Arvind Gulati
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma recently echoed the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) long-standing view by advocating for the removal of the words “secularism” and “socialism” from the Preamble of the Constitution. He rightly called this a golden opportunity to correct distortions imposed during the Emergency—distortions that were politically expedient but constitutionally alien to Bharat’s civilizational ethos. These terms, inserted through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, were neither demanded by the people nor rooted in India’s indigenous political philosophy. They were political insertions, imposed at a time when the country was under a democratic blackout.
This demand is not about rewriting the Constitution—it’s about restoring its original spirit. To understand the need for this restoration, we must revisit the Preamble’s foundational vision, the way it was subverted during the Emergency, and why these foreign ideological implants do not resonate with India’s constitutional identity.
Beyond a Preface: The Preamble as the Republic’s Sacred Oath
The Preamble begins with the powerful words: “We, the People of India…” These are not ornamental. They are solemn. They reflect a national oath of purpose and principle. Every Constitution has a soul. Ours lies in these opening lines—a collective commitment to values such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity.
But an oath, by definition, is sacred. It Is not meant to be amended by executive will or political convenience—especially not during a time when democratic institutions are suspended. The insertion of “secularism” and “socialism” during the Emergency was an alteration of that oath without the people’s mandate. It was akin to modifying a national pledge in the middle of a blackout.
If the Preamble is indeed the moral and ideological oath of the Indian Republic, then that oath must be restored to its original clarity, honesty, and sanctity.
Secularism Was Always Present—In Spirit, If Not in Word
Those who argue that the insertion of “secularism” strengthened the Constitution overlook a vital truth: secularism was already present in the original Preamble—implicitly, substantively, and powerfully. The Preamble adopted in 1950 guaranteed:
“Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.”
Among these, the words “belief,” “faith,” and “worship” are the clearest constitutional reflections of secularism in the Indian sense. They affirm that every citizen has the unqualified freedom to believe in any religion, practice any faith, and worship in any form they choose. This vision does not separate religion from public life—it respects and protects all religions without privileging or suppressing any.
This is what makes Indian secularism fundamentally distinct from the Western model. In Europe and America, secularism evolved as a wall of separation between church and state, often arising from centuries of religious conflict. In contrast, Indian secularism, or Dharmic secularism, is rooted in Sarva Dharma Sambhava—equal reverence for all traditions, not state-sponsored indifference or hostility to religion.
That Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the other framers deliberately chose not to insert the word “secular” was not an omission—it was a conscious design. They understood that importing Western political vocabulary into India’s spiritual and social fabric would create unnecessary conflict and confusion. Instead of using a foreign label, they encoded the spirit of secularism into rights—through belief, faith, and worship—not through slogans.
The 1976 insertion of the term during the Emergency, therefore, did not introduce secularism—it replaced a spiritually Indian ideal with a politically European one. It disrupted the organic balance the Constitution already maintained.
Socialism Was Also Inherent—Without Needing Marxist Labels
Much like secularism, socialism too was inherently embedded in the original constitutional vision. The Preamble already committed India to:
“Equality of status and of opportunity”
“And to promote among them all…”
These phrases clearly reflect a social commitment to dignity, inclusion, and distributive justice. But unlike Soviet-style socialism, India’s model was never meant to be statist or authoritarian.
Mahatma Gandhi envisioned Sarvodaya—welfare of all—and Antyodaya—upliftment of the weakest—as the moral principles behind economic policy. These ideas emphasized human dignity over class conflict, and community self-reliance over state control. Indian society has historically understood inequality not as something to be crushed by force, but to be uplifted by Dharm.
When the term “socialist” was inserted in 1976, it was not to enhance Indian socialism—it was to artificially align India with Cold War-era leftist rhetoric. Ironically, after 1991, India embraced economic liberalization, rendering this term not only ideologically outdated but practically irrelevant.
The 42nd Amendment: A Political Insertion During a Constitutional Blackout
The 42nd Amendment is one of the most controversial and far-reaching amendments in Indian history. It was passed in 1976 during the Emergency, when fundamental rights were suspended, courts were weakened, the press was censored, and Parliament functioned under duress.
In this environment of fear and authoritarianism, two words were inserted into the Preamble—”secular” and “socialist.” This was not a democratic act. It was a political maneuver to whitewash state overreach with ideological grandstanding.
A Constitution that reflects the people’s will must evolve with deliberation, not compulsion. If these words had emerged from national consensus, public debate, or constitutional convention, their legitimacy could be discussed. But they didn’t. They were added in darkness, and must now be removed in daylight.
Indian vs. Western Worldviews: Why These Terms Don’t Fit
Both “secularism” and “socialism” are Western constructs that evolved from Europe’s historical struggles—between Church and State, and between Capital and Labour. India’s civilization, by contrast, is not based on such binaries. Our public sphere has always harmonized Dharma and Rajya, devotion and governance, faith and freedom.
Western secularism tends to privatize religion, often viewing it with suspicion. Indian secularism embraces it with dignity and equality. Western socialism often seeks to suppress wealth creation to ensure equality of outcomes. Indian social philosophy supports upliftment without punishment, enterprise without exploitation.
By inserting these Western terms into the Preamble, the 42nd Amendment did not Indianize the Constitution. It recolonized it ideologically, importing terms that were never part of India’s moral vocabulary.
The Constitution Needs Restoration, Not Decoration
It is deeply ironic that at a time when India was striving to decolonize its laws, education, and institutions, the Emergency-era government chose to recolonize the Constitution—embedding imported political ideologies into its most revered section.
Reclaiming the original Preamble is not an attack on constitutional principles—it is an act of civilizational fidelity. It pays homage to the intent of our founding fathers, aligns with the cultural and spiritual ethos of the nation, and discards superficial ideological embellishments that do not resonate with India’s lived realities.
Conclusion
Now is the moment for thoughtful reflection and courageous correction. The Constitution belongs to the people—it is not the property of any political regime, ideology, or historical imposition. The Preamble is our Republic’s solemn vow, not a platform for political branding. To remove the words “secularism” and “socialism” is not to regress—it is to return, with confidence, to our roots, our authentic voice, and the moral clarity of the Constitution’s original vision.
These terms—forced upon the nation in an era of fear—must be taken out in an era of democratic strength. This is not about rewriting the Constitution. It is about restoring its dignity. About reaffirming the Indian way of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—not through borrowed ideologies, but through our own constitutional spirit.
That is not merely reform—it is rightful restoration.
