Time to Revisit ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’

India marks 50 years since the Emergency, an era that remains etched as one of the darkest chapters in India's democratic history. For Indians, the Constitution is a sacred document that guides the Indian democracy. But no matter how unbelievable it might seem but there are parts of the Constitution that carry a history of coercion, not consensus. Not much is known about the tortures that happened during Emergency. Conveniently, they were'nt earlier discussed, as the crimes committed by the Legacy Leader of Congress would have proven fatal for a party already leading the path to its downfall. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No matter how much this may sound like a conspiracy theory, but these are all facts.

 

In 1976, amid the distress of the Emergency declared by India's most authoritarian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment was enacted. The amendment was so lengthy and dealt with subjects of fundamental nature of the consitution, that legal scholars call it a “mini-Constitution.” With civil liberties suspended, opposition leaders jailed, and courts tamed, the 42nd amendment was when the government altered the very soul of the Preamble. The words “Secular” and “Socialist” were inserted into the foundational identity of the Republic. No Parliamentary debates. Hence, no point of contention or agreement. Simply forced.

 

One might question the relevance of discussing this today, as it is assumed that everything unjust that wasn't reversed by the 43rd and 44th amendments were accepted as part of our democratic fabric. But the question that will follow will lead us to the path of truth, that India's former authoratian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi opted to distance herself from: Is India 'secular' and committed to 'socialism'?

 

Let’s look back.

 

In 1949, when the Constitution was being framed, the inclusion of these very terms was proposed by Congress leader K.T. Shah. He was deeply influenced by Western political ideologies and Soviet socialism. He pushed for India to be declared a “Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.” But the Constituent Assembly that included legal luminaries, and civilisational thinkers, rejected the proposal outright.

 

 

 

 

Why?

 

Because they believed India’s strength lay in its ideological pluralism. Ambedkar warned that locking in concepts like ‘socialism’ would rob future generations of their right to evolve. He believed the Constitution should serve as a flexible framework, not a rigid manifesto. He said,

 

 

 

His words were prophetic.

 

Seventy-five years later, India’s economy is increasingly market-driven. Welfare continues, but socialism, that is defined as full state control over production and wealth, has long been irrelevant. ‘Secularism’, as practiced in Bharat for millennia, was never about state-religion separation in a Western sense. It was about Dharma, not dogma. India didn’t need a law to respect diversity, it already lived it. In fact, inserting the term ‘secular’ in 1976 risked suggesting that India became secular only then, which insults our civilisational history of spiritual co-existence. These were thoughts of stalwarts from the Constituent Assembly who rejected the idea of including the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble.

 

But here’s the deeper question that needs to be asked:

 

 

 

The answer lies in understanding what real democracy looks like.

 

The framers of the Constitution knew that India's civilisational values could not be reduced to Western templates. That’s why they never used the word secular, yet ensured equal rights through Articles 14, 15, and 25. That’s why Ambedkar’s vision of economic justice never demanded the word socialist, but enabled future governments to define their economic path.

 

But the Emergency changed that.

 

Under the Indira Gandhi regime, the 42nd Amendment not only inserted ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’, but also curtailed judicial review, extended parliamentary terms, and centralized power. Was this really nation-building, as the prevailing government during that time tried to portray and justify their sinful acts?No, it was evidently nothing else but mere power consolidation. And while many of the Emergency’s excesses were reversed by the Janata Government later, these two words remained, unchallenged, till date.

 

Today, as RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale raises a timely and thoughtful national debate, we are reminded that questioning the Constitution is not anti-national. It is democratic. It is patriotic. Because the Preamble was never meant to be a prison for ideas. It was meant to be a mirror of our aspirations. If those aspirations are being forced into rigid, outdated ideological containers, we must ask; whose Constitution is it really?

 

This debate is not about left or right. It’s about truth and trust and whether we allow political convenience to overwrite civilisational continuity. Is the 'New India' ready to reclaiming the Constitution as a living guide rooted in India’s own ethos and not someone else’s borrowed ‘isms’? Well, time will tell. 

 

The Constitution begins with “We, the People.” That includes you. So ask the right questions. Why were these words included when the people were silenced? Who benefits from their presence today? And most importantly, can a nation that has thrived on Dharma, 'Swa-tantra' and 'Swa-bhava' truly be boxed into terms that even its founding fathers found unfit?

 

 

 

 

Refered content published on Vayuveg 

--