Content:
- Settled semantics
- Two democracies and the echoes of tyranny
Settled semantics
Context & Trigger
- The RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale recently supported the removal of “Secular” and “Socialist” from the Preamble.
- This statement marks a mainstreaming of what was once a fringe position, giving it political salience ahead of possible constitutional debates.
- The demand is aimed at undoing the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976) during the Emergency, which inserted these two terms.
Relevance : GS 1(Society) ,GS 2 (Polity & Constitution),GS 4 (Ethics – Constitutional morality)
Practice Question : “The real threat to the Constitution is not from the words it carries, but from the values we fail to uphold.”In light of recent calls to remove “Secular” and “Socialist” from the Preamble, critically examine their constitutional relevance and practical significance in contemporary India. (250 words)
Historical Background
- Original Constitution (1950) did not contain the words “secular” or “socialist” in the Preamble.
- However, the spirit of secularism and socialism was embedded through:
- Fundamental Rights (Articles 14–18, 25–28),
- Directive Principles (Articles 38, 39, 46),
- Equal Citizenship (Article 15),
- Abolition of untouchability (Article 17).
42nd Amendment, 1976:
- Indira Gandhi government inserted “Secular” and “Socialist” to explicitly reaffirm these ideals amid rising political and identity-based tensions.
- Passed during Emergency — often criticized for lack of parliamentary debate and opposition participation.
Indian Secularism: Unique Features
- Not “anti–religion” but equidistant from all religions.
- Upholds “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” — equal respect to all faiths, rooted in India’s civilisational ethos.
- Constitutional Practice:
- No state religion.
- State can intervene in religious practices to uphold reform (e.g. Sabarimala, Shirur Mutt).
- Article 25–28 grant freedom of religion with reasonable restrictions.
Constitutional Basis: Spirit Over Semantics
- Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD):
- K.T. Shah proposed inclusion of these terms; rejected as already implicit.
- B.R. Ambedkar: Emphasized religious liberty and socio-economic equity through Articles 25–28, and DPSPs.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
- Supreme Court declared secularism a Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
- The Preamble is amendable, but basic features are non-negotiable.
Socialism in Indian Context
- Not classical Marxism — rather Gandhian + Nehruvian socialism.
- Indian socialism is “democratic socialism” — aiming for economic justice with democratic freedoms.
- Implied in DPSPs — Article 39(b): Equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
Key Interventions:
- Public Sector Development post-Independence.
- Land Reforms and Abolition of Zamindari.
- Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) – a socialistic safety net.
- Right to Education, Food Security, Health Missions – part of India’s socialist welfare model.
Legal & Ethical Concerns in Removing These Terms
- Basic Structure Doctrine (Keshavananda Bharati Case, 1973) prohibits tampering with core constitutional ideals like:
- Rule of law
- Equality
- Secularism
- Federalism
- Removing the words may not change the spirit, but symbolically erode constitutional clarity and national consensus.
- Ethically: Prioritising divisive semantic debates over actual governance issues like poverty, discrimination, and inequality will not solve nation’s real challenges.
Motivation & Criticism of the Debate
- Debate possibly aimed to:
- Create political polarisation around national identity.
- Distract from substantive issues: unemployment, social justice, caste discrimination.
- Even the Janata Party government (1977), despite opposing the Emergency, did not remove these words.
India’s Real Challenges:
India’s challenge isn’t two words in the Preamble. It’s the poverty, inequality, discrimination, and identity-based exclusion we haven’t yet defeated.
- Poverty: 228.9 million Indians below multidimensional poverty line (NITI Aayog 2023).
- Caste Disparities: SC/STs have 2–3x lower access to higher education, jobs.
- Unemployment: Youth unemployment remains ~45% in urban India (CMIE, 2024).
- Wealth Inequality: Top 1% owns 40.1% of India’s wealth (Oxfam, 2024).
Comparative Perspective
| Country | Preamble Status | Notes |
| 🇫🇷 France | Liberty, Equality, Fraternity | Never removed |
| 🇺🇸 USA | “We the People…” | Symbolically stable |
| 🇨🇳 China | Removed socialism during reform | Part of regime overhaul |
| 🇮🇳 India | Democratic continuity | No regime change; only ideological debate |
Conclusion: Why the Words Matter
- These terms act as moral compasses, reminding us of India’s aspirational ideals.
- Debate around their removal is a semantic distraction, not a legal necessity or policy priority.
- Real service to the Constitution lies in upholding the spirit of secularism and socialism through action, not erasing symbolic words from the Preamble.
- India’s unity and prosperity demand inclusive governance, not divisive semantics.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
Two democracies and the echoes of tyranny
Context: Why Now?
- July 4 is U.S. Independence Day — a moment for reflection on the strength of democratic systems.
- Judge J. Michael Luttig reminded Americans that liberty must be protected not just by laws, but by people.
- This global reflection offers a moment to revisit India’s Emergency of 1975–77.
Relevance : GS 1 ( Post Indian Independence ), GS 2(Polity and Governance)
Practice Question : “The Emergency (1975–77) revealed how legal mechanisms can be used to suppress civil liberties in a democracy. Discuss the constitutional, institutional, and societal lessons India must draw from this episode to strengthen democratic resilience.” (250 words)
What Happened in 1975?
- Declaration of Emergency on June 25, 1975.
- Invoked Article 352 of the Constitution citing “internal disturbance”.
- Key outcomes:
- Civil liberties suspended.
- Press censorship imposed.
- Preventive arrests under MISA (Maintenance of Internal Security Act).
- Judiciary deferred to executive decisions.
- Over 1,00,000 citizens detained during Emergency under MISA and other acts.
Sterilisation Drive During Emergency: Key Facts
- 8.3 million sterilisations in 1976–77 (vs ~2.6 million in 1975–76).
- Over 6.2 million vasectomies, mainly targeting poor men.
- Sterilisation quotas assigned to districts; targets ranged from 50,000 to 1 lakh+.
- Incentives: ₹150 cash, radios, food grains; penalties: denied ration cards, school access.
- Turkman Gate protests (Delhi): 1000+ homes demolished, police firing caused deaths.
- Shah Commission (1978) called it a “systematic and legalised violation of civil liberties.”
Institutional Lessons
| Institution | Challenge Faced |
| Parliament | Functioned with reduced scrutiny |
| Judiciary | Upheld suspension of fundamental rights |
| Press | Operated under censorship |
| Civil Services | Implemented orders, limited space for dissent |
Key Warnings from the Past
- H.V. Kamath (1949): Warned against unchecked emergency powers.
- Justice H.R. Khanna (1976): The lone voice affirming the right to life during Emergency.
- Scholars argue: the legal path to authoritarianism is subtle — often through constitutional tools.
Post-Emergency Reforms
- 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978):
- Redefined “internal disturbance” to “armed rebellion”
- Strengthened safeguards for rights during Emergency
- Ensured Right to Life (Article 21) remains protected
Global Echoes
- Democracies across the world face pressures:
- Polarisation
- Institutional strain
- Misinformation
- The Indian experience during the Emergency is often studied globally as a case where democracy was challenged, but ultimately restored through public mandate.
Core Message
Democracy is more than elections — it is accountability, restraint, and active civic participation.
- Constitutions offer structure, but citizens, institutions, and a culture of constitutionalism must uphold its values.
- Vigilance is not a one-time event — it’s a generational duty.
Conclusion :
India’s democracy remains one of the most vibrant and resilient in the world.
But its strength lies not just in documents — but in how we uphold them, every day.
Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.
