In 1976, during the dark days of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi’s regime smuggled two loaded words— “secular” and “socialist”—into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment. It wasn’t just a cosmetic change. It was a calculated move to distort India’s civilizational identity, weaponize the Constitution for vote-bank politics, and suppress the majority Hindu voice under the guise of constitutional morality. What the Congress called a progressive reform was, in truth, a cynical assault on India’s democratic ethos. Passed when opposition leaders were jailed and press freedom strangled, the amendment represented a classic case of constitutional vandalism. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is right to reignite the debate, because this insertion was neither democratic nor necessary. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, had consciously left out “secular” from the original Preamble. Not because he was indifferent to religious neutrality, but because the Constitution already guaranteed freedom of religion and equality before the law. For Ambedkar, secularism was a lived practice, not a decorative label. The Congress, however, twisted that principle into an ideological bludgeon—using “secularism” as cover to indulge in systematic minority appeasement. Had the Congress truly revered Ambedkar—as it now theatrically claims—it wouldn’t have dared mutilate his vision. The 42nd Amendment was not passed with the people’s consent, but through authoritarian fiat. It was less a reform than a political ploy—to mask Emergency excesses and consolidate a loyal Muslim vote bank. And what has this state-imposed secularism yielded? From Shah Bano to triple talaq, from Haj subsidies to selective silence on temple desecrations, Congress’s version of secularism meant one thing: protecting one community’s orthodoxy while demanding reform and restraint from the other. Worse, by enabling institutions like the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, Congress legitimised legal exceptionalism—undermining the dream of a Uniform Civil Code and fracturing the principle of “one nation, one law.”
The addition of “socialist” was equally disastrous. It provided moral cover for license raj, economic stagnation, and state overreach. While Congress spoke of eradicating poverty, its policies manufactured it—crippling private enterprise and turning India into a ration economy. Only in 1991, under duress, did India begin to unshackle itself from this failed Nehruvian socialism. Yet the Congress clings to it, not because it works, but because it enables control. Even more disturbing is how Congress’s appeasement politics enabled the rise of Wakf Boards—quasi-judicial Islamic trusts that now control vast tracts of land across India. Operating under opaque laws, these boards have acquired thousands of acres—often including private and government property—without public scrutiny or due process. In some cases, ordinary citizens have discovered their land has been arbitrarily declared “Wakf property,” with little legal recourse. This is not minority empowerment. It is state-sponsored land capture, hiding behind the rhetoric of religious freedom. This is why the RSS’s call to revisit the 42nd Amendment is not ideological bluster—it’s a call for constitutional clarity. India doesn’t need imported “isms” foisted under duress. We are a civilizational state with an organic pluralism that predates every modern doctrine. If secularism truly runs in India’s DNA, why did Congress feel the need to insert it forcibly during the Emergency? If socialism was so effective, why did it leave India impoverished for decades? It’s time to confront these questions honestly. Why must Hindus alone bear the burden of legal reform, while others are indulged under religious exceptions? Why must our Constitution divide in the name of unity? India deserves a constitution that respects all but appeases none. One that unites without bending, that honours Ambedkar’s vision instead of rewriting it to suit dynastic compulsions. The 42nd Amendment was not an act of nation-building. It was an act of nation-bending, crafted to preserve one party’s power at the cost of India’s civilizational integrity. It’s time to undo the damage. Let the debate begin.
