Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale has fired the imagination of Bharatiya Janata Party leaders. Last week, he demanded a review of the Emergency-era inclusion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in the Preamble of India’s Constitution. He was careful in framing his demand, though. These ideas might have been part of governance and state policy, but they were not part of the original Constitution, he said.
These changes were made in the Constitution when the Parliament was ineffective, the judiciary was crippled and citizens’ rights were suspended, the senior RSS functionary elaborated.
ThePrint supported Hosabale’s demand editorially. “Ideological debates apart, Constitutional amendments from an illegitimate Emergency-era Parliament in its sixth year have no sanctity,” ThePrint said in its 50-word edit, adding that all the remnants of the 42nd Amendment, not just those two words, should go. The emphasis was on the ‘illegitimate Parliament’. Among many remnants of the 42nd Amendment today are ‘fundamental duties’, fulfilment of which should be the “first priority” of citizens, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly said.
To cite another example, the 42nd Amendment also transferred five subjects—education, forests, weights and measures, administration of justice, and protection of wild animals—from the State to the Concurrent List. States would love to get the exclusive law-making powers in these subjects back.
BJP constitution vs the Preamble
From Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar to Union Ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Jitendra Singh, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his Maharashtra counterpart Devendra Fadnavis—everybody jumped in to support and carry forward Hosabale’s demand for a review of the two words in the Preamble. It was understandable. After all, Hosabale is a putative successor of RSS sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat. The Sangh Parivar circles are already abuzz with speculation about the Sangh chief’s decision when he turns 75 in September.
Bhagwat must be curiously watching the BJP leaders’ enthusiastic reactions to Hosabale’s observation. Bhagwat may be wondering: ‘Why don’t they react the same way when I talk about the DNA of the Hindus and the Muslims being the same, or no need to look for a shivling in every mosque?’
Anyway, in their enthusiasm to support Hosabale’s demand for the review (read removal) of words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’, BJP leaders ended up undermining the party’s own constitution. Let’s leave Dhankhar out in this context because he is not a BJP leader today, not technically at least. But how come top BJP leaders don’t seem to remember what their party constitution says?
Article II of the BJP constitution—on the very first page—says that “The Party shall bear true faith and allegiance…to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy….” How can leaders who are bound by the party constitution to bear allegiance to socialism and secularism want the same to be removed from the Preamble of India’s Constitution?
Socialism and secularism are obviously ideas that BJP leaders are ready to neither gulp down nor spit out. That explains the party’s rather clumsy attempt to come up with its own versions. Article IV of the BJP constitution says: “The Party shall be committed to… Positive Secularism, that is, Sarva Dharma Samabhava….”
The BJP’s ‘Panch Nishthas’ or five guiding principles include a commitment to Gandhian Socialism, which it defines as a ‘Gandhian approach to socio-economic issues leading to the establishment of a samaras samaj free from exploitation.’
In the ‘Our Philosophy’ section on BJP’s official website, it says, “Secularism, a leitmotif of Indian politics, has been distorted beyond recognition. Secularism had emerged in the West as a reaction to clash between Papal control of politics. It talks of separation of the State and the Church. In India, neither was there theocracy ever, nor can it be in future. Indian culture is a culture of ‘equal respect for all religions’. It can be translated as ‘sarva panth samabhaav’ or ‘panth nirapeksha’.”
It adds: “Unfortunately in India, Secularism has been reduced to minority appeasement, that, too, at the cost of majority. This is what Shri Lal Krishna Advani called ‘Pseudo-Secularism’. When we say ‘Ram Rajya’ or ‘Dharma Rajya’ we mean an ethical governance based on rule of law of Constitution. It is not linked to any faith or way of worship.”
Also read: Modi vs Indira is a needless debate. Operation Sindoor has defined PM Modi’s legacy
‘True secularism’
Now, let’s look at what PM Modi has to say on secularism, given that his government is already more socialist than most in the past. “We are secular not because the word was added in our Constitution. Secularism is in our blood. We believe in Sarva Pantha Sambhava,” Modi tweeted on 28 April 2014.
That was weeks before he became Prime Minister. And this is what he said a decade later, in 2024: “Modi guarantees 100 per cent benefits of schemes to 100 per cent beneficiaries. That is true social justice. That is true secularism.”
The more you hear and read about BJP leaders’ stance on ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’, the more you will get confused about where they stand. It’s unlikely that Dattatreya Hosabale’s push for a ‘review’ of the Preamble, even though backed by many Union Ministers and Chief Ministers, would lead to any follow-up. Not just because the Supreme Court has already upheld these changes. Most constituents of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) won’t come on board. The Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas), an NDA constituent, has already opposed any such move.
Unless and until PM Modi or Union Home Minister Amit Shah breaks their silence on the Preamble review, the current debate is likely to be confined to Hosabale and those who want to ingratiate themselves with him and the RSS leadership. Modi and Shah should, however, think of amending the BJP’s constitution, at least. Not just to clear the ambiguities—rather doublespeak—-on the BJP’s stand on socialism and secularism. The bigger reason for an immediate amendment is that the BJP’s constitution is increasingly looking irrelevant and outdated in the Modi-Shah era.
Let me cite just one instance—the most glaring one today. The BJP constitution says: “No post will remain vacant for more than 6 months.” The party’s national president’s post has been vacant for exactly a year. The BJP national executive had given the then BJP president JP Nadda an extension till June 2024. Neither the national council nor the national executive nor the parliamentary board gave him another extension after that. Could it be that the parliamentary board met to give him another extension, and nobody got to know about it? Well, it may sound absurd but one can’t rule out anything about Modi-Shah’s BJP. If that were to happen, why would the BJP not announce it officially—for Nadda’s sake, at least? He would definitely hate to be seen as an unauthorised occupant of the national president’s post.
It’s also possible that Modi and Shah verbally asked Nadda to continue in the post until they sort out the issue of his successor with the RSS. Nobody should have any objection. After all, Modi is BJP and BJP is Modi. He has delegated his authority to Shah, his man Friday. It does not matter what the BJP constitution says. It’s not above the winning combo, is it?
DK Singh is Political Editor at ThePrint. He tweets @dksingh73. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)