No ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ in new copy of Constitution? The latest row explained

The second day of the special Parliament session took place in the new Parliament building, which was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 28 May. On the inaugural day of the building on Tuesday, members of Parliament (MPs) were given copies of the Indian Constitution, books about the Parliament, a commemorative coin and a stamp. However, a new controversy has erupted with Congress raising concerns about the omission of the words “socialist” and “secular” from the new copies of the Indian Constitution. Let’s take a closer look. Also read: 'Original copy of Constitution given to MPs': BJP on Cong’s claim of ‘socialist’, ‘secular’ missing in Preamble The controversy The two words “socialist” and “secular”, which were incorporated into the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during the Emergency imposed by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, were missing from the Preamble of the new Constitution copies, according to prominent Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury. These terms were introduced to ensure the protection of minority rights and to stop wealthy individuals from controlling the economy. He implied that the copies’ omission of the words might have been done intentionally and regretted not being given the chance to discuss this matter in Parliament, though. “The new copies of the Constitution that were given to us, the one we held in our hands and entered (the new Parliament building), its Preamble doesn’t have the words ‘socialist secular’,” Chowdhury told ANI. He added, “We know that the words were added after an amendment in 1976, but if someone gives us the Constitution today and it doesn’t have those words, it is a matter of concern. Their intention is suspicious. It has been done cleverly. This is a serious matter and we will raise this issue. I doubt their intentions as their heart does not seem to be clear on this.”

#WATCH | Leader of Congress in Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury says, "The new copies of the Constitution that were given to us today (19th September), the one we held in our hands and entered (the new Parliament building), its Preamble doesn't have the words 'socialist… pic.twitter.com/NhvBLp7Ufi

— ANI (@ANI) September 20, 2023

CPI-M member Binoy Viswam referred to the omission as a “crime,” according to NDTV. Also read: Drafting History: How India’s Constitution came to being in 1950 Government clarifies Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal, however, downplayed the matter by saying that the MPs may have received a copy of the original Constitution. “When the Constitution came into being, it did not have the words ‘socialist, secular’. These words were included in the 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976,” he noted, according to Wion News. According to the report, the Lok Sabha Secretariat had made it clear in a bulletin it had released on the first day of the special session of Parliament, that members will receive a copy of the Constitution as well as a calligraphed copy of the original Constitution of India. [caption id=“attachment_13147162” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] A woman holds a copy of the Indian Constitution. The document is the world’s longest, with its first version containing 145,000 words. File Image/PTI[/caption] “To mark the historic first sitting in the Parliament House of India (new building of Parliament) a copy of the Constitution of India, Calligraphed copy of the original Constitution of India, newsletter “Gaurav," and commemorative stamp and coin released on the occasion of inauguration of the new building of Parliament will be presented to Hon‟ble Members,” the bulletin had stated. Meanwhile, the Opposition accused the government of slipping into a significant reform without following due process, which sparked more protests. Once an amendment is notified, the old Constitution should cease to be printed, opposition leaders said. Any change to the Constitution, therefore, would be tampering, they asserted, as per NDTV. It was unclear if the “change” was unintentional or intentional because the Hindi versions of the Constitution contained the right version. The meaning of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ India was first referred to as a “sovereign, democratic republic” in the Constitution’s Preamble. The Constitution’s Preamble, which went into effect in 1950, stated:

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

More from Explainers

Donald Trump and Republicans are fighting over 'blue slips'. But what are they? Surat at standstill, exports halted: How Trump’s tariffs cast a pall over ‘Diamond City’

The 42nd Amendment underwent several changes during the Emergency imposed by the Indira Gandhi-led Congress government, including the addition of the words “socialist” and “secular” between “sovereign” and “democratic” and the change of “unity of the nation” to “unity and integrity of the nation.” According to Indian Express, however, the socialism that India envisioned was not the socialism of the USSR (Russia) or China at the time and did not call for the nationalisation of all of the country’s means of production. In her own words, Indira Gandhi had said, “We have our own brand of socialism,” and “We will nationalise (only) the sectors where we feel the necessity. Just nationalisation is not our type of socialism.” By including the ideal of “secularism” in the Preamble, it was hoped to establish the unity and fraternity of India’s people, who profess a variety of religions. Essentially, this means that the state upholds no one religion as a “state religion,” protects all religions equally, and maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions. Many of the modifications were undone in 1978, but the revised preamble remained, reported NDTV. In 1994, the Supreme Court declared that the basic structure theory, which states that some fundamental characteristics cannot be changed, includes “secularism.” Also read: How abrogation of Article 370 has become an indelible chapter in Jammu & Kashmir's journey towards a new dawn Similar controversies The words “socialist” and “secular” are being discussed for removal from the Preamble quite a few times. Most recently, former BJP MP Subramanian Swamy in a plea submitted last year to the apex court asked for the terms to be deleted. Similar pleas were submitted earlier, with petitioners contending that the inclusion of these terms in the Constitution was unintentional and that the Parliament lacks the authority to modify the Constitution in accordance with Article 368. According to Indian Express, BJP MP Rakesh Sinha argued in his motion to remove the word “socialism” from the Preamble in the Rajya Sabha in 2020, by saying, “You cannot tie a generation to a particular way of thinking. Besides, the Congress party which ruled the country for seven decades has changed its direction from being socialist to welfare to neo-liberalism. Its new liberal policies adopted in the 1990s have negated its own earlier positions.” In 2015, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stirred controversy by posting a picture of the Indian Constitution’s Preamble without the terms. Following that, Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad questioned, “Did Nehru have no understanding of secularism? These words were added during the Emergency. Now what is the harm if there is a debate on it? We have put before the nation the original Preamble.” Back in 2008, the top court even turned down a request that “socialist” be removed. “Why do you take socialism in a narrow sense defined by Communists? In a broader sense, it means welfare measures for the citizens. It is a facet of democracy. It hasn’t got any definite meaning. It gets different meaning in different times,” the outlet quoted a three-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan as saying. With inputs from agencies