It may sound unbelievable. It may sound incredible. It may sound far fetched. It may sound implausible. But historic reality is that both Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar have vehemently opposed inclusion of two terms – “socialism” and “secularism” in the preamble of Indian Constitution. This is what the official record says.

 

Source: Indian Kanoon

It was on October 17, 1949 K T Shah, a Congress leader from Bihar, moved a proposal in the Constituent Assembly to accommodate socialist and secular terms in the preamble. However, this proposal was totally rejected by the Constituent Assembly on the same day.

Pandit Nehru and Dr Ambedkar were among those, who opposed there two terms to be included in the preamble. Twenty-eight years later, Pandit Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi included both the terms in the Preamble during the Emergency, when all the opposition leaders were jailed, civic liberties of citizens were banned. Evidently, the terms were included in the Preamble in an undemocratic manner, without any debate and at the whims of a dictator – Indira Gandhi.

1. What was the debate on ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ in the Constituent Assembly?

During the formative debates of the Constituent Assembly, there was a deliberate and intense attempt by a few members to insert the foreign ideological constructs of ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’ into the Preamble of India’s Constitution. While these ideologies were championed by figures like Professor K.T. Shah, the vast majority of the Assembly, grounded in India's democratic prudence, rejected such insertions.

 

K.T Shah, The man who insisted on including ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’in the Indian Constitution

Professor Shah, influenced by Western political thought and Soviet-style socialism, proposed on November 15, 1948, that India be declared a “Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.” His reasoning stemmed from a desire to imitate models like the USSR and Western republics, overlooking India’s indigenous tradition of spiritual pluralism and dharmic co-existence, which had for millennia upheld harmony without needing the label of ‘secularism’.

Shah was supported by others like H.V. Kamath and Hasrat Mohani, and even an outlandish suggestion was floated to rename India the “Union of India Socialist Republics,” a clear imitation of the USSR’s structure. However, these ideas failed to resonate with the majority of the Assembly, who saw in them a departure from Bharatiya civilisational thought.

(Source: Bar&Bench)

The final Preamble, as adopted in 1950, consciously omitted these terms. It was a decision that reflected the wisdom of India’s founding generation, rooted in dharma, decentralisation, and cultural integrity, rather than imported ideological blueprints. It was only during the Emergency, under circumstances of political suppression in 1976, that these words were inserted.

2. Why were ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ initially rejected?

The decision by the Constituent Assembly to exclude the terms ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ from the original Preamble of the Indian Constitution was no accident. It was a deliberate and principled assertion of India’s commitment to genuine democracy.

Unlike the ideological experiments of the West or Soviet-style socialism, India had for millennia practiced spiritual pluralism and mutual respect across faiths, not by force of law, but through lived dharma. The framers, deeply aware of India’s cultural DNA, chose not to shackle the nation to Western ideological constructs that had little organic resonance with the Indian society.

 

The Conclusive Statement from the Constitutional Debate that inclusion of ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ in the Indian Constitution were rejected

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution and a staunch champion of democratic liberty, strongly resisted the inclusion of these imported terms. He rightly argued that the Constitution should not serve as a rigid ideological manifesto, but as a framework within which the people, through their democratic will, could shape the nation’s path according to changing times. Codifying “socialist” or “secular” into the foundational text, Ambedkar warned, would be tantamount to imposing an intellectual dictatorship, stifling future generations’ ability to define their own values and institutions.

In Ambedkar’s own words:

“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.”

Imposing socialism, he declared, would mean “destroying democracy altogether.”

Even Pandit Nehru, despite his personal ideological leanings towards “socialism” and Western-style “secularism”, respected this line of thinking. He refrained from forcing these terms into the Preamble, acknowledging that India’s civilisational pluralism and welfare orientation were already embedded within the broader constitutional fabric.

The final Preamble, adopted on 26 November 1949, thus reflects a vision rooted in Indian values and democratic flexibility, not ideological rigidity. It preserves the spiritual diversity, cultural continuity, and sovereign right of future generations to determine India's socio-political direction without being tied to foreign “isms.”

3. Dr. Ambedkar's views on ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar held deep convictions on secularism and socialism, yet opposed their explicit inclusion in the Preamble. A staunch advocate of social justice and a secular state, Ambedkar believed India’s civilization was inherently secular, with a 5,000-year-old tradition of pluralism. Inserting the term in 1949, he argued, would imply India became secular only then, undermining its heritage. He saw secularism as vital for protecting marginalized communities and ensuring state neutrality in religion, as reflected in Articles 14 and 15.

On socialism, Ambedkar supported economic equality and state intervention to uplift exploited classes. His vision, outlined in States and Minorities, proposed state ownership of key sectors and collective farming. However, he rejected codifying socialism in the Preamble, believing future governments must have the freedom to decide policy. Fixing socialism constitutionally, he warned, would bind future generations and hinder democracy’s evolution. His stance balanced social justice with democratic flexibility.

4. Why was it decided that the nature of the Preamble will remain ‘eternal’?

Another significant question that RSS General Secretary Hosabale has put forth regarding the issue is about the “eternal nature of the Preamble”. The ‘eternality’ of the Preamble stems from the Constituent Assembly’s intent and the Supreme Court’s Basic Structure Doctrine. The Assembly, after thorough deliberation, approved the Preamble as presented by the Drafting Committee. Choosing "Union" over "Federation" reflected the framers’ commitment to India’s unbreakable unity and avoidance of future partitions.

This intent was reinforced in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), where the Supreme Court, by a 7:6 majority, ruled that while Parliament can amend the Constitution under Article 368, it cannot alter its "basic structure." This includes elements like democracy, rule of law, secularism, federalism, and judicial review. The doctrine emerged from challenges to the 24th, 25th, and 29th Amendments, which attempted to limit fundamental rights and judicial power. Although the Preamble was amended during the 42nd Amendment, its core principles are now deemed unamendable, ensuring that the Constitution’s foundational values remain eternal and protected from transient political shifts.

5. How and in what circumstances were these two terms were included

The terms 'Socialist' and 'Secular' were inserted into the Preamble during the Internal Emergency (1975–1977) declared by Authoritarian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a period widely regarded as a “quasi-dictatorship” and a “dark chapter” in India’s history. This era witnessed a suspension of fundamental rights, Parliament’s dysfunction, judicial paralysis, media censorship, mass arrests, and forced sterilizations.

Faced with economic crises, political instability, and growing public unrest, the government aimed to consolidate power. In 1976, it formed the Swaran Singh Committee to recommend constitutional changes enhancing central authority. Based on its suggestions, the 42nd Amendment, known as the “Mini-Constitution,” was enacted. It drastically shifted powers from states to the Centre, introduced Fundamental Duties, curtailed judicial review, and extended legislatures' terms from five to six years.

Crucially, the Preamble’s phrase “Sovereign Democratic Republic” was changed to “Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic,” with “Integrity” also added. The Indira Gandhi government claimed this reflected its welfare agenda and commitment to religious neutrality., However, it cannot be denied that the changes were undemocratically imposed, deviating from Ambedkar’s original draft and enforced retroactively to November 26, 1949.

Despite the subsequent Janata Party government (1977-1980) reversing many of the 42nd Amendment's changes through the 43rd and 44th Amendments, the insertion of 'Socialist' and 'Secular' in the Preamble was notably left untouched. More recently, in November 2024, the Supreme Court rejected petitions challenging the inclusion of these words, affirming Parliament's power to amend the Preamble while referencing the Basic Structure Doctrine. This complex history underscores how the circumstances of their inclusion during the Emergency remain a contentious point, raising questions about the democratic legitimacy of such fundamental alterations made under duress.

The terms ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ in the Indian Preamble are increasingly misaligned with the country’s current socio-political and economic realities. Regarding ‘Socialism’, it is noted that India has never truly adopted an orthodox socialist model, defined by complete state control over production and distribution. Instead, India operates as a mixed economy with growing reliance on the private sector. In this context, Dr. Ambedkar’s concern that embedding socialism in the Constitution could constrain future generations’ economic choices, seems highly relevant. Though the present government supports welfare schemes like cash transfers to farmers, these are framed as pragmatic guarantees rather than ideological socialism.

About ‘Secularism’, India’s version does not match global secular models, which often require a clear separation between state and religion. India’s approach involves both regulation of religion and selective interference; such as Article 25(2)(b), which includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists within the definition of Hindus. Public religious participation by state figures of all political parties further blurs neutrality. Besides, religious persecution questions secularism’s practical implementation. Ambedkar’s earlier hesitation, that explicitly adding 'secular' might wrongly imply “India became secular only in 1949”, remains pertinent.

The insertion of ‘Secular’ and ‘Socialist’ in the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency remains a controversial legacy of executive overreach. Enacted when civil liberties were suspended and Parliament weakened, it lacked democratic legitimacy and contradicted Dr. Ambedkar’s vision of a flexible Constitution unshackled by rigid ideologies. These terms have always been ideologically driven and alien to India’s civilisational ethos. While courts uphold secularism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the manner of their inclusion continues to remain questionable.