Constitution Isn't A Sacred Text, But An Evolving Document

 

India's Constitution is not carved in stone. Nor was it ever meant to be. It is a living document—crafted to adapt, evolve, and respond to the changing aspirations and challenges of the Indian republic. The growing uproar over calls to revisit certain aspects of the Constitution, particularly the controversial 42nd Amendment, demands not blind outrage but thoughtful debate.

It is both ironic and telling that the Indian Constitution itself grants the Parliament the power to amend it under Article 368. This is not a loophole but a deliberate mechanism. The framers of the Constitution, led by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, foresaw the need for future generations to refine and reorient the document in response to societal, political, and technological transformations. In his own words, Ambedkar had warned against making the Constitution so rigid that it would choke progress.

Yet today, those raising legitimate questions about amendments made during the dark hours of the Emergency are met with accusations of heresy, as though the Constitution were a holy book immune to revision. That is neither in line with Ambedkar’s vision nor with democratic principles.

Take, for instance, the oft-cited words "secular" and "socialist" in the Preamble—terms many assume to be foundational from 1949. They were not. These were inserted in 1976 through the 42nd Amendment, during one of the most authoritarian episodes in Indian democracy. This amendment, imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, came at a time when fundamental rights were suspended, the press was censored, and opposition leaders were jailed.

Let’s be clear: “secularism” as a principle existed in practice and spirit in the Constitution, but the word itself was not originally deemed necessary in the Preamble. Why? Because the spirit of equality and religious neutrality was already embedded in Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26. Dr Ambedkar himself had expressed clear reservations during the Constituent Assembly debates against explicitly including the term “secular,” arguing that its spirit was implicit and embedding it might invite needless ideological rigidity.

Similarly, Ambedkar resisted calls to declare India a socialist state in constitutional language. For him, economic systems should evolve through public consensus and political discourse—not through rigid constitutional mandates. The inclusion of these terms in the Constitution during the Emergency was more about political expediency than philosophical conviction.

Now, when RSS General Secretary Dattatray Hosabale reopens this conversation—not to undermine the Constitution but to revisit whether political insertions made during the Emergency should continue unchallenged—the reaction has been reflexive outrage. The Congress party, which itself amended the Constitution more than a hundred times while in power, now portrays any discussion on reforms as an existential threat.

Even more disingenuous is the recurring bogeyman of Manusmriti. Accusations that the BJP seeks to replace the Constitution with Manusmriti are not only misleading—they are intellectually dishonest. There is no proposal, no bill, no manifesto, and no public statement by any BJP government to implement Manusmriti. To keep invoking it is to deflect attention from a meaningful debate and to indulge in fearmongering aimed at polarising voters.

The Constitution was not meant to be a political weapon; it was meant to be a framework for governance. It thrives when subjected to critical scrutiny. Democracies survive not by preserving status quo in amber, but by debating, disagreeing, and, when necessary, amending.

The issue at hand is not whether India should stop being secular or stop believing in social justice. The issue is whether political slogans embedded during an undemocratic episode should remain sacrosanct, immune from scrutiny. If we are to remain true to the spirit of the Constitution, then we must have the courage to question its text, its amendments, and their origins.

To treat the Constitution as unchangeable is to fossilise it. To debate it openly is to honour it. Dr Ambedkar did not draft a scripture; he built a foundation. And foundations, while strong, are built with the understanding that structures atop them must grow—and sometimes be reshaped.

India deserves a Constitution that breathes. Let it breathe.