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 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.