RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosbole says that socialist and secular words were not part of the basic preamble of the Constitution.
A statement by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosbole has raised controversy. He has said that socialist and secular words were not part of the original preamble of the Constitution. These words were added to the Constitution during the Emergency in 1976. Along with this, he suggested that these words should be publicly debated whether they are relevant now or not.
Let us know what is the meaning of the word socialist and secular? Why these words have become the root of controversy and when there was a dispute about them.
42nd Constitutional Amendment was added
In fact, in the first constitution, India was described as a universal democratic republic. The 42nd Constitution was amended in the year 1976. Through this, both the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were added to the constitution. Then there was an emergency in the country. The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, at that time, described her rule as dedicated to the poor and the general public and included both these words in the preface of the Constitution. By the way, this amendment was only under question. There has been a dispute about this since then.
Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi dedicated both words to the poor and the general public.
No Soviet Union or China’s model
According to the experts of the Constitution, Samajwadi did not mean nationalization or communism at that time. The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi argued that it is not a model of China and the then Soviet, but India has its own model where only necessary areas will be nationalized. At the same time, experts about the word secular say that this word was already in the soul of the Constitution. It was expressed to all the citizens of the country in Article 25 to 28 of the Constitution through religious freedom, worship and freedom of following religion. This ideology was clearly brought through the 42nd amendment in the preamble.
The basic feature of the constitution is secularism
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey of the Supreme Court says that socialism really reflects the commitment of the state (country) towards the welfare state and the commitment of equal opportunity. That is, India is a state (country) where social and economically equality is established. At the same time, secularism is actually one of all aspects of the right to equality of all citizens. Here the state (country) does not have any religion of its own, nor does the citizens believe the freedom or right to accept, conduct and propagate religion. He said that Kesavanand Bharti vs. Kerala State and SR Bommai vs. India Affairs have also said that secularism is actually a basic feature of the Constitution.
The matter regarding the constitution had also reached the Supreme Court.
Both words surrounded by controversies from the beginning
Controversy started with the inclusion of the term socialist and secularism in the Constitution. Its opponents believe that the idea of justice, equality, freedom and brotherhood lies without being clearly mentioned in a way in the philosophy of the Constitution. The critics of the Congress have been expressing concern that they can be misused or misused by the inclusion of these words separately in the constitution. In such a situation, such policies will be made which will withdraw from the original intentions of these words.
Parties opposing the Congress have always used it as a weapon against the Congress. At the same time, at present, the BJP government has opened a new front against the Congress by celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Emergency as Constitution Day. Due to this, a fresh conflict between the two political parties has started.
Many times in the last few years, there has also been a demand to remove both these words from the Constitution. Some BJP leaders had filed petitions regarding this in the Rajya Sabha and the Supreme Court. It was said in these petitions that Parliament should not have the right to such a fundamental change. However, when the matter reached the Supreme Court in 2008, the Supreme Court had said that socialism should be widely seen as public welfare system. It is a part of democracy.
The conflict started again
After the statement of the general secretary of the Sangh, the conflict has started again. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has written on X, the RSS never accepted the Indian Constitution. In the words of the Sangh, the Constitution of India was never inspired by ‘Manusmriti’. RSS and BJP have been repeatedly talking about a new constitution. This was also the issue of Narendra Modi’s Lok Sabha election campaign in the year 2024.
The RSS never fully accepted the Constitution of India. From 30 November 1949, he attacked Dr. Ambedkar, Nehru and others associated with constitution. In the words of the RSS itself, this constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti.
RSS and BJP repeatedly demanded new constitution pic.twitter.com/nlh6ibpfo
– jairam ramesh (@Jairam_ramesh) June 27, 2025
At the same time, Congress spokesperson Supriya Srinet has questioned the social media platform X that it is RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosbole. They are demanding the removal of socialist and secular words from the Preamble of the Constitution. Why do Sangh and BJP want to change the Constitution at any cost? ”
Also read: What is the salary of Panchayat Secretary? Know how many works, how many names they have