​Settled semantics: on the Preamble and divisive debates

The call for the removal of the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble to the Constitution of India is no longer a fringe fantasy. With someone as senior and influential as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale making a public statement in support of the idea, it has now acquired a new urgency and prominence in national politics. The words “secular” and “socialist” were introduced through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, during the Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1976. And the Janata Party government, which included RSS-affiliated leaders, that replaced Indira Gandhi and reversed a lot of the changes made in the Constitution during the Emergency let these words stay. These concepts were so central to the Constitution of the new Republic that its original authors did not think it was even necessary to use these words in the Preamble. When a conflict over India’s national identity began to emerge during the 1970s, Indira Gandhi thought it would be appropriate and also politically rewarding to make these amendments. The Hindutva camp never really opposed these concepts historically. Gandhian Socialism was a part of the core tenets of the Jan Sangh, the earlier avatar of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Hindutva proponents accused their rivals of following ‘pseudo secularism,’ and by implication, claimed to be genuine secularists.

The words “secular” and “socialist” have attained meanings specific to the Indian context over the years. Secularism is not a rejection of Indian civilisational heritage or any religion, but a commitment to equal treatment of all faiths by the state. Indira Gandhi had been viewed as someone pandering to Hindu sentiments. Socialism is not about hostility to private property or enterprise, but a pragmatic appreciation of the fact that the state must take proactive measures to tackle poverty and expand opportunities for the deprived sections of society. The words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ reflect a broad consensus in Indian politics that has held for decades. There is nothing to be achieved by raking up a meaningless debate on these words. Perhaps the debate itself is the objective: to push a divisive agenda without providing any ideological, legal or practical reasoning for this demand. India’s challenge is not about these two words, but its continuing struggle to tackle discrimination, poverty and underdevelopment, which are often influenced by the caste and religious origins of its citizens. The Sangh Parivar, and the BJP, could serve the country better by focusing on these challenges rather than wasting energy on divisive debates on settled semantics.