It has been a consistent strategy of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological fountainhead, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), to periodically denigrate the concept of secularism to polarise the Hindu majority. Veteran BJP leader LK Advani frequently used the term "pseudo-secularism" to accuse the Congress and other secular parties of appeasing Muslims for vote-bank politics. BJP leaders often portray secularism as a tool used by opposition parties to favour Muslims, thereby justifying their own repeated attacks on the term.

The latest occasion for the BJP to revive this issue was the 50th anniversary of the Emergency imposed by former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Dattatreya Hosabale, a senior RSS functionary, asserted that it is time to remove the words "secularism" and "socialism" from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He argued that these terms were added during the Emergency via the 42nd Amendment, and that the original Constitution, drafted by Dr BR Ambedkar and adopted on November 26, 1949, did not include them.

Following this, the Vice President of India echoed the demand in stronger language, calling the inclusion of these words "a festering wound" and "a sacrilege to Sanatan." Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also criticised the inclusion of the terms "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble.

Responding to these statements, Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, in a Facebook post, claimed that the "mask" of the RSS had slipped once again. "The Constitution hurts them because it talks about equality, secularism, and justice. The RSS-BJP does not want the Constitution, but Manusmriti. By taking away their rights, they want to enslave the poor and the Bahujans again. Their real agenda is to snatch away a powerful weapon like the Constitution from the people," Gandhi said, adding that his party would not allow it.

It is indeed true that the Emergency was a dark chapter in India's history. Fundamental rights were suspended, and most opposition leaders were imprisoned. During this period, the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution was enacted, inserting the words "Socialist" and "Secular" between "Sovereign" and "Democratic Republic" in the Preamble. The term "Integrity" was added to "Unity of India," and a section on Fundamental Duties was also introduced.

The RSS-BJP's argument is that since the Amendment occurred during a time they consider dictatorial, these words should be removed. As writer Apoorvanand pointed out in The Wire, if one follows this logic, then the term "integrity" and the Fundamental Duties added during the same Amendment should also be deleted.

However, constitutional experts agree that even before the inclusion of the word "secular," secularism was a foundational feature of the Indian Constitution. Article 14 prohibits the State from discriminating on the grounds of religion. Article 25 guarantees every citizen the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. These provisions clearly establish the secular nature of India.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld secularism as part of the Constitution's basic structure. This has been reaffirmed in landmark cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) and SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994). According to the basic structure doctrine, certain core features, including secularism, cannot be amended by Parliament.
In this context, the repeated efforts by RSS-BJP leaders to question or remove the word "secular" from the Preamble are revealing. What they truly seek is to change the very character of the Indian State and its Constitution. Prior to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, some BJP leaders even declared their intention to win over 400 seats, thereby gaining the power to amend the Constitution. However, the BJP failed to secure even a simple majority, thwarting its ambitions—at least for now—as the RSS marks its centenary in 2025.

The RSS-BJP's ideology of Hindutva aims to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra—a theocratic state governed by Hindu religious norms and ideals. When the current Constitution was adopted in 1949, the RSS mouthpiece Organiser criticised it for lacking a "Bharatiya" (Indian) character and for borrowing heavily from Western constitutions. In its editorial dated November 30, 1949, Organiser rejected the Constitution and glorified the Manusmriti as a better alternative:

"But in our Constitution, there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu's Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day, his laws as enunciated in the Manu Smriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits, that means nothing."

The RSS-BJP has never explicitly renounced its dream of establishing a Hindu Rashtra as envisioned by MS Golwalkar, revered in the RSS as "Guruji." In his book We or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar writes:
"The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race; or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen's rights."

Golwalkar's vision is of a hierarchical, majoritarian Indian state in which Muslims and Christians are treated as second-class citizens. In a Hindu Rashtra based on Manu Smriti, lower castes and women would also be denied equal status.

This vision is in stark contrast to the inclusive and egalitarian spirit of the Indian Constitution. Since coming to power in 2014, the BJP government's actions have clearly indicated its intention to reshape India into a Hindu Rashtra, even without the parliamentary strength to amend the Constitution. Numerous examples underscore this agenda.

The BJP has adopted a multi-pronged approach. First, it has created an atmosphere that enables right-wing groups to engage in hate speech, cow vigilantism, attacks under the guise of "love jihad," and similar activities.

Second, government functionaries—including the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, and Chief Ministers—have overtly introduced Hindu customs and rituals into the secular state's affairs. For instance, Brahmins from Tamil Nadu were invited to perform rituals at the inauguration of the new Parliament building, and Prime Minister Modi personally presided over the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. In BJP-ruled states, almost all government functions, including foundation-laying ceremonies and inaugurations, are conducted with Hindu rituals. Massive public funds are spent promoting Hinduism under the pretext of religious tourism—for example, the Madhya Pradesh government spent ?2,141.85 crore to build a statue of Adi Shankara at Omkareshwar. The BJP has also allowed government employees to join the RSS, thereby compromising their neutrality.

Third, the BJP has used legislation to implement discriminatory laws against minorities. These include the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), anti-conversion laws, so-called "love jihad" laws, and bans on the sale of non-vegetarian food on certain Hindu festivals and near Hindu temples.
In light of these developments, the BJP's call to delete the word "secular" from the Preamble seems less about semantics and more about legitimising its broader project of transforming India into a Hindu Rashtra.