On June 26, 2025, during an event commemorating fifty years since the imposition of Emergency, RSS National General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale questioned the inclusion of the words “Secular” and “Socialist” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. These were added during the Emergency through the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976. According to him, these terms were not part of the original Constitution—a factually correct statement. During the Emergency, opposition leaders and media moguls were jailed, and the amendment was passed without proper democratic consensus. Mr. Hosabale’s remarks sparked criticism from several political parties. Some opponents claimed the RSS never fully accepted the Indian Constitution, alleging it preferred Manusmriti as the foundational text. Amidst this political exchange, the Indian government, in a parliamentary reply on July 24, 2025, clarified that it has no current plan or intention to remove the words “Socialist” and “Secular” from the Preamble. Leaving aside the political rhetoric, the issue deserves a deeper understanding. In this article, I will focus solely on the term “Socialist.” As a commentator on political economics, my objective is to examine this subject not just from a constitutional perspective, but also through the lens of economic theory and its practical impact on Indian society.
First of all, it is important to understand the concept of the Preamble. It is not just an introductory statement to the Constitution but also carries significant philosophical weight. Often described as the “Identity Card” of India, it reflects the core values and guiding vision of the nation. The Preamble declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republic nation, committed to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. In the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. It acts as a “Guiding Light” for the judiciary when interpreting laws. Therefore, any law framed must align with the basic structure outlined in the Preamble. If it violates this structure, the Supreme Court can strike it down as unconstitutional. Though the Preamble doesn’t grant enforceable rights, it plays a vital role in preserving the Constitution’s foundational spirit and guiding both citizens and institutions.
Now the big question arises: Does the word “Socialist” in the Constitution imply a rigid, state-controlled economic model? Can I openly call myself a capitalist? Can I form a political party that aims to make India a capitalist state? If you pose these questions to leaders with socialist ideologies, they may discourage you, often pointing to the Preamble and Supreme Court cases like SR Bommai and Minerva Mills to justify the socialist model. However, they frequently overlook a key judgment: DS Nakara v. Union of India (1983), where the Court clarified that India’s socialism is not communist-style socialism. Instead, it’s a blend of individual freedom and public welfare. The term “Socialist” in the Constitution doesn’t inherently reject private ownership, capitalism, or profit motive. But when viewed as a strict economic mandate, it can clash with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and Article 19(1)(c) (right to form associations)—rights essential for promoting alternative economic ideas, including capitalism.
Supporters of the word “Socialist” in the Preamble often overlook the Constituent Assembly debates. Even Jawaharlal Nehru, known for his socialist leanings, did not support including “Socialist” in the Preamble. He believed the Constitution should remain flexible to adapt to future needs. K.T. Shah, a radical socialist, repeatedly proposed inserting “Secular,” “Federal,” and “Socialist,” but Dr. B.R. Ambedkar firmly opposed it. Ambedkar argued that vague ideological terms would bind future legislatures and restrict their ability to respond to changing circumstances. T.T. Krishnamachari echoed this, warning against imposing a fixed economic vision. Similarly, Naziruddin Ahmad supported the view that constitutional rigidity could hinder policy evolution. The framers wanted a framework that allowed room for democratic debate and policy shifts, not one constrained by fixed doctrines. Therefore, the deliberate exclusion of the term “Socialist” reflected a commitment to constitutional flexibility rather than ideological imposition.
The strongest opponent of socialism in the Constituent Assembly was C. Rajagopalachari (Rajaji), a staunch classical liberal and pro-capitalist. He founded the Swatantra Party, which championed an open market economy and free enterprise. Rajaji believed socialism undermined individual liberty, property rights, and economic growth. He warned, “We must not be enslaved by the idea that state ownership and control of everything is good. That will mean replacing British imperialism with state imperialism.” He foresaw the dangers of the License-Permit-Quota Raj, predicting it would create a new form of tyranny—a prophecy that came true. Rajaji argued that the Constitution should offer a flexible framework, not impose a rigid economic ideology.
The Swatantra Party eventually collapsed in 1974, and its members merged into other parties. With this, the last political platform openly advocating capitalism vanished. Once the Constitution formally declared India a socialist state, liberal-capitalist voices lost constitutional legitimacy, and no similar party rose to fill the vacuum. This marked an ideological burial of capitalism in Indian politics. Popular imagination shifted toward slogans like “Garibi Hatao” and policies like bank nationalization. Gradually, the courts, media, and policymakers began aligning themselves with socialist narratives, sidelining market-based alternatives.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel opposed socialism, stating, “We must industrialize the country and promote private industry. The state should not throttle initiative and enterprise.” He supported private ownership, small industries, and agriculture-based businesses. Mahatma Gandhi also rejected state-sponsored socialism and centralized planning. He promoted Gram Swaraj—self-reliant village communities—and trusteeship, where the wealthy serve society voluntarily, not through state coercion. Dr. Rajendra Prasad, India’s first president, echoed these views: “A State cannot ensure welfare merely by owning everything. It must allow the spirit of enterprise to flourish.” Together, Patel, Gandhi, and Prasad championed decentralization, entrepreneurial freedom, and moral responsibility over rigid state control favoring a flexible, people-centric economic vision rooted in Indian civilisational values.
The insertion of “Socialist” in the Preamble was driven by external ideological pressure from the Soviet Union and the Communist Party of India (CPI). The USSR promoted “Constitutional Socialism” in developing countries to distance them from the West, particularly the United States. During the 1960s-1970s, Soviet influence deeply penetrated Indian policymaking. It shaped the views of Indian bureaucrats, academia, media, and think tanks through strategic investment in education and public policy. CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury admitted their role in pushing “Socialist” and “Secular” into the Constitution to clarify its class character. Justice H.R. Khanna, in his autobiography, wrote, “The 42nd Amendment was not born out of public demand. It was designed to insert Soviet-style language and make the Constitution an ideological weapon.” CPI openly supported the Emergency, calling it “Revolutionary Discipline.” This period marked peak ideological alignment between India’s Left and the Soviet Bloc. Policies like bank and coal nationalization and trade restrictions reflected Soviet-style socialism.
A key question now debated among experts and political circles is: Can the word “Socialist” be removed from the Preamble? Legally, yes. It can be deleted through a constitutional amendment under Article 368. However, it may face a serious challenge under the “Doctrine of Basic Structure.” The 42nd Amendment, which inserted the word “Socialist,” was passed during the National Emergency. Despite moral concerns due to lack of democratic consensus, it fulfilled all constitutional procedures making it legally valid.
In Indian jurisprudence, though, legality must meet both the “letter and spirit” of the law. The amendment was done in letter, but arguably not in spirit. Post-Emergency, the 44th Amendment reversed several 42nd Amendment provisions but left “Socialist” and “Secular” untouched. In Minerva Mills (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that these additions strengthened the Constitution. Therefore, while the Preamble can technically be amended, removing “Socialist” may trigger judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court could view such a move as violating the Constitution’s basic structure. This leads us to a more important question: Why should we even consider removing the word “Socialist”? To answer that, we must explore its impact on economic freedom, governance, and India’s evolving political vision.
The term “Socialist” does not directly violate fundamental rights, but it does restrict them. It puts limits on the spirit of entrepreneurship and suppresses the libertarian voice. The state can often use socialism as a justification to carry out resource redistribution, mainly to please or maintain vote banks. This approach is not in harmony with a system that values liberty and progress.
India’s culture has never been defined by rigid “isms.” It is a pluralistic civilization, not bound by fixed ideologies. Even Hinduism is not a dogma but a diverse set of philosophical traditions. Mahatma Gandhi said, “My Socialism is not Western; it is moral and voluntary,” highlighting that European economic models often clash with India’s civilisational ethos. In the Arthashastra, Chanakya advocated state-regulated capitalism rooted in Dharma. He supported private property, trader incentives, and global trade not forced redistribution or blanket nationalization. Practices like Bhandara and Langar are often misinterpreted as socialism. In reality, they are voluntary, spiritual acts of service, not state-driven food programs. Their purpose is not economic equality but promoting humility, seva (service), and breaking social barriers like caste. These acts are donor-driven, not tax-driven, and rooted in karmic duty. While socialism imposes, Dharma invites. In Indian tradition, compassion (daya) and service arise from inner moral duty, not government control or coercive redistribution.
Most political leaders in India today do not genuinely practice socialism. Driving luxury cars and living in lavish bungalows hardly reflects the lifestyle of a true socialist. While the Preamble declares India a socialist state, many leaders accept massive donations from corporations to fund their political campaigns. In reality, few genuinely want a socialist economy. Political funding through electoral bonds, corporate donations, and campaign support largely comes from wealthy industrialists. Over time, these capitalists have become the gatekeepers of political power. If India were truly socialist, private wealth shouldn’t influence public policy to such an extent. What we have instead is a blend of political capitalism, masked under the label of a mixed economy. This contradiction raises serious concerns, not just legal but also moral and constitutional. If socialism is a constitutional value, why do we accept a system where corporate money plays such a dominant role in shaping governance?
Socialism weakens the freedom to imagine alternate futures. Today’s generation values start-ups, venture capital, and free markets. Calling India a socialist republic may alienate young minds and discourage capitalist ambitions. Law and policy are not just governance tools—they carry cultural meaning. Including “Socialist” in the Preamble acts as ideological imposition, limiting economic liberty and freedom of thought. It clashes with India’s civilizational openness and may make youth feel that their entrepreneurial goals are less legitimate under a Constitution that promotes socialist ideals.
The judicial reasoning behind defending the word “Socialist” in the Preamble largely stems from a time when India followed a state-controlled economy. Before 1991, India adopted policies like bank nationalization, the MRTP Act, FERA, acquisition of Air India, restrictions on civil aviation, the exit of Coca-Cola, and the Import Substitution Industrial Policy—all hallmarks of a socialist, protectionist approach.
Most court rulings supporting socialism (except SR Bommai, which focused on secularism) were made when the judiciary operated in a state-dominated economic setting. Today, however, courts function within a market-oriented framework. Thus, expressing socialism as a constitutional identity without aligning with current practice results in symbolic hypocrisy. Retaining “Socialist” in the Preamble creates confusion in public morality, discourages aspirational thinking, and ties legal interpretations to outdated ideologies. In 1991, India formally shifted to liberalization, privatization, and globalization. Laws like FERA were replaced by FEMA, and a New Industrial Policy was introduced. Later, bank mergers, disinvestment, and the 2021 privatisation of Air India further signalled the government’s departure from the socialist model.
We the people of India shall be free to determine our paths. Our cultural heritage revolves around freedom and choice. Socialism curtails freedom. It was ideological colonization to add “Socialist” in Preamble of the Constitution. It not only clashes with India’s civilizational roots but undermines spiritual liberty, contradicts economic reality, and cripples judicial clarity. True justice demands its removal to restore the Constitution’s honest, dharmic, and liberty-driven character.
