Again and again, acts of terrorism reveal the horrifying consequences of religious fanaticism. The recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, is a testament to this truth. Eyewitness accounts have described the brutality of the incident with harrowing detail—tourists were reportedly identified by name or ID and then killed. The victims were chosen. And they were chosen for being Hindu.
So, who bears responsibility for such a monstrous act? Even before any clear answers have emerged, political mudslinging has already begun. Yet, there is one uncomfortable truth we must now confront without any pretense — terrorism does have a religion. While it is true that not every individual from a particular community is a terrorist, it is equally undeniable that the overwhelming majority of terrorists pledge allegiance to a specific religious ideology. Their actions — such as the deliberate targeting and killing of innocents based on their faith — make it unmistakably clear just how deep their hatred runs for those who follow other religions.
Now, among those caught in the quagmire of contradictions are India’s communists. These are the people who raise alarm bells over “aggressive Hindutva” during Ram Navami processions, yet find their voices lost when Islamist terror strikes. They post Tagore’s “Dharmo Moh” verses during the Ram Mandir inauguration, decrying a supposed blow to India’s secular fabric. Yet, they turn a blind eye when Hindus are murdered in Kashmir. These are the same self-proclaimed humanists who cry for Gaza, wave Palestinian flags, and march down Indian streets in distant solidarity—yet today, they are conspicuously silent.
What does that tell us? It tells us that for them, protests are not about principles but identity. Their brand of secularism is selective, their outrage determined not by the act of violence but by the faith of the victim—and the perpetrator. It’s important to note here that Israel’s Ambassador to India, has stated that Palestine group Hamas—has links to the terror strike in Kashmir. So when these activists glorify Hamas and simultaneously go silent on its alleged involvement in attacks on Indian soil, what conclusion should one draw? Despite their insistence on humanism, communists in India have exposed themselves as sympathetic only to certain groups. Their silence during this national tragedy, or attempts to obfuscate the truth with half-facts, only confirms their hypocrisy. Their so-called secularism has become a fig leaf for anti-Hindu sentiment.
In today’s India, “secularism” appears to have been distorted to mean “anti-Hindu.” This distortion has sparked an important debate: should the term “secular” even remain in the Constitution’s Preamble? A major Bengali news channel, Republic Bangla, along with its senior editor Mayukh Ranjan Ghosh, recently raised this question during a talk show. Predictably, the Left has rushed to portray any such questioning as an attack on the Constitution itself. In response, they filed a written complaint seeking an FIR against Mayukh Ranjan Ghosh. In the complaint, both Mayukh and Republic Bangla were accused of holding “anti-national” and “anti-constitutional” views.
But let’s revisit history for clarity. On August 14,1947, British India was split on religious grounds. One part became an Islamic republic; the other was declared secular. Was it not reasonable to ask why only one part bore the burden of being secular?
India’s spiritual heritage is deeply religious. Our seers and sages never imagined this land without Dharma. Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay visualized the nation as Maa Durga in Vande Mataram: “Twam hi Durga Dashapraharanadharini.” Rabindranath echoed the Vedic call in his lyrics. Swami Vivekananda, in his Lahore speech, proclaimed that India’s primary duty is to uphold Dharma, everything else is secondary.
The founding figures of modern India never imagined a state stripped of religious essence. Notably, the original Preamble to the Constitution adopted on January 26, 1950, did not include the words ‘secular’ or ‘socialist’. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself opposed inserting the word ‘secular’ into the Constitution. During a Constituent Assembly debate on November 15, 1948, when Prof. K.T. Shah proposed to include “secular, federal, and socialist” in the Preamble, Ambedkar firmly rejected that. He argued that the Constitution should not fix the socio-economic structure of the country. The people must decide that according to time and circumstances. Ambedkar said, “Mr. Vice-President Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah…. What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live.” (Source – Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume 7; 15 Nov, 1948)
So when were these words added? In 1976, during the Emergency—a time when opposition leaders were imprisoned, civil liberties suspended, and the press gagged—the 42nd Amendment inserted the words “secular” and “socialist” into the Preamble. It was a top-down imposition during a dark period of Indian democracy. And now, when people legitimately question whether those Emergency-era insertions still serve our democracy, they are maligned as anti-constitutional. If the inclusion of those words through the 42nd Amendment was constitutional, then why is debating their removal any less so? Article 368 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to amend any part of it. The process is lawful, democratic, and well within the rights of the people.
Let the self-styled secularists answer: were the Constitution’s original drafters—who omitted these words—anti-constitutional? Or is it that their real fear is that the removal of these words will expose the falsehood of their ideological dominance? Perhaps what really frightens them is this: once the mask of secularism is lifted, their selective outrage, anti-Hindu narratives, and covert support for anti-national elements will all be laid bare.
Comments