Dear friends in RSS and the BJP,
Greetings
There are murmurs, more likely a whispering campaign, about the intention to amend the Preamble of our Constitution and remove the words “secular” and “socialist.” I cannot remain silent. I write to you not from a position of partisan politics, but from the standpoint of one who once dreamt of a just, inclusive, and democratic India. I write in the hope that amidst the noise of power and the allure of majoritarianism, you might still hear the conscience of the Republic.
Let us be clear: India cannot remain India without secularism and socialism. These are not borrowed ideals, nor are they foreign implants. They are born out of our lived history. They are born out of centuries of religious diversity and decades of freedom struggle waged for justice, equality and dignity for all. Secularism, in the Indian sense, does not mean atheism or irreligion.
It means equal respect for all faiths. It means a state that is not partial to one religion over another, and a public life where every citizen — Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, or atheist — stands equal in dignity. Without secularism, we risk turning our democracy into a majoritarian project, where minorities are tolerated at best and demonised at worst. That is not the India our Constitution-makers dreamed of. That is not the India we can allow ourselves to become.
Likewise, socialism in our context is not about the command economy or statist control. It is about social and economic justice. Socialism, in our context, is about ensuring that the available opportunities do not belong only to the privileged. In a country where caste, class, and community still determine one’s chances in life, socialism is a moral compass as well. It is a reminder that the State must act in the interest of equity. It is the idea that the upliftment of the last person is not an act of charity but the duty of the state.
Those from amongst you who seek to remove these two words from the Preamble must ask themselves: What kind of India do you wish to create? One where religion determines citizenship?
One where wealth determines worth? One where the Constitution becomes a document of convenience, not conviction? The Preamble is not a slogan but a solemn promise — to ourselves, to each other, and future generations. It begins with “We, the people of India,” and it commits us to justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Secularism and socialism are the moral scaffolding that uphold these ideals. To dismantle them is to dismantle the Republic itself. I hope good sense prevails upon you all soon.
India’s greatness lies in its ability to hold together contradictions — languages, faiths, cuisines, castes and cultures. This harmony is not by chance but has been shaped by thousands of years of civilisational journey. Remove its anchors, and the ship may drift. Let the message be clear to all that any move to tamper with the Preamble will be resisted not just by opposition parties, but by the very conscientious people of India. The Constitution is not a partisan document. It is a national inheritance. And secularism and socialism are its beating heart.
Let me remind you all once again that these two words were not alien grafts upon our Constitution; they were crystallisations of the values enshrined from the very beginning. Even before they were explicitly inserted during the Emergency era in 1976, the spirit of secularism and socialism breathed through the Directive Principles. It betrays your intentions when you seem keen to implement the directive principles that you can weaponise in the service of your ideology, and ignore or run down those that you cannot. Policies flow from values and ideals, and one is scared to even imagine the shape of policies to come if you insist on negating the two foundational values you have fired warning shots on!
Secularism, to me, never meant hostility to religion, but equal respect for all faiths - sarva dharma sambhava. It meant the refusal of the State to privilege one religion over another. In a land as richly diverse as ours, to dilute this principle is to invite discord. It is to strike at the very idea of India.
Similarly, socialism, in our context, was never a dogma but a direction. It is a commitment to justice for the poor, to an economy where the last person is not forgotten. Our leader, Gandhiji, called it antyodaya, the rise of the last person. If we abandon this path in favour of unchecked markets and growing inequality, we betray not only the marginalised but also the soul of the freedom struggle. There are several articles in the directive principles of state policy that are as radical as any avowedly socialist manifesto.
Yes, I opposed the Emergency, and I stood against those who sought to subvert democracy. I indeed raised my voice against the Emergency, not because I was against Smt. Indira Gandhi as a person. I had admired her more than once for her dedication and courage. But when constitutional norms were subverted, when dissent was stifled, when the press was gagged, and when institutions were reduced to instruments of personal power, I had no choice but to stand with the people and resist. It was nothing but a textbook case of moral duty for me and millions of others in that movement. But I never meant for our struggle to empower forces that would in turn dismantle the pillars of our Constitution. If in my name or memory you find strength, then let that strength be used to protect, not weaken, the pluralistic and humane spirit of our Republic.
Today, I see worrying signs of centralised power, growing intolerance to dissent, misuse of investigative agencies, and attempts to silence the voices that differ - all in the name of nationalism or development. Institutions that should act as checks and balances appear weakened. The press is under pressure. Civil society is being squeezed. And the poor and marginalised, whose upliftment should be our highest goal, often find themselves unheard. Your regime speaks of “Amrit Kaal,” but no era can be truly golden if freedom is conditional and justice is selective. Let me reiterate that India is not merely a geography, it is a civilisation that has taught the world the value of truth, non-violence, and moral courage. The same values that inspired our freedom movement must guide us now, too. The Constitution is not a mere legal document; it is the moral contract between the State and its citizens.
I therefore say this with utmost seriousness and responsibility - please, refrain from touching the Preamble of our Constitution. It is not just a collection of words; it is the soul of our Republic. It embodies the very idea of India. Tampering with it would not just be a legal transgression; it would be a betrayal of the dreams and struggles of those who gave us our freedom. Let us not dismantle the moral compass that holds our diverse nation together.
Finally, I would urge you to understand that there comes a moment in the life of a Republic when it must pause, reflect, and remind itself what it stands for. We are living in such a moment. Resist the temptation of majoritarianism and do not violate that trust. The power you enjoy is immense, but greater still is your responsibility. Use it not to rewrite the soul of India, but to fulfil its promise.
With hope and concern,
Comradely yours,
Jayaprakash Narayan
P.S: The author has taken liberty to draft a letter in the name Jayaprakash Narayan, (the leader who had vehemently opposed the Emergency) to the RSS and the BJP imagining what he would how he would have reacted of the present debate on the Constituion. The views expressed by the writer are his own
(The writer is Member, Rajya Sabha)
