Preamble Politics Returns: BJP MP's Bill Reignites Fight Over ‘Secular’ And ‘Socialist’
New Delhi – A renewed debate over the foundational principles of the Indian Constitution has erupted following a private member's bill introduced by BJP Rajya Sabha MP Bhim Singh seeking to remove the words "secular" and "socialist" from the Preamble. The bill, titled The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025, has already stirred controversy and promises a contentious debate in the Upper House.
Singh argues that the terms, which were inserted into the Preamble during the Emergency in 1976 under Indira Gandhi's government via the 42nd Amendment, were added "undemocratically" and are not essential to the Constitution's core structure. He contends that the original Constitution, adopted in 1949, adequately addresses the nation's governance without these explicit terms. Furthermore, he claims that these words create "confusion" and are unnecessary.
"The original Constitution adopted in 1949, which has been in force since 1950, did not have these two words. Mrs Indira Gandhi added these two words to the Constitution during the Emergency in 1976, under the 42nd Constitution amendment. At that time, no debate was held in Parliament," Singh stated. He highlighted the fact that many opposition leaders, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, and George Fernandes, were imprisoned during the Emergency, implying a lack of legitimate democratic process in the amendment.
Singh further argued that the inclusion of "secular" was intended to appease Muslims, while "socialist" was added to please the then-USSR, suggesting these additions were driven by political considerations rather than constitutional necessity. He questioned whether India was not secular before 1976, asking if the governments of Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and Indira Gandhi were communal.
Drawing upon historical context, Singh referenced debates within the Constituent Assembly, suggesting that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, believed that the Constitution's structure inherently ensured secularism, making the explicit inclusion of the word redundant. He also noted Ambedkar's reservations about imposing a specific economic policy like socialism on future generations.
The introduction of this bill has predictably sparked diverse reactions. Supporters of the amendment echo Singh's sentiments, arguing that the original Constitution is sufficient and that the terms were added under dubious circumstances. Critics, on the other hand, view the move as an attempt to undermine the Constitution's secular and socialist foundations, principles they believe are crucial to India's identity and social fabric.
It is important to note that private member's bills rarely become law in India. Historically, only a handful have been passed, with the last instance occurring in 1970. Despite the slim chances of passage, Singh hopes the bill will initiate a crucial discussion about the Indian Constitution, its original intent, and its relevance in contemporary society. He understands that the Bill may not necessarily be passed, but the issue would come to the attention of the government and the people.
The debate surrounding this bill is likely to be intense, touching upon fundamental questions about Indian identity, governance, and the interpretation of its constitutional principles.
