The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has reignited a long-persisting constitutional debate by calling for a nationwide discussion on the inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble to the Indian Constitution. The organisation claims that these terms were not part of the original Constitution envisioned by its framers and were inserted later under controversial circumstances during the Emergency period.
Speaking at a press conference, VHP’s national organisational secretary Milind Parande said that key figures in the Constituent Assembly, including B.R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad had with purpose chosen not to include the word ‘secular’ in the original version of the Constitution.
‘The word ‘secular’ was not accepted by the framers of our Constitution. After extensive discussions and deliberations, they decided to keep it out,’ Parande said. ‘It was only later, during the Emergency, that it was inserted into the Preamble and that too, without a proper public or parliamentary debate.’
Emergency-Era Amendment Under Assessment
The VHP’s remarks refer to the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 1976 during the Emergency declared by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This amendment introduced the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ into the Preamble, a move that has legally and politically contentious for decades. Critics of the amendment argue that it was passed at a time when democratic institutions were under duress and therefore lacks the legitimacy of broad-based public consensus or parliamentary endorsement.
Parande claimed that the amendment was carried out while Parliament was effectively suspended, raising concerns over the democratic validity of such a significant change to the foundational philosophy of the Constitution.
‘This was not done with the consent of the people or through open debate. In a democratic country, fundamental changes to the Constitution should reflect public consensus,’ he added.
Call for Democratic Deliberations
Stressing the need for open conversation on constitutional values, the VHP leader called for a healthy, democratic debate across the country on whether these two terms should remain in the Preamble.
‘Many people have started expressing differing views on this issue. I believe that initiating a nationwide discussion will allow us to approach this matter in the right spirit,’ Parande said.
The remarks indicate the VHP’s interest in challenging what it sees as the politicization of constitutional language and potentially pushing for the removal of terms it believes were inserted without constitutional fidelity.
Social Campaigns and Youth Engagements
In addition to the constitutional issue, Parande also highlighted a recent youth initiative spearheaded by the VHP in collaboration with the Union Ministry of Sports. A youth conference held in Varanasi passed a resolution to launch a nationwide de-addiction programme aimed at addressing the rising challenge of substance abuse among the younger generation.
‘We believe that nurturing the physical and moral well-being of our youth is essential to national progress. The de-addiction drive is a major step in that direction,’ he said.
A Debate with Far-Reaching Implications
Earlier in June, marking the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, which the BJP-led central government observed as ‘Samvidhaan Hatya Diwas’ (Constitution Murder Day) on June 25, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale reiterated a long-pending demand of the removal of the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ from the Constitution’s Preamble.
Hosabale argued that these terms were inserted under undemocratic circumstances during the Emergency in 1976, bypassing open debate and public consultation. He emphasized that their inclusion did not reflect the original intent of the Constitution’s framers and called for a national discourse to consider restoring the Preamble to its pre-Emergency form.
The VHP’s call to revisit the Preamble could have wide-reaching political and legal ramifications. While ‘secularism’ has long been a core principle of Indian constitutional identity, debates around its meaning, implementation, and origins have persisted across ideological lines.
Legal scholars and political leaders are likely to weigh in on whether such a debate is warranted, and what implications if any, it may have for the future of India’s constitutional values.
As of now, the government has not responded officially to the VHP’s demand. Whether this proposal gains momentum or remains a fringe discussion remains to be seen in the days ahead.
