It would be incorrect to categorise the coordinated RSS-BJP attack on the words “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution as a “debate” in the India of today. This is a thought-through and raked-up agenda that does not serve the nation or indeed the RSS-BJP. In fact, it only serves to confirm widespread fears that the combine is looking for newer ways to play with the basic structure of the constitution, further adding weight to the view long propagated that the RSS never really accepted Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s constitution. 

It is also a reminder of the failed electoral campaign that curtailed the BJP amid fears that the three-fourths majority it sought in the general elections of 2024 was to have the numbers to tamper with the constitution and change its character. If that goal continues to this day, it only speaks of the fixedness of a divisive agenda that cannot be concealed by the attempted cleverness in citing the Emergency to write down or erase “socialist” and “secular” from the Constitution of India.

Turning away from welfarism?

By running this campaign, the BJP also runs the risk of being seen more as a party aligned to powerful interests of big business, turning away from welfarism and more firmly into the grip of chosen crony capitalists who have fattened since the party took power at the Center in 2014.  The policies have brought increasing inequality, built a jobless growth and have in part led to giveaways like the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY), described by the government as “amongst the world’s biggest social welfare schemes aimed at ensuring food and nutrition security.” The PMGKAY provides free grains to over 800 million Indians at an estimated total cost of Rs.11.80 lakh crore over a five-year period, from 2024-2028. If this scheme (and a host of others) does not come from a belief in the ideals of a welfare State, then what does it stand for? Are these doles to keep the poor quiet while pro-rich policies take hold? Is there dishonesty at the heart of policy making, or is the real situation of India so dire that as much as 70% of India (that benefits from the scheme) cannot hold out without free grains? 

The picture is further complicated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's views, for example, against free public bus rides for women in several states, policies that enable mobility and economic empowerment for women. So, are the RSS-BJP for or against distributive justice and the ideology of redistribution?

Part of 'basic structure'

While it is true that “socialist” and “secular” were inserted in the preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act during the Emergency, which remains a dark chapter in the history of free India, it is not true that the values go against the grain or the spirit of the constitution. These are effectively the only parts of the amendment that sit today 50 years down the line. Other parts of the amendment have been repealed or struck down, but the words added to the Preamble stayed as they help reinforce and highlight what has been the widely accepted ethos of the Constitution of India. 

As Subash C Kashyap, the former Secretary General of the 7th, 8th and 9th Lok Sabha and a constitutional expert noted for his popular books on the Constitution has written: “…the addition (of the two words) had the effect only of affirming and clarifying what was believed to be already present as a basic feature of the Constitution.” In 1974 (St. Xavier College Society v/s State of Gujarat), the Supreme Court held that “though the constitution did not speak of a secular state, there could be no doubt that the Constitution-makers wanted to establish such a State,” Kashyap writes. Also, as he notes, secularism in particular is inherent in the guarantee of freedom of religion as a fundamental right. Ditto for socialism because the Preamble itself spelt out the high ideals when it was resolved to secure to all citizens “justice, social, economic and political”; and “equality of status and opportunity”.

In the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973, well before the Emergency, a 13-judge bench ruled by majority that the “secular character of the Constitution” was part of its “basic structure”, which is “of supreme importance” and “cannot by any form of amendment be destroyed”. The court identified the following as features of the “basic structure” that cannot be touched: (a) Supremacy of the Constitution (b) Republican and democratic form of government (c) Secular character of the Constitution (d) Separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary (e) Federal character of the Constitution. “The above foundation and the above basic features are easily discernable not only from the Preamble but the whole scheme of the Constitution,” the Justices ruled. 

After the Emergency, in the ‘Minerva Mills’ case of July 1980, the Court ruled that “no exception can be taken” to the changes in the Preamble because “those amendments are not only within the framework of the Constitution, but they give vitality to its philosophy; they afford strength and succour to its foundation”. The court said: “They offer promise of more; they do not scuttle a precious heritage”.

Nothing casual about it

It is this precious heritage that is now sought to be scuttled. A similar attempt was seen in 2015, when the Union government issued ads that depicted an image of the Preamble but without the words “socialist” and “secular”. Soon, BJP leaders Arun Jaitley, M. Venkaiah Naidu and Amit Shah denied that there was any move to amend the Preamble, according to reports.

But the raking up of the issue indicates that nothing about the BJP might be casual or not thought through with a load of ideological assumptions and fixed frames that do not help policy in a fast-changing world. If this is an over-planned, strategically designed precision strike to take the nation in a new direction, it doesn’t speak well of the concerns and priorities of the ruling alliance.   

This is a time India faces several burning issues, the global turmoil adding to internal woes.  It is a pity if the ruling alliance would spend its energies on redacting well-accepted and indeed highly regarded parts of the Preamble rather than focusing on building for the future.

(The writer is a journalist and faculty member at SPJIMR, Mumbai. Views expressed are personal. By special arrangement with The Billion Press)