N※N

'Socialist', 'secular' in Preamble ideological landmines; time to undo: Article in RSS-linked weekly

The article published on *The Print* titled *"Socialist, Secular in Preamble: Ideological Landmines, Time to Undo Article in RSS-Linked Weekly"* delves into a contentious debate surrounding the inclusion of the words "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Published on October 14, 2024, the piece draws from an editorial in *Organiser*, a weekly magazine associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a prominent right-wing ideological organization in India. The editorial argues for the removal of these terms, labeling them as "ideological landmines" that were inserted during the Emergency period (1975-1977) under Indira Gandhi's government through the 42nd Amendment. This summary aims to extensively cover the arguments, historical context, and implications of the debate as presented in the article, while also providing a broader perspective on the issue.

The core contention of the *Organiser* editorial, as reported by *The Print*, is that the terms "socialist" and "secular" were not part of the original Constitution adopted in 1950. Instead, they were added in 1975 during a period of political turmoil and authoritarian rule, which the editorial claims lacked democratic legitimacy. The RSS-linked publication argues that these words represent ideological impositions that do not align with India's cultural and historical ethos. Specifically, it critiques "socialist" as being tied to outdated economic policies that hindered India's growth for decades, promoting state control over resources and stifling private enterprise. The editorial suggests that India's economic liberalization in the 1990s, which moved away from socialist principles, is evidence of the term's irrelevance in the modern context. On the other hand, "secular" is criticized for being misinterpreted and misused to favor minority communities at the expense of the majority Hindu population, thus creating social divisions rather than fostering unity. The editorial posits that India's inherent cultural pluralism and tolerance, rooted in its ancient traditions, do not require a Western concept of secularism to define its identity.

The article in *The Print* provides historical context to these claims, noting that the 42nd Amendment, often referred to as a "mini-Constitution" due to its extensive changes, was enacted during the Emergency when fundamental rights were suspended, and political opposition was suppressed. Critics of the amendment, including those cited in the *Organiser* editorial, argue that it was a tool for consolidating power rather than reflecting the will of the people. The inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble was seen by some as an attempt to project a particular ideological stance—socialism aligning with the Congress party's economic policies at the time, and secularism as a counter to communal tensions. However, the *Organiser* editorial asserts that these terms have since become "landmines" that fuel ideological battles and misrepresent India's foundational values.

Expanding on the critique of "socialist," the editorial in *Organiser* highlights how the term is associated with failed economic experiments in India, such as the nationalization of banks and industries, which led to inefficiencies and corruption. It argues that India's economic progress in the post-liberalization era, marked by globalization and market-driven reforms, contradicts the socialist label. The piece suggests that retaining "socialist" in the Preamble is an anachronism that does not reflect India's current economic trajectory or aspirations to be a global economic powerhouse. Furthermore, it contends that socialism, as a foreign ideology, does not resonate with India's indigenous systems of community welfare and mutual support, which predate modern political ideologies.

Regarding "secular," the editorial's argument, as summarized by *The Print*, centers on the perceived misuse of the term in Indian politics. It claims that secularism has been reduced to "pseudo-secularism," where political parties engage in appeasement of minorities for vote-bank politics, thereby alienating the majority community. The piece argues that India's civilizational ethos, often described as "Sarva Dharma Sambhav" (equal respect for all religions), is a more authentic representation of religious harmony than the Western model of secularism, which emphasizes a strict separation of religion and state. The editorial suggests that the term "secular" has been weaponized to suppress expressions of Hindu identity and culture, creating a skewed narrative of national identity. It calls for a return to India's organic understanding of pluralism, which does not require a constitutional label to ensure coexistence.

*The Print* also notes that the *Organiser* editorial frames the inclusion of these terms as a historical wrong that needs to be corrected. It calls for a national debate on whether the Preamble should be restored to its original form, reflecting the vision of the Constituent Assembly that drafted the Constitution under the leadership of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The editorial argues that the original framers of the Constitution deliberately avoided ideological labels like "socialist" and "secular" to keep the document flexible and inclusive of diverse perspectives. By contrast, the 42nd Amendment is portrayed as an act of political overreach that imposed a rigid ideological framework on the nation.

The article in *The Print* does not explicitly endorse or refute the *Organiser* editorial's stance but presents it as part of a broader ideological discourse in India. It implicitly acknowledges the polarizing nature of the debate, given the RSS's influence on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the potential political ramifications of revisiting constitutional amendments. The debate over "socialist" and "secular" is not new; it has surfaced periodically, especially during discussions on India's economic policies and communal harmony. However, the *Organiser* editorial's call to "undo" these terms reignites questions about the balance between constitutional sanctity and evolving national priorities.

To provide a broader perspective, it is worth noting that the terms "socialist" and "secular" in the Preamble are not merely symbolic; they have legal and political implications. The Supreme Court of India has, in various judgments, interpreted these terms as part of the "basic structure" of the Constitution, which cannot be altered. For instance, in the landmark *Kesavananda Bharati* case (1973), the court established the basic structure doctrine, and subsequent rulings have upheld "secularism" and "socialism" as integral to India's constitutional identity. Any attempt to remove these terms would likely face legal challenges and require a constitutional amendment, which demands a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament—a politically daunting task.

Moreover, the debate touches on deeper questions of national identity and the role of ideology in governance. Critics of the *Organiser* editorial might argue that removing "socialist" and "secular" could undermine India's commitment to social justice and religious neutrality, especially in a diverse and multi-religious society. Proponents of retaining these terms often emphasize that they reflect India's post-independence aspirations to build an equitable society and ensure equal treatment of all faiths, countering the communal divisions of the partition era. On the other hand, supporters of the RSS viewpoint might argue that these terms have been politicized to serve narrow interests, deviating from their intended purpose.

In conclusion, the article in *The Print* highlights a significant ideological debate sparked by the *Organiser* editorial, which challenges the inclusion of "socialist" and "secular" in the Indian Constitution's Preamble. The editorial's call to "undo" these terms is rooted in a critique of their historical imposition during the Emergency, their perceived irrelevance in contemporary India, and their alleged misalignment with the country's cultural ethos. While the piece does not resolve the debate, it underscores the complexities of balancing historical legacies with modern aspirations in a diverse democracy. The discussion raises fundamental questions about the nature of India's constitutional identity, the adaptability of its foundational document, and the interplay of ideology and governance in shaping the nation's future. As India continues to evolve economically and socially, such debates are likely to persist, reflecting the dynamic and often contentious nature of democratic discourse.

Read the Full ThePrint Article at:
[ https://theprint.in/india/socialist-secular-in-preamble-ideological-landmines-time-to-undo-article-in-rss-linked-weekly/2690099/ ]