A special suggestion has come from the Sangh just before the Bihar elections. After 10 years. This time it is a matter of review of the Preamble of the Constitution, there was a matter of review of reservation in 2015. Everyone has seen what happened then. The difference is that this time the Sangh has been advised to target the Congress, but the difficulty is that the Congress and its opposition companions also come easily.
Sarkaryavah Dattatreya Hosbale of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has advised to review the two words incorporated later in the preamble of the Constitution. These two words are – ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’. Dattatreya Hosbale has said, ‘Now it should be considered whether these words should be held or not.’
The BJP has celebrated the 50th anniversary of the implementation of emergency in the country on 25 June as Constitution Hurry Day, with which BJP and Congress have opened a front against each other. The Sangh also has the objection to the same thing, with which the BJP is celebrating the Constitution of Killing Day – the Congress and the opposition parties reach Parliament with a copy of the Constitution. And, in most programs, Rahul Gandhi opposed the BJP by taking a copy of the Constitution in hand.
In an emergency program, Dattatreya Hosbole did not take the name of Congress or Rahul Gandhi, but he was clearly visible on the target, ‘Those who had imposed emergency are roaming around with copies of the constitution today … Till date they have not apologized to the people of the country … Forced to sterilize … You have abolished the independence of the judiciary … Has people who did so apologize to the country? If your ancestors did this, then you should apologize in their name.
Union advice on constitution
RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosbale says that the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were included during the Emergency. These were never part of Bhimrao Ambedkar’s constitution.
Dattatreya Hosbale said, “These words were never in the preamble of the constitution made by Baba Saheb Ambedkar … When there were no fundamental rights during the Emergency … Parliament was not working … The judiciary was paralyzed … Then these words were added.
Why is this step of the union right
Of course, there was no mention of both words in the original constitution, which Dattatreya is talking about. India is secular for centuries. And talking about the Constitution, despite these words not being included, India was secular and socialist from 1947 to 1975. It is also fine that the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi added both the words (in the 42nd Constitution Amendment, 1976) during the Emergency, and it is also that the issue could not be debated then, and she is completely wrong – but, after 50 years, it is also useless.
Professor KT Shah, a member of the Constituent Assembly, tried several times to include these words in the Constitution. Professor Katie Shah argued that clearly incorporating the word secular would reveal India’s religious fairness, and the socialist word would show the intention of removing the state’s economic disparities. And, members like HV Kamath and Hasrat Mohani supported the plea of Professor KT Shah.
But Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar had opposed the inclusion of both these words in the preamble of the Constitution. Ambedkar believed that socialism is a temporary policy, no constitutional obligation. Ambedkar’s view was that the future of such policies should be left to the time and the then government. Ambedkar argued that democratic flexibility could end if socialism is recorded as an unlikely principle in the preamble. Dr. Ambedkar had said, “What should be the policy of the state … These are issues that the public should decide according to time and situation.
In fact, after becoming a Buddhist, Ambedkar started believing in India’s multi -religious and multicultural tradition. His attitude towards secularism was clear. There is no need to include these words separately, because the constitution is already giving this guarantee through fundamental rights. It was also made by Ambedkar that secularism lies in the format of the preamble already, and the broad structure of the Constitution ensures religious fairness.
Certainly Dattatreya is taking the name of Ambedkar behind the removal of secularism and socialism from the preamble of the constitution, but it seems that at the same time he ignores Ambedkar’s arguments.
The Supreme Court has also rejected such efforts. The Supreme Court also believes that the association of socialism and secular words is the constitution. In the case of Dr. Balram Singh vs. India (2024) case, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions challenging. The Supreme Court says, the Constitution is a vibrant document, which the Parliament can amend.
Justice Sanjay Kumar has said in his judgment, ‘Over time, India has interpreted secularism in a different way, in which the state neither takes the side of any religion, nor punishes for any faith and practice. These principles lie in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which prevent discrimination on the basis of religion. Equal security of laws and equal opportunities in public employment guarantee. The basic principle of preamble – the fraternity that ensures the equality of respect and opportunity, the dignity of a person, when seen with social, economic, political justice and freedom of thoughts, expression, faith, faith and worship, these reflect the secular spirit.
This suggestion of the Sangh is fatal for BJP
The Congress is on target of BJP after half a century has passed after the Congress Emergency was implemented. And, after the BJP, the Sangh has now targeted. The line is exactly the same for both. Just issues are slightly different. The Sangh also has a copy of the Congress Constitution in hand. The BJP has made the Emergency weapon only to neutralize the attack, citing the constitution of the opposition under the leadership of the Congress – and now the Sangh is trying to pursue the same thing in its own way.
But what the Sangh has raised, it is also going to create difficulties for the BJP. The Congress and the opposition are saying that these people will change the constitution, and will end the institutions. And, now it is also the advice of the Sangh that socialism and secular words should be removed from the premble of the Constitution. The objection to the Sangh is that these words were added through the Constitution amendment during the Emergency.
The question is, why is the Sangh now objecting to this matter? After all, why did the Sangh remain silent in this matter for 50 years?
If the Congress does not attack on ending the constitution, the Sangh would have kept silence till now. If the Congress does not need to surround in the name of Emergency, is there no objection to words like socialism and secular added to the Sangh.
There is more talk of political allegations and counter-allegations. The Congress calls itself secular, and communal to BJP. The BJP accuses the Congress and opposition parties of appeasement of appeasement. Both appeasement and secular are different things. But, the question is, why does the Sangh feel wrong to be secular?
Should the constitution not be secular? Then should be in favor of which religion.
The Sangh talks about Hindutva. Does the Sangh want to give Hindutva instead of secular in the Preamble of the Constitution. Just as the Congress government has added a secular word by amending the constitution, will any word or Hindutva be added in the same manner instead of its particular religion?
First the Constitution Day and then the advice to remove socialism and secular words from the Constitution, what is the point of this method of countering the emergency.
There is a poem of Dhumil from Parliament to the road – when a lot of friends’ anger / marginalized / jokes is being made / Is I wrapped on grammar’s nose / wrapping a handkerchief / dignity / wisdom of loyalty?