V-P Dhankhar Slams Emergency-Era Preamble Changes as ‘Against Sanatan Values’

In a striking and controversial statement, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar has called the insertion of the words “socialist” and “secular” into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution a "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan." His remarks have ignited a fresh round of political, legal, and ideological debate across the country, stirring up longstanding questions about India’s constitutional identity and the intersection of tradition and modernity.

Speaking at an event that explored India’s civilizational ethos and the values enshrined in the Constitution, Dhankhar said the addition of these words in 1976—during the Emergency period—was not only undemocratic but also fundamentally incompatible with the ancient and pluralistic roots of Indian civilization, often referred to as Sanatan Dharma.

A Controversial Historical Amendment

To contextualize Dhankhar’s remarks, the words “socialist” and “secular” were inserted into the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976. This was during the height of the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Critics of the amendment have long claimed that it was pushed through Parliament without adequate public debate or consensus.

Dhankhar’s remarks revisit this history with pointed criticism. “How can you in one stroke change the soul of the Constitution, without referring it to the people or even holding a democratic dialogue?” he asked. “India has always been inclusive, spiritual, tolerant, and open. That is the Sanatan tradition. To forcibly add these Western constructs as defining pillars of our national identity is a kind of sacrilege.”

His use of the term sacrilege—usually reserved for religious or moral violations—has triggered especially strong reactions, with many interpreting it as a challenge to the legitimacy of the amendment and, by extension, the values it represents.

Sanatan Dharma and the Constitution

Dhankhar elaborated on his argument by invoking the philosophical and cultural legacy of Sanatan Dharma—a term often used to describe the eternal and universal moral principles found in Hindu thought. According to him, the values embedded in India’s civilizational past were already inclusive, pluralistic, and morally robust.

“India did not need a Western stamp to define secularism,” Dhankhar stated. “It has been in our DNA. Where else do you find a culture where all beliefs are respected, where even atheism is considered a valid path? That is real secularism—not something imported or enforced.”

He argued that the Constitution, as adopted in 1950, reflected this natural secularism and that its post-Emergency alteration compromised its original spirit.

Political and Legal Responses

Predictably, Dhankhar’s remarks drew sharp criticism from opposition leaders and constitutional experts alike. Several legal scholars and political commentators pointed out that the basic structure of the Constitution includes secularism as a core principle, and that India’s pluralistic framework has been protected and strengthened by such amendments.

Senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh tweeted, “The Vice-President seems to forget that the Constitution evolves. If he has a problem with ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’, is he also against justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity?”

From the legal fraternity, retired Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur remarked that the Vice-President’s views appear to disregard multiple rulings by the apex court, including the famous Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), which affirmed that secularism is part of the Constitution’s ‘basic structure’ and cannot be tampered with.

On the other hand, some leaders from the ruling party and its ideological affiliates welcomed Dhankhar’s statement. “He has only spoken what many have felt for decades,” said a BJP MP from Uttar Pradesh. “These words were imposed during a dark period of our democracy. Shouldn’t we, as a mature democracy now, revisit that?”

A Renewed Cultural vs Constitutional Debate

At its core, Dhankhar’s comments revive the ongoing debate over whether India’s Constitution should reflect its ancient cultural identity or remain grounded in the liberal, Western-influenced values that shaped its post-colonial formation.

For many who lean toward cultural nationalism, the insertion of “socialist” and “secular” during the Emergency is viewed as an unnecessary and politically motivated modification. They argue that the Constitution, by its very nature, was already inclusive without needing to use such labels.

On the other side of the debate are those who fear that undermining the term “secular” in particular is part of a broader attempt to weaken the secular fabric of the nation. They argue that India’s unique diversity—its multiplicity of religions, languages, castes, and cultures—demands a firm constitutional guarantee that the state remains neutral and non-discriminatory.

Academic Voices and Public Discourse

Academics and civil society figures have weighed in with more nuanced views. Constitutional historian Tripurdaman Singh noted, “The Constitution is not a static text—it has grown through amendments and interpretations. But the real debate here is not about a couple of words. It’s about the vision of India we are trying to preserve or redefine.”

Public intellectuals like Pratap Bhanu Mehta emphasized that the word “secular” may have been inserted later, but its spirit was always present in the Constitution’s structure and values. “It is not about what’s in the Preamble—it’s about how we act. You can remove or add words, but if the state begins to discriminate or prioritize, then no label can protect us.”

Social media, as expected, erupted in divided opinions. While some praised Dhankhar for "speaking the truth about India's civilizational strength," others accused him of “undermining constitutional morality” and “normalizing majoritarian views.”

Implications and the Road Ahead

Vice-President Dhankhar, by virtue of his constitutional position, rarely makes such strongly worded political statements. As the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, his role is expected to be more neutral and procedural. His latest remarks, however, underline the extent to which the debate over India’s constitutional identity continues to be politically and emotionally charged.

Will this spark calls for another amendment to “correct” or remove the words? That seems unlikely in the immediate future, given the complexities involved in amending the Constitution. However, it’s clear that the cultural and ideological tensions around the nature of Indian secularism and socialism will remain center stage as the country gears up for another general election.

Dhankhar ended his remarks by saying, “It is time we reconnected with our soul. The Constitution is not just a document—it is a reflection of our civilizational conscience. We must ask: whose conscience are we honoring when we make these additions?”