should it align with what the RSS considers indigenous cultural and philosophical traditions? The Constitution establishes its own moral framework through fundamental rights, directive principles, and institutional arrangements—a framework that might not perfectly align with any particular cultural or religious tradition’s moral system. 

The Development Paradox 

Perhaps the most intriguing tension lies in the realm of economic philosophy. Integral Humanism, while skeptical of Western socialism, explicitly recognizes “socialism’s importance in the Indian context of wide socio-economic inequalities”. Upadhyaya advocated for free education, healthcare, and employment—social welfare commitments that find expression in many current government policies. 

This creates what might be termed the development paradox: a philosophical tradition suspicious of socialism nevertheless embraces substantial welfare commitments, while a constitution explicitly containing “socialist” principles accommodates market-oriented development. The BJP’s daily emphasis on ‘vikas’ (development) thus represents both continuity and transformation of these ideological strands. 

Conclusion: Navigating Constitutional Contradictions 

India’s constitutional journey has always involved navigating tensions—between individual rights and collective interests, between state power and liberty, between uniformity and diversity. The current moment adds another layer: between a governing party’s philosophical foundations and the constitutional order it is sworn to uphold. 

Prime Minister Modi’s Constitution Day letter represents one approach to this tension: emphasizing shared constitutional duties over divisive philosophical debates. Yet as the article concludes, “Perhaps it is time for the BJP to drop Integral Humanism. After all, Upadhyaya was not among the framers of the Indian Constitution”. 

Whether this happens or whether some synthesis emerges, India’s constitutional democracy continues to evolve through precisely such tensions between foundational philosophies and governing realities. The Constitution’s resilience has historically derived from its capacity to accommodate competing visions while maintaining essential frameworks for democratic governance. 

As citizens reflect on their constitutional duties this Constitution Day, they engage not just with a legal document but with living tensions between philosophy and governance that will continue shaping India’s democratic trajectory.