The RSS joint secretary dattatreya hosbale has once again parroted the opposition of the RSS sphere to the inclusion of words “secular and socialist “ in the preamble of the constitution. He also forwarded the often repeated argument that these are later inclusions, done by the 42nd Amendment during emergency, and that the original draft as passed by the constituent assembly did not have these words. While the factual position is that as recently as last year the Supreme Court had upheld this inclusion and that the demand for including these words was raised in the constituent assembly itself by the renowned nationalist economist professor KT Shah. It was answered by Dr Ambedkar and the likes of Nehru and Patel. They all emphasized that these principles were already embedded into each part of the constitution and explicit predication so was not necessary. It is notable that the Indian constitution was written in the aftermath of the Second World War and partition. Both were unprecedented human tragedies and both were based on non secular and non socialist ideas. It was therefore imperative that the constituent assembly was apprehensive of these tendencies and wanted to ensure that they do not gain traction in future. By 1976 it was clear that the RSS which continued its abhorrence to both secularism and socialism had managed to gain influence within the opposition space of Indian polity, and additional safeguards were necessary. While the RSS has problems with the entire constitutional framework, it has seen that constitution has earned notional and nominal sanctity in the masses. The recent general elections have demonstrated that the weaker sections in particular are protective of it. Therefore it feels it necessary to test the waters further and if possible chip away portions of the constitution without declaring so. The preamble and especially the additions through the 42nd amendment seem to be its weakest points. Emergency, Gandhis and secularism have been demonized through constant propaganda and stand sufficiently delegitimized. Therefore it would be politically safe to target the preamble. But it might pave the path for full scale assault on the constitution later.
A sinister ploy
