Preamble Hijacked: Undoing the Politics of the 42nd Amendment
The words “Secular” and “Socialist” were not part of the original Constitution adopted on 26 January 1950. These were inserted later through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment during the Emergency in 1976—an authoritarian period under Indira Gandhi’s rule. Today, there is a growing chorus among jurists, constitutional experts, and political thinkers demanding their removal.
The Constituent Assembly intentionally chose not to include the terms “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, stated unequivocally:
“If these concepts are embedded in the Constitution in spirit, we don’t need to insert them as slogans in the Preamble.”
Indeed, the original wording – “Sovereign, Democratic, Republic”—was inclusive and sufficient, reflecting a government accountable to its people, grounded in liberty, equality, and justice. Adding overt ideological terms diluted the neutral, broad-based character of the Constitution’s opening promise.
The Illegitimacy of the 42nd Amendment
The 42nd Amendment was passed during the Emergency (1975–77)—a time of:
- Suspended civil liberties
- Jailing of opposition leaders
- Press censorship
This amendment was pushed through without genuine parliamentary debate, while dissenting voices were silenced. Altering the Preamble amid such a constitutional breakdown lacked moral and democratic legitimacy. It was less a refinement, more a political imposition.
‘Secularism’ as a Political Tool
Pre-1976 India was already secular.
Articles 25–30 of the Constitution guaranteed religious freedom and minority rights. The Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Indian state as religiously neutral.
Post-1976, however, “secular” was weaponized:
- It enabled vote-bank politics,
- Justified selective appeasement of minority groups,
- Triggered alienation among the majority, and
- Encouraged communal polarization under the garb of neutrality.
True secularism doesn’t need a label; it requires equal treatment. Removing the term would help restore the spirit of neutrality, ending performative virtue signalling and divisive interpretation.
Economic Reality vs. Ideological Fossil
India embraced economic liberalization in 1991, moving decisively away from state-controlled Nehruvian socialism:
- Abolishing the License Raj under P.V. Narasimha Rao
- Encouraging private enterprise and entrepreneurship
- Attracting foreign investment and boosting innovation
Keeping the term “socialist” in the Preamble is not only outdated—it misrepresents India’s economic model. Most successful democracies do not declare specific ideologies in their founding charters. India can ensure economic justice and welfare without constitutional posturing.
Notable Voices for Reform
- Justice J.S. Verma (Former Chief Justice of India):
“The inclusion of secular and socialist during the Emergency was avoidable.” - Subhash Kashyap, constitutional expert:
“The Preamble should reflect the original vision of the Constituent Assembly.”
Moreover, in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973)—three years before the 42nd Amendment—the Supreme Court had already ruled that secularism was part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The word is not needed to preserve the principle.
What Happens If We Remove Them?
Nothing radical. India will:
- Remain a democracy
- Uphold religious freedom
- Promote economic equity
What will change is the misuse of constitutional language for political marketing. We will realign with the original intent—free of ideological ornamentation—without compromising our foundational values.
Global Precedents: Democracies Without Ideological Labels
United States:
- No mention of “secular” or “socialist”
- Yet, the First Amendment guarantees full religious freedom
- Practises secularism without proclaiming it
United Kingdom:
- Has no written constitution
- The Church of England is the official religion
- Still maintains liberal democracy and religious tolerance
France:
- Explicitly uses laïcité (secularism)
- Its strict enforcement has sometimes led to curbs on religious expression
Japan:
- No mention of “secular” in its Constitution
- Article 20 guarantees full religious freedom
- Peaceful coexistence of Shintoism and Buddhism under state neutrality
Australia:
- The Constitution bars religious establishment (Section 116)
- No ideological tags, yet freedom is protected
Germany:
- Does not use “secular”
- The state collects taxes for churches, yet ensures equal treatment of all religions
Time for a Constitutional Correction
Removing “Secular” and “Socialist” from the Preamble is not an act of negation—it is an act of restoration. It honors the Constituent Assembly’s original vision, removes political baggage introduced during a dark chapter of Indian democracy, and reaffirms India’s commitment to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—not slogans, but enduring values.
