Secularism And The Preamble: Why Hosabale’s Demand Is More Political Than Legal

RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale’s recent call to remove the words “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution is not merely a legal or semantic suggestion—it is a deeply political signal. By raking up a point that has been constitutionally settled and judicially reinforced, Hosabale has brought the ideological contest over India’s foundational identity back to centre stage.

The Preamble as it stood in 1950 did not contain the words “secular” or “socialist.” They were inserted during the Emergency via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976—a time when constitutional liberties were curtailed, opposition crushed, and the spirit of democracy gravely wounded. That these terms were added under such circumstances is often cited by critics as proof of their inauthenticity. Hosabale has echoed this sentiment, framing his suggestion as an attempt to return to the Constitution’s “original spirit.”

Yet, the legal reality is unambiguous. The Supreme Court, in multiple landmark rulings including the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S. R. Bommai (1994) cases, has made it clear that secularism is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution—meaning, it cannot be amended or deleted even by Parliament. This has been reaffirmed in more recent judgments, which have dismissed pleas seeking removal of these words as legally untenable and constitutionally irrelevant.

So why raise this now? Politically, the move aligns with the long-standing RSS–BJP narrative that India’s governance should be rooted in its “cultural nationalism” rather than Western-inspired secularism. By demanding a rollback of Emergency-era amendments, the RSS is not merely revisiting a historical wrong, but also positioning itself as the rightful custodian of Indian identity. The timing—coming just after the 50th anniversary of the Emergency—is also calculated, aimed at reminding the public of Congress’s authoritarian excesses.

This has predictably drawn sharp responses from the Congress and other opposition parties, who see the move as a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine constitutional pluralism and pave the way for majoritarianism. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah went so far as to say the RSS was plotting against B.R. Ambedkar’s vision. Left parties, too, warned against tampering with core values that protect India's diversity.

In truth, the demand is unlikely to go beyond rhetoric. The legal barricades are too strong, and public opinion on constitutional values is not easily swayed. But it does succeed in shifting the political discourse—bringing ideological debates about India’s soul to the foreground once again. That, perhaps, was the true objective all along.