On the occasion of Republic Day, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry of the Modi Government issued an advertisement, with an image of the Preamble of the Constitution minus two key words – ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’. The Preamble of the Constitution declares that “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; And to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.”

Scrambling to defend itself on the intent behind the omission of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from a 2015 Republic Day advertisement, the Modi Government – as well as the BJP and its allies - found themselves speaking in many contradictory tongues.

First, the I&B Ministry explained that they had merely used a watermark of the original 1950 Preamble, which at the time only had the words ‘Sovereign Democratic Republic’. What is wrong in commemorating the original Preamble, they asked innocently? Had the mater remained there, perhaps the apprehensions of India’s concerned citizens would have subsided.

But soon enough, Shiv Sena, an ally of the BJP, hailed the ‘accident’ by which the two words were excluded, and called for the accident to be turned into a ‘reality’. And soon after, the Telecom Minister of the Modi Government, senior BJP leader Ravishankar Prasad, called for a ‘national debate’ on the need for those two words in the Preamble! In support of these calls for outright deletion on the one hand and ‘debate’ on the other, it was argued that the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ had been introduced by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. These words carried the Emergency taint, it was argued in saffron quarters, and therefore should be deleted.

The Shiv Sena and Ravishankar Prasad revealed the real ‘Mann ki Baat’ behind the omission of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble as displayed in the Modi Government advertisement. That ‘Mann ki Baat’ is nothing but the agenda of eroding secularism to head in the direction of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ in which minorities will not enjoy equality and freedom. It is extremely significant that throughout, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi maintained a calculated silence on the subject, allowing his Government and party to speak in many voices.

Many offensive amendments made by Indira Gandhi to the Constitution were deleted by subsequent amendments by the Janata Government as well as by Supreme Court intervention. But no Government in the four decades since the Emergency has ever yet felt the need to ‘debate’ the inclusion of the words ‘secular’ and socialist’, and there is good reason for this.

The main reason is that those words simply underlined or amplified the assurance present in the rest of Preamble, as well as in many Articles of the Constitution. The word ‘Secular’ only reflects the spirit of the Preamble’s guarantee of ‘liberty of faith and worship’, of equality, and of fraternity based on the ‘dignity of the individual’. And this spirit is fully reflected in several Articles of the Constitution.

What about ‘socialist’? It may be argued that with the passing of the ‘public sector’ regime and the establishment of liberalization as a policy framework, is has become anachronistic to call India ‘socialist.’ Others can argue, rightly, apart from the outward trappings of five-year plans and public sector, the Indian State was not socialist in any sense of the term. India was never even a welfare state, let alone socialist in the revolutionary sense. The failure to carry out land reforms and democratise agrarian relations, and the growing subordination of the public sector to the interests of crony capitalism are the two biggest negations of any kind of socialism.

But what these arguments forget is that the term ‘socialist’ is important in as much as it reflects the spirit of ‘social, economic and political justice’ promised in both the Preamble and the directive principles of state policy. At a time when Governments are trying to step back from their duty of ensuring basic entitlements of food, shelter, water and so on to the people, the Constitutional commitment to that duty is important. At the present juncture, any move to drop the word ‘socialist’ is nothing but a ploy to claim Constitutional 'approval' for the rampant flouting of the principles of social and economic justice by Governments.

In a recent interview, BJP President Amit Shah has reiterated that his party sees no need to remove the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ from the Preamble. But it is significant that in the same interview, Shah refused point blank to comment in any way on RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s declaration that India is a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation). If the BJP is indeed committed to the secular spirit of India’s Constitution, why is it unwilling to outright condemn the RSS’ ‘Hindu Nation’ claim that is the worst possible attack on that spirit? In the same interview, Amit Shah defended what his party calls ‘ghar wapsi’ and called for a ‘law against conversions’ – both of which fly in the face of the Constitutional guarantee of the freedom to practice and propagate one’s faith.

Ravishankar Prasad and others may ask, rhetorically, if Ambedkar was less secular because he saw no need to include the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble. But can there be any doubt whatsoever that Ambedkar was deeply opposed to the notion of India being a theocratic ‘Hindu Rashtra’? Ambedkar himself organized mass conversions to Buddhism and declared, ‘I may be born a Hindu but I will not die a Hindu’. Can there be any doubt that Ambedkar would find a ‘law against conversions’ opposed to the basic spirit of India’s Constitution as he drafted it?

A ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is not just deeply dangerous for India’s religious minorities. It also spells an end to the Constitutional promise of equality and freedom for India’s Dalits, adivasis, oppressed castes and women. At the time when India adopted the Constitution, the RSS had opposed it and had called for the Manusmriti to be the Constitution of India as a ‘Hindu Rashtra’. The RSS organ Organiser, on November 30 1949, had complained that the Constitution had no mention of the Manusmriti – the same Manusmriti that is full of horrific decrees against the basic dignity and freedom of Dalits and women, the same Manusmriti that Ambedkar had publicly burnt.

It is precisely as a rebuff of and safeguard against these forces that seek to turn India into a Hindu nation that India’s Constitution and Preamble must continue to declare India’s secular character without any room for ambiguity.