Secularism Under Fire: 3 Explosive Truths Behind India’s Preamble Controversy You Can’t Ignore

Marking 50 years since India’s Emergency, RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale demanded Congress formally apologize for rights abuses under Indira Gandhi, citing mass arrests, forced sterilizations, and institutional collapse. Simultaneously, he called for a critical review of the words “secular” and “socialist” added to the Constitution’s Preamble via the 1976 42nd Amendment. Hosabale argued these terms were absent from the original draft by Ambedkar and were inserted during a period of democratic suspension when Parliament and the judiciary were weakened.

This linkage frames their legitimacy as inherently compromised by their Emergency-era origins. The demand reignites a foundational debate: whether the Constitution should strictly reflect its framers’ intent or evolve as a “living document” reflecting contemporary values. It forces a reckoning with how amendments enacted under authoritarian conditions should be evaluated. Ultimately, this anniversary underscores how India’s constitutional identity remains contested, balancing historical trauma against enduring principles.

Secularism Under Fire: 3 Explosive Truths Behind India’s Preamble Controversy You Can’t Ignore

The 50th anniversary of India’s Emergency (1975-1977) wasn’t just a moment of remembrance; it became a platform reigniting a profound constitutional debate. At an event in New Delhi, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale made two intertwined demands that cut to the heart of India’s foundational narrative: a formal apology from the Congress for Emergency-era excesses and a critical review of the words “secular” and “socialist” within the Constitution’s Preamble. 

Hosabale’s Core Arguments: 

• The Call for Accountability: Hosabale forcefully argued that the Congress party has never adequately apologized for the “excesses” committed during the Emergency – the suspension of civil liberties, mass arrests (citing figures like 1 lakh jailed), press censorship (250 journalists jailed), forced sterilizations (citing 60 lakh), and the undermining of Parliament and the Judiciary. “They will have to apologise to the nation,” he stated, critiquing those who “today [move] around with a copy of the Constitution” without acknowledging this past. His demand: a generational apology for actions taken under Indira Gandhi’s leadership. 

• Questioning the Preamble’s Additions: Hosabale’s more constitutionally significant argument focused on the 42nd Amendment (1976), enacted during the Emergency. This amendment inserted the words “Socialist” and “Secular” into the Preamble. Hosabale contended: 

• These words were absent from the original Preamble drafted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly. 

• They were added during a period of profound democratic breakdown – when citizens’ rights were suspended, Parliament was “ineffective,” and the judiciary was “crippled.” 

• The Preamble is meant to be “eternal,” raising the question: Should these specific ideologies be enshrined as eternal principles for India? 

• While acknowledging secular principles might have existed in practice, he argued their formal insertion under duress deserves critical re-evaluation: “This is something that deserves reflection.” 

The Historical Crucible: The Emergency and the 42nd Amendment 

Hosabale’s arguments are inextricably linked to the trauma of the Emergency. Declared on June 25, 1975, citing “internal disturbance,” it remains a dark chapter marked by authoritarian rule. The 42nd Amendment, passed in this climate, was sweeping. Beyond the Preamble changes, it significantly altered provisions related to the President’s power, Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles, judicial review, and the duration of legislatures. Critics have long viewed it as an attempt to concentrate power and alter the Constitution’s basic structure during a time when dissent was silenced. 

The Enduring Controversy: Why These Words Matter 

The debate over “Socialist” and “Secular” in the Preamble predates Hosabale’s speech but gained fresh impetus on this significant anniversary: 

• The Originalist Argument: Proponents like Hosabale emphasize fidelity to the Constituent Assembly’s vision. They argue the founders deliberately chose not to include these specific terms, opting instead for principles like justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, which could encompass various interpretations of state policy and societal harmony. Inserting specific ideologies later, especially under controversial circumstances, is seen as a deviation. 

• The Living Document Argument: Opponents of removal argue the Constitution is dynamic. Adding “Secular” and “Socialist” formally recognized evolving state practice and societal consensus post-independence. Removing them, they fear, could signal a retreat from commitments to religious equality and state-led welfare, regardless of the amendment’s origins. They see the terms as reflecting core, enduring Indian values. 

• The Shadow of the Emergency: The central thrust of Hosabale’s critique isn’t solely about the words’ meaning, but their provenance. Linking them inextricably to the Emergency frames them as illegitimate implants from a period of constitutional abuse, tainting their status regardless of their perceived merit. 

Beyond Polemics: The Value of Reflection 

Hosabale’s call, particularly regarding the Preamble, transcends immediate politics. It forces a necessary, albeit complex, conversation: 

• Constitutional Legitimacy: How do we evaluate amendments made during periods of democratic erosion? Does the context of their passage inherently undermine their legitimacy? 

• Defining the “Eternal”: What truly constitutes the immutable core of the Indian Constitution? Are broad principles like Justice more “eternal” than specific ideological labels? 

• Historical Reconciliation: Can a nation move forward without a fuller acknowledgment of, and reckoning with, periods of state excess like the Emergency? Does an apology hold meaningful weight 50 years later? 

The Takeaway 

The 50th anniversary of the Emergency served as a stark reminder that history’s shadows are long. Dattatreya Hosabale’s dual demands – for an apology for the Emergency’s trauma and a critical re-examination of the words “Secular” and “Socialist” added during that period – are not merely rhetorical flourishes. They tap into deep, unresolved questions about India’s constitutional journey, the legitimacy of amendments made under duress, and how a nation reconciles its foundational ideals with the complex, sometimes dark, realities of its past. 

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the call to reflect on why these words are in the Preamble, and the circumstances that placed them there, is a valuable invitation to engage critically with the living document that shapes India’s democracy. The debate underscores that the Constitution is not just a static text, but a narrative constantly being interpreted, contested, and redefined in the light of history and contemporary values.