Public opinion is sharply polarized regarding the presence of 'secularism' and 'socialism' in the Indian Constitution's Preamble. Many advocate for their removal, viewing them as politically motivated additions, while others defend them as essential to upholding India's diversity and democratic values. There is significant concern about potential changes, with a strong attachment to the Constitution's original spirit and widespread criticism of current government actions, perceived authoritarianism, and rising socio-economic grievances.

Opposition Parties

Simple - remove the constitution and replace it with Manu smriti. Let's go back 1000 years and wait for foreign invaders to come and screw us.

Kambar

O chicha bhosadi wale…. Thoda aaram se. Zinda hai abhi kaafi log is desh mai (andar se), macha rakha hoga halla sanghio ne lekin shor hi hai bas wo. 

Don’t forget what the farmers of a few states of this country made you do.

CreativeMuseMan

Although I disagree with the removal, the entire 42nd amendment was a disgrace to our democracy itself, and amending the Constitution in such a manner was even worse than the way BJP passes bills.

badass_guts

Yes, we don't need them. Cause let's be real neither secularism nor socialism is alive in India. Replace them with Religious Bigotry and Crony Capitalism

Fallen_0n3

[deleted]

Remove soycialist, that word has brought us nothing but decades of slow growth

TaxiChalak

the preamble is not enforced by law but is a part of constitution. So removing or adding something would change much.

chessejuice

The problem is,  those who read this fully,  are already frustrated with current state of affairs and are already worried about the outcome of another term. 

The ones who need to wake up,  will not read beyond the first 2 lines..

Irony!

heisenberg0389

Excellent thoughts  Please keep writing. How can I support your work?

joy74

It's scary how correct Dr. Ambedkar was even 75 years ago, Indian society is still very undemocratic.

genome_walker

There is only one response to this:

Let's vote.

We get a chance to express ourselves in May 2024. Let's resolve to remind those who would seek to weaken the Constitution that we, the People, still believe fully and truly in it.

Danguard2020

The bifurcation of the subcontinent between one majority-Muslim country and one majority-Hindu nation did not come about peacefully. If people now aghast at the BJP's attempt to create a Hindu-supremacist Bharat at the expense of its minorities really want to address it, it must first come to terms with its history, including the history of its founding as a modern nation.

Rabatis

Keeping everything aside.. what are we actually doing to turn it into a mass-movement or spread awareness so that it could turn into one ? That should be the biggest concern

Only the literate youth has the faculties to understand the current scenario or forsee the future but these very people are least active in the political field and rather concerned with securing a job which keeps shrinking day by day anyways !

Or are we just going to be keyboard-warriors ?

You do realize that the version you're sharing is not the Original, correct? The "Secular" and "Socialist" verbiage was added by Indira Gandhi DURING THE EMERGENCY when the Opposition had been jailed at her behest. She was desperately trying to virtue signal to the global community that she was benevolent in her overreach as she desperately tried to cling to power...

Snarcotic

im_just_depressed

Bhai just vote Rahul Gandhi and all problems will be solved. Why make this so complicated? There are other options too like Nitish Kumar or Mamata Banerjee, who will make sure we remain secular. Make sure to keep voting for them.

the_storm_rider

Isn't India majority Hindu? That's why the BJP is democratically elected into power? The people's voice has to be heard. Majority wins.

SDM1974

Can you please mention some points on why another BJP-RSS term will be a synonymous to death of democracy?

Organic-Inspector868

Namaskaram /u/TeluguFilmFile, thank you for your submission. Please provide source(s) for the image(s) you have posted. If you have already provided the source, please ignore this message. Thank you.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndiaSpeaks) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Which is why the currency government has floated the idea of an amendment.

Suspicious-Local-280

***Some claim that India has its own form of "secularism" and "socialism," but they ignore that India is also not truly "secular" or "socialist" in many ways (at least under the current system). We can move toward a true form of secularism (by getting rid of religion-based laws), but we must stay away from the economic system of socialism.***

While it is true that the 44th Amendment chose to retain the words "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble despite reversing many of Indira Gandhi's bad amendments to the Constitution, those words have some meaning only if we interpret the words "secular" and "socialist" in the broad senses of "equality (with respect to freedom of religion or other personal beliefs)" and "equity." The problem with the words "secular" and "socialist" (relative to the other more neutral words) is that they carry additional baggage. And that's why the Constituent Assembly decided against the inclusion of those words despite K. T. Shah's proposal that explicitly advocated for those words in particular.

In other words, while "equity" (which is a core "socialist" principle) is enshrined in the constitution, "socialism" per se (as an economic system) is not enshrined in the constitution because people are allowed to (through the choice of their elected representatives) decide economic policies. In fact, the [economic liberalization of India](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalisation_in_India) in 1991 definitively made India "non-socialist" in an important way.

In addition, India is "secular" in one sense because, e.g., it does not have an official state religion (unlike the "Islamic Republic of Pakistan") and allows freedom of religion (as along as it doesn't interfere with the other parts of the constitution). But India is also not "secular" in other ways because it has religion-based personal laws. For example, whether an Indian man is legally allowed to have four wives depends on that man's "religion." (Some of the religion-based inheritance laws etc. actually also violate the principles of equality and equity and do not necessarily give equal rights to women.)

During the post-colonial period (and even before that), there have been [several attempts to establish a Uniform Civil Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code#History) that is modern (and does not depend on outdated aspects of any religion), but post-colonial history shows that such a proposal has always been met with resistance. Moreover, through laws like the "Hindu Marriage Act," the state got itself into the business of defining who a "Hindu" is. (For the purposes of the Act, the word "Hindu" also applies to Buddhists, Jains, and some others.) A truly "secular" nation should not be in the business of defining religious terms. Some people say that India has its own "secularism," and that is correct (because the nation is indeed "secular" in some narrow ways as I explained in the post), but it is also correct to say that India is not "secular" (if we use a dictionary definition, i.e., 'not connected with religious or spiritual matters' for the word "secular") in a broader sense (as of now).

TeluguFilmFile

IG is overrated as hell.

True, she demonstrated some backbone during the 1971 war, but credit also goes to India's brilliant military leaders at that point. And to the Soviets, who prevented the West from attacking us.

The rest- rampant corruption, the emergency, nationalization of banks, ridiculous violations of human rights, failure to curb her rabid son Sanjay (or perhaps tacit approval of his actions), failure to nip the Sikh insurgency in the bud, and this idiotic amendment to the Constitution.

Yet, for some reason, a lot of the elderly folk seem to hold her in high regard.

ForeverIntoTheLight

Uk what's even funnier.

The words socialist and secular were added during an emergency, so naturally it cannot have been a democratic process. But the court held that the world's socialist and secular are now included in the basic structure doctrine of the constitution, meaning they can never be removed or altered because these words are fundamentally important to our constitution.

Old-Juggernut-101

playcooltalk

Add how many words you want. The state practices none. The laws aren't gender neutral, the laws are religious biased, directive principles clearly states they should be enforced like UCC which is absent since 1950. What a joke to be honest!

Shak1196

Preamble is derived from the Constitution, not otherwise

Gaius_Odysseus

Who changed the constitutional preamble by just adding 2 words and that too during a politically motivated national emergency??![img](emote|t5_3d4x4|20096)![img](emote|t5_3d4x4|20096)

shiplover_

Because they didn't think people will become like this and will doubt that they are secular.

Some-Top-1548

We live in a society.

Jokes aside, most of the contents surely are copy-pasted with little to no Indian touch. More surprising is the fact that we continue to retain laws written by British which helped them enslave us. Govts keep on abusing them to justify their authority.

But to answer your question, I think you're ahead of time. People in this country still neither understand nor care what's in the constitution. Most Indians worry about their next food than what's written in constitution and rightly so. Unless we have a highly educated society majority of whom start asking a broad question like "What is it that binds India?" we'll never get close to rewriting the whole thing.

Additionally, rewriting constitution, will impact not only public policy changes but almost every aspect of how this country functions. Given that we're trying to emulate a welfare based Capitalist economic policy, any change to that would not be acceptable to the people who really control the Govt. They won't let that happen.

It will need a revolution of a sort. Do remember, the Modi govt. we now have is due to 70 years of RSS groundwork and uncountable sacrifices of BJP karyakartas old and new.

Side_Dhumka

The current Indian constitution has a method by which it can be amended, use it.

Kurundu

Interesting thought. So the first thing I'll clarify is that just because a concept came from elsewhere, that doesn't make it non-genuine or bad. Let's not be so xenophobic that we refuse to even look at ideas from elsewhere. As the Rigveda says, "Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides."

Next, I think you're giving too much credence to the Constitution as it is written. A society is defined by its people and the *interpretation* of its constitution is done accordingly, whatever be the written word. Just consider that our constitution has been amended over 100 times - we will reach a Theseus paradox by the time the republic turns 100 years at the rate we're going. And that's just the stuff that's been amended formally, our political, legal, and moral system adjusts itself much faster. We are formally a parliamentary republic but most of our states are run like a presidential system anyway with the CM being all-powerful, in theory we have separation of powers but the legislature and the executive are tied to the hip with only procedural gaps in between, we have freedom of speech and expression but its enforcement is dependent on the size and bloodthirst of the mob that challenges it, we have equality in law but then we have a massive system of quotas and special laws for special groups, etc. And don't even get me started on the fundamental duties or directive principles (copied from the Irish constitution), which are virtually ignored on a daily basis.

The fact is that once the British decided to leave, we had to start with something, we wanted to create a republic and get on with life (remember Pakistan took much longer - they remained governed as a dominion by the Indian Independence Act, 1947 till as late as 1956 and their constitution lasted barely 2 years). Ambedkar, as chair of the drafting committee in the Constituent Assembly, had to put all the debate into some written word, in that process there's no harm looking at what other free countries did. It was a start, and the power to amend the constitution made it clear that it could be changed, and it has been.

But I disagree completely with what you said about Ambedkar, he was first and foremost a realist, having been born into an inhuman system of untouchability and having seen another form of it in the West (segregation in the US, he studied at Columbia - and no, Americans didn't treat you better because you were brown). He did not hate Indian philosophy nor was he starry-eyed about it. He himself said that democracy and the constitution were window dressings on an otherwise illiberal and hierarchical society. He was one of the best people in the Assembly precisely because he was not an ideologue, he was interested in outcomes and not empty moral discussions. He knew that you can write any constitution you like, society will manage itself based on its fundamental nature. 

So to answer your question, I'd say most Indians only pay lip service to the constitution. Our society works based on our 5,000 year old civilization and its collective experience. The constitution is necessary to clarify day to day procedures (or whether to ignore them), but our nation is not derived from it. It is merely another set of rules in the long history of such rules that have governed this land.

ididacannonball

Form a government and change whatever you want.

hskskgfk

It's not the right time. 
Once we get richer and more stable. We can try it then. 

See even one amendment gets so much protest. If Constitution is dissolved every branch of the government will be dissolved immediately. It will an autocratic rule with ruler forming whatever they want to. 

Consider this. India has 600+ langUages and then there would be tribes and castes too. 
It will be impossible to view everyone through a single lens. India can not be governed through a minimal rules. We are living in transitioning age. It is hard to know what future holds.

Bharadwaj94

This sub always gets a good chuckle out of me man, lots of love from Pakistan 😂

nastaliiq

Even the Flag is copied from Ireland abeit The Ashoka Chakra and saffron instead of orange. Similar meaning of colours representing two different religion.

Sumit_un

This pure bullshit answer Just read for God sake how the constitution was built then you won't be having these uneducated doubts. Why does this generation jump the gun of criticising without reading first. Do YouTube video dekhli aa gye bakwas maarne. If you can't read atleast watch the series Savidhan which tells how the constitution was made. This view is uninformed it's cringy.

dhruv14x

Either you are a clown or just trolling. No offense, but in case you are not, you should know that our constitution evolves with shifting times and changing priorities in both society and politics. There are many different political views on Indian people, these views are based on a variety of factors, including personal experiences, media portrayals, and political beliefs and not always rationale or optimal. I also disagree with the statement that "now we have more educated people in India unlike back in those days." Even mature adults often hesitate to express their own opinions on matters such as whom they wish to marry, their choice of worship, their preferred living destinations, job preferences, or hobbies. In a country lacking self-reflection and critical thinking, historical evidence suggests a tendency towards authoritarianism.  


Now you are mis-using the word copy. The framers of the Indian Constitution carefully studied and adapted features from various constitutions, including the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and Germany. They didn't simply copy them verbatim. They modified and adapted these features to suit India's unique historical, social, and cultural context. For example, the concept of fundamental rights was inspired by the US Bill of Rights, India included additional rights like the right to equality and the right against untouchability to address specific societal issues. India's federal structure balances the power between the central and state governments, unlike the US model with a stronger central government. Our Parliamentary system with a Prime Minister differs from the US presidential system with a separate head of state and head of government. The Indian Constitution is not a static document. It has been amended over 100 times to adapt to changing social, political, and economic realities. Your alternate proposed solution is either unclear or rigid for sure 

We are still dependent on Western powers for our survival. We need their investments, we need their support and we need their weapons. They are about a hundred years ahead on many fronts. We have enemy states right next door. We have our own internal enemies who are hurting our underbellies like bacteria. Under these circumstances, changing the system to suit our own uniqueness as a culture will bring objections from the masters. In fact India is facing so much negative press outside is because the masters do not like us becoming truly independent of them and grow into a power. So if we suddenly got together and tried to create something that meets our values and needs, there will be wars waged from many fronts. We just do not have the means to defend ourselves at this time. We have to reach a level like China or beyond where we get to dictate terms to the world. I don't know if we can make it that far, considering the kind of people we have in our country.

Seeker_00860

Modi is a pretty weak politician, he is not Hitler at all but his fans on the other hand are going in the direction of fascism because they have realised that if they want to be superior the only way is to be part of a majority that rules.

Oh, yeah baby!!!

We are on the road towards becoming a complete fascist state, we aren't there yet, but we are close.

Indian democracy is broken, it will take us years to even recover from the shit we are already in. We can all be optimist about the future, but we need the whole of India to rise, which is not happening anytime soon. We are completely fcked and there's a long, painful, hate filled road ahead of us.

Icetruckilr

I think someone has to write books on the 80s and 90s when Cong party was at it's peak to give an idea on how much things have improved now. 

1. 50% of India was no go zone. There was Kashmir which had a bomb blast 2-3 times a week. A large area of central India was occupied by Naxals and Chamal Dakus. Trains travelling on this route would have 2 RPF constables in a bogie with assault rifles and would lock the doors from inside. Punjab was deeply affected by the 2nd wave of the Khalistani movement and there were a lot of clashes between Hindus and Sikhs.The entire North east had one or the other separatist movement funded by ISI and China. In fact I remember reading a book named balkanisation of India ( written by Pak author ) on how India was on the verge of breaking up and how Pak should give it a push, unfortunately that was very realistic. Rajasthan was hub of arms trafficking from Pak. Lalu Prasad had given a corporate level of efficiency to kidnapping and land grabbing industry. LTTE issue had blown back on our face and those folks got support in Tamil Nadu. There were at least 1 major riot or bomb blast in Mumbai and there use to be so many incidents of stone pelting. Guess what, most of these incident were cencored. You can go to archives and try finding references to sikh riots or riots in Nellie which were bigger than Guj riots. You would find none. When films are made on these topics people find resonance because they have experienced these incidents. Films like aparharan, Bombay, Machis, bandit queen are quite accurate in their depiction. 

2. Hindutva politics was being done for at least 50 years before BJP and they found no resonance because Hindus are largely secular. BJP found wind in it's sails after shah Bano incident. There was a boiling sentiment amongst the Hindus that Cong govt was giving excessively inclined towards Muslims and Shah Bano case gave the validation. Even the intellectuals and fence sitters had to accept that and hence the movement got support from all quarter. While in cities you may not experience religious and caste based discrimination, in smaller towns and villages might was right till early 2010. After smart phones things have changed. However the modus operandi was a politician would nurture typically one criminal who was given complete free hand and he had to give a share of earnings to him and during polls they had to use the muscle power to cast votes. During elections these people would patrol the regions which were likely to cast vote against the politicians and would not allow them to come to vote. Why would anyone not call the police? Guess what, 10 years was avg waiting time to get phone connection. Common man had no access to the phone, except a phone booths. The Muslims mafia would grab land of Hindus and use to setup kangaroo courts serving justice. Shams Khan, a reporter from aaj tak had narrated on incident he had witnessed where Shahbuddin was in jail and there was a long queue (~300) to meet him and the Jailer was like standing next to him and a guy gifted him a rifle (this is happening in jail). So there is a huge number of victims who want a govt which would counter this. BJP filled this space. It is not like Hindu khatre mein hai, it is more about a opponent of caste and religious politics is not finding space. 

3. Now coming to EVMs I am sharing experience of my father and his friends who were in govt jobs who had served as polling officers. They served is most peaceful part of Maharashtra, i.e. Pune. Till 4 pm elections would run peacefully and then in the last hour goons of Bhishma pitamah of politics would come, check the list of to find how many votes are pending and then stamp out those many votes and put it in the ballot box in presence of police and poll officers, no one could lift a finger, in a period when T N Seshan was ECI. First major dent to bogus votes came when PV Narsimha Rao introduced voting Id and that was effectively ended by EVMs. ECI may have flaws, but trust me when folks like Lalu and Akhilesh Yadav are demanding paper ballot, they are effectively asking for a rigged system. 

Batenge toh Kantenge is finding a resonance in MH election because people are reminded of the consequences of this period. You will find that this is not discussed anywhere in media, people are discusing it privately.

lonelytunes09

how is revoking article 370 fascism or "disdain of human rights"?

Salmanlovesdeers

Is the govt fascist? Not yet but very close to being one. 

What's stopping it? The fake tap dance they have to do before actually becoming one without which they would turn the entire country into a pariah state internally and that would come at a great cost for the crony capitalist businessmen funding the current govt n the bjp party. Not to mention that being under heavy international sanctions would make the life of a common citizen that much harder making it difficult for them to maintain control. The key is to maintain the balance. Which is what bjp n modi is trying soo hard to do. But as is nature of such things and as history is witness to them, these things eventually do fall. Every single time. 

India will take a long time to recover tho as we are fucked not just by the govt but by the people who are willingly handing over control and their freedoms just to watch their fellow countrymen (muslims now Dalits n other non uc later when it's their turn on the chopping block) suffer. India will need atleast a generation to be able to recover and that is also very difficult and unlikely as the material wellbeing and prosperity is the main factor which helps a country pull out of such a mess caused by the brainwashing of its own people. And India needs atleast half a century minimum to be able to get anything worthwhile done from a financial pov. 

In short? We r fucked up bad and there's no easy or quick solution to fix it. 


Only realistic solution would be to speed up the process and try to minimize the damage but that's our best case scenario. That's how badly fkd this country is.

Herculees007

Utter nonsense.
CAA is pro-human rights (providing refuge to minorities in neighboring nations)
Intellectuals ignored by prior governments.have been awarded eg Meenakshi Jain
I could go on and pn

portuh47

Juvegamer23

Look, I support what you are trying to say,

but you sure you ain't generating this text on chatgpt?

AzertyTwoSevenThree

I'd argue all The Indian Governments(all, state and centre) can be termed as fascist, irrespective of parties, or time period.

UnionGloomy8226

"India remains a functioning democracy with strong institutions and an active civil society, which continues to challenge and debate these issues openly."

Says who?? LOL. BJP has penetrated every institution and installed its sycophants. Media serves Modi and only asks him questions like the way to eat mangoes. Judiciary caters to him. NDTV has been bought by Adani. NGOs threatened over funding. FCRA licences of 6,000 organizations, including Oxfam India, Azim Premji Foundation, Common Cause and Jamia Millia Islamia, were cancelled in 2022. Dabholkar, Lankesh, Pansare, Kalburgi all killed. Sidheeq Kappan Jailed.

Holiday_Donut_8285

Will India get better when Modi leaves office ?

Top_Intern_867

Ok i assume you are right if not bjp who to vote tell mee with the same no of reason to vote the other party as you have given me not to vote for bjp

LAWDASURS

This is an excellent analysis

All i can say is if this continues (one party/one rule ) India is doomed  in many ways. Politics play a huge role in influencing people and so far it's chaotic . 

So i predict it'll get worse as days go by (nobody to question the government/ just bunch of yes man (national bhakths around) /people will be unable to voice out against the atrocities of the govt /they'll take advantage of their power which will lead to the exploitation )

SomewhereJust5265

His hardline fans want it, but the government itself is far from it, thankfully. They are just ultra-conservative and jingoistic in their approach to nationalism.

redefined_simplersci

Calls for removing 'secularism' and 'socialism' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution have ignited considerable political debate.

Debate on Secularism and Socialism in Indian Constitution

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want