The words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’—added to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency via the 42nd Amendment—have once again become the centre of a growing political storm. Recent remarks by Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar, senior RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale, and several Union ministers have revived debate around whether these additions were justified. Nevertheless, before jumping onto any conclusion, one must delve into the core of the issue. The outcome of the political quarrel here will redefine India’s constitutional identity—at a time that can safely be termed as highly polarised and when one end of the political spectrum enjoys overwhelming support from the majority. The question is, and always was: should the democratic foundations of India be determined by fluctuating political equations.
As a matter of fact, these terms were not part of the original Preamble adopted in 1950. They were inserted in 1976, at a time when democracy was allegedly under serious threat. That context has led many to question not just the legality but the moral standing of the amendment. However, apparently, what the critics are questioning is not just the actions of a particular political regime, but also the institutions—constitutional or otherwise—of India. Furthermore, when the Janata Party came to power post-Emergency, and reversed many of Indira Gandhi’s actions through the 44th Amendment, it chose to retain ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble. That move either reflected a quiet consensus or, perhaps, the political convenience of not reopening an ideological fight.
More importantly, from a legal standpoint, the matter already seems settled. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this as recently as November 2024 when it upheld the inclusion of both terms. The Court, in unambiguous terms, noted that these words have gained widespread public acceptance and have not stopped any government from functioning—so long as policies stayed within constitutional bounds. Even before the 42nd Amendment, the Court in the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati case had recognised secularism as a “basic feature” of the Constitution. Later, in the Minerva Mills case (1980), socialism was viewed not as a rigid economic doctrine but as a broader principle promoting fairness and justice, embedded in the Directive Principles of State Policy. Despite such legal clarity, the ideological debate has not died down. Critics often argue that the 42nd Amendment meddled with the ‘soul’ of the Constitution. The fact that these views were ignored in 1976—and that the altered Preamble is sometimes wrongly projected as Ambedkar’s original vision—is a clear misrepresentation of history.
The Preamble, while largely symbolic, serves as the guiding light of the Constitution. Any move to alter it—especially in today’s deeply polarised atmosphere—risks fanning political fires and further dividing society. In a country as diverse as India, secularism remains a crucial, even if imperfect, safeguard. Stripping it away could send a disturbing signal to minorities and erode hard-earned democratic trust. Leaders from the RSS, the Vice President, and others are within their rights to question the amendment. But branding these words as “ulcers” or “festering wounds” does little to encourage thoughtful debate. A healthy democracy demands open discussion, yes—but also a firm respect for constitutional values. If the real concern is the misuse of secularism or socialism, the solution lies not in deleting words, but in changing how they are put into action. At the end of the day, this is not just a fight over two words. It is a conversation about the kind of republic India wants to be—narrow or inclusive, rigid or evolving. Democracy is not just about changing laws or winning elections. It is about keeping alive the spirit that gives the Constitution meaning. And that spirit must remain untouched.