Why removing ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the preamble endangers India?
By Doruvu Paul Jagan Babu: Assistant Chief Editor
In a detailed reflection grounded in constitutional history and national conscience, public intellectual and Christian scholar L K Mrityunjaya warns against renewed efforts to erase the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Revisiting the visions of Ambedkar, Nehru, and Indira Gandhi, he asserts that these values are not mere ideological impositions but essential pillars that uphold India’s democratic and pluralistic identity. The article appeals to all forward-thinking citizens to protect the Constitution from religious encroachment for the sake of Mother India.
The renewed controversy: RSS reignites the debate
On June 26, 2025, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale reignited the decades-old demand to remove the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Constitution’s Preamble. His remarks stirred a fresh round of national debate. While similar attempts have been made in the past, this call now comes amid the BJP’s 12-year rule, marked by increasing influence of the *Hindu nationalist ideology*.
Udhayanidhi Stalin’s trigger: The Sanatana Dharma comparison
The piece opens by recalling Tamil Nadu Deputy CM Udhayanidhi Stalin’s controversial statement from 2024, likening Sanatana Dharma to malaria and dengue. That comparison, although harsh, sparked a national conversation about religion, caste, and democracy — themes that echo in the current constitutional debate.
The spirit of the Constitution: What the Supreme Court affirmed
Mrityunjaya reminds readers that despite ideological clashes, the Supreme Court of India upheld that both secularism and socialism are consistent with the Constitution’s spirit. These terms, while added via the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency in 1976, are reflected in several provisions across the Constitution, such as:
Directive Principles of State Policy
Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity)
Article 19 (Freedom of Expression)
Article 31 (Property Rights and Social Justice)
Ambedkar’s vision: Democratic, not ideological constitution
The article presents an insightful historical dive into the Constituent Assembly Debates. In 1948, Prof. KT. Shah proposed to insert the words ‘secular, socialist’ into the Preamble. However, Dr. B R Ambedkar resisted, not because he opposed these ideals, but because he feared ideological rigidity could restrict democratic freedom. “Let future generations define economic and religious freedom in their time,” Ambedkar believed. Nehru agreed.
Indira Gandhi’s intervention: A strategic move for unity
Though not endorsing the Emergency, Mrityunjaya praises Indira Gandhi for inserting these terms into the Preamble via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, calling it a “far-sighted and irreversible step”. Amid fears of rising religious majoritarianism, this move provided clarity to the judiciary and protected India’s secular democratic character from ideological exploitation.
The real motive behind removal of demands
The article sharply critiques the RSS and likeminded forces. Mrityunjaya warns that removing ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble could:
Open the door to reinterpret the Constitution along Hindu majoritarian lines
Weaken safeguards against caste-based oppression and economic inequality
Allow prioritization of religious codes, such as the Hindu Code, over constitutional law
“Sanatana Dharma, if unchecked, leads to inequality, not unity,” he argues.
Sanatana Dharma: For whom Is It Good?
Mrityunjaya clarifies that his criticism of Sanatana Dharma is not aimed at religion itself, but at its caste-based hierarchy. He states that this ancient system favors Brahmins, Kshatriyas, and Vaishyas, while condemning Shudras and Atishudras to subjugation. “In the era of globalization and liberalization, such outdated doctrines have no place in governance.”
Democracy Is not theocracy: The danger of religious politics
The article argues that mixing religion and politics, particularly under a religious organization like the RSS, goes against Ambedkar’s foundational principles. He quotes: “Ambedkar would never approve of religious influence in democratic governance.”
The BJP’s ideological closeness with the RSS, according to Mrityunjaya, threatens constitutional federalism, religious freedom, and social justice.
A call to conscience: Defend the Constitution now
In conclusion, Mrityunjaya urges Ambedkarites, secularists, socialists, federalists, Christians, and all believers in democracy to unite and resist any attempt to weaken the Preamble. “If we remain silent, we become traitors to Mother India.”
He emphasizes that the Preamble is not just a ceremonial opening; it is the soul of the Constitution and must remain untouched to protect the diverse, democratic character of India.
