Deep discussions and debates about the nation’s identity and future direction were the foundation stones of framing the Constitution of India. The monumental task, which took several years after India’s independence, was marked by some of the most notable key debates. One such debate was over the inclusion of the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the preamble.
On 15 November 1948, Professor KT Shah proposed an amendment to the draft of the Indian Constitution, seeking to label India as a “Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.” However, Dr BR Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, firmly rejected the proposal.
Ambedkar had two objections to the proposal laid down by Shah at the time, which formed the bedrock of the understanding of his vision of India. His vision placed democracy and the will of the people of the country above fixed ideological positions.
Ambedkar’s first objection: The Constitution should not impose an ideology
Ambedkar’s central argument was rooted in his commitment to democracy. He firmly believed that the Constitution was a mechanism to regulate the functioning of the state. Ambedkar categorically pointed out that the Constitution could not be seen as a document that imposes a particular social or economic ideology on future generations of the country.
Responding to Shah’s proposal, Ambedkar said, “What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised in its social and economic side, are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances.”
According to Ambedkar, there was a fundamental contradiction in codifying an ideology like socialism within the Constitution of India. He argued that if socialism were added to the preamble, it would restrict the liberty of future generations to choose their own path. He said, “It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether.”
It was evident that he foresaw that different periods in history might present new challenges and opportunities. He was not willing to bind the future generations of the country to any specified system of social and economic organisation. Socialism was popular at one point in history, and at the time the Constitution was formulated, it was still evolving, making it relevant for Ambedkar to refuse to add it to the Constitution itself. With time, new social and economic systems would emerge and evolve, which could be better than socialism, and Ambedkar understood that.
Ambedkar’s second objection: The Constitution already contained socialist principles
In his second point, while rejecting the proposal, Ambedkar argued that the drafted Constitution already had provisions that could be seen as socialist principles through the Directive Principles of State Policy. He pointed to Article 31 of the draft and emphasised that it outlined measures such as preventing the concentration of wealth and providing equal pay for equal work, which, in fact, are socialist provisions.
Rhetorically, he asked, “If these directive principles… are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be.” He further argued that socialist ideals were already embedded in the Directive Principles, making it constitutionally possible to guide India towards a more equitable society.
According to Ambedkar, explicitly adding ‘socialist’ to the preamble would be redundant, given that the principles of social and economic justice were already part of the drafted text. Furthermore, he believed that the socialist ideals in the Directive Principles would allow the government to run the country with more flexibility. It would enable the government to adapt to changing economic and social conditions over time. Contrary to this idea, if ‘socialist’ was added to the preamble, it would bind future generations of the country to a more rigid ideological framework, which would create hurdles.
Though he did not present any specific reason(s) against adding the word ‘secular’, Ambedkar opposed the proposed amendment as a whole.
The secularism debate: A nuanced approach
Dr BR Ambedkar was a strong advocate for keeping religion out of politics. Not only him, but the first Prime Minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, also believed the same. However, they both argued that the term ‘secular’ did not need to be explicitly mentioned in the preamble. Ambedkar argued that the Constitution had already made it clear that India would be a state that did not recognise any religion. His ideas were implemented in various articles that dealt with religious freedom and the non-alignment of the state with any particular religion, such as Article 19 and Article 16. These articles prohibit discrimination against any person based on religion.
On the other hand, Nehru believed that secularism in India was different from its Western counterparts. In the West, secularism primarily addressed the historical conflict between the Church and the State of Europe. Contrary to that, according to Nehru, the religious landscape of India was more intertwined with politics, and thus secularism had to be understood as a more flexible and functional concept.
Indira Gandhi’s 42nd Amendment and the insertion of ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’
During the Emergency in 1976, then-Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, eventually introduced the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to the preamble of India through the 42nd Amendment. The decision of Gandhi, at the time of Emergency, to make such a drastic change in the preamble has been repeatedly criticised and seen as a politically motivated move aimed at consolidating Gandhi’s power. If we look at the changes made from Ambedkar’s perspective, they are antithetical to the spirit of democracy and liberty that he wanted to protect.
Ambedkar believed that decisions about socialism and secularism should reflect the will of the people. These should not become the ideological preferences of a ruling government. Recently, it was argued to be a reflection of an insecure government rather than a reflection of Indian values. In September 2024, Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi noted that secularism is a European concept and not Bharatiya. He added that it came into being to end conflicts between the Church and the King of Europe. Calling ‘secularism’ unnecessary in India, he pointed out that the original framers had not included it in the document. Referring to Indira Gandhi, he called her “one secure prime minister” who got the word ‘secular’ added to the Constitution.
Ambedkar’s long-term vision: Democracy over ideology
Ambedkar’s views and reluctance regarding the inclusion of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the preamble reflect his commitment to democratic values. He believed that if these ideals were imposed through the Constitution, it would be antithetical to the freedom and agency of the people. He argued that the Constitution should be a flexible document, capable of adapting to the changing needs of society.
According to him, a democratic state should provide its citizens with the freedom to choose their social and economic systems based on the circumstances the country is facing. Secularism and socialism are rigid ideals, which limit the freedom of the people. Ambedkar’s deep commitment to democracy, individual liberty, and the adaptability of the state drove him to oppose these amendments so strongly.
Conclusion
Just because Ambedkar was against adding the terms ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ to the preamble does not mean he rejected the values themselves. It was more of a defence of democracy and the liberty of future generations to determine the direction of the country. The Constitution should be a living document. As time passes, the Constitution must evolve according to the people’s needs. It should not lock the people of the country into a particular ideology. Ambedkar’s vision of India was one where democracy thrived through flexibility, allowing the people to shape their social, political, and economic systems as they saw fit.
However, the 42nd Amendment did not align with the original version of the framers of the Constitution. Ambedkar’s opposition to adding the terms ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ to the preamble should serve as a reminder that it is the responsibility of the leaders of the country to safeguard the Constitution and not contaminate it for the sake of their own insecurities.
