Terms ‘Socialist & Secular’ excluded from preamble of constitution handed to MPs: Adhir Ranjan’s claim
The terms ‘socialist & secular’ were added in 1976 by then PM Indira Gandhi through the 42nd constitutional amendment during the emergency
Leader of Congress in the Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhary made a big claim on Wednesday, saying that the words’ socialist and secular’ are missing in the preamble which is in the copies of the constitution handed over to MPs before entering the new parliament building.
“The new copies of the Constitution that were given to us today (19th September), the one we held in our hands and entered (the new Parliament building), its Preamble doesn’t have the words ‘socialist secular’. We know that the words were added after an amendment in 1976 but if someone gives us the Constitution today and it doesn’t have those words, it is a matter of concern”, Chowdhury told news agency ANI, further hinting at foul play.
“Their intention is suspicious. It has been done cleverly. It is a matter of concern for me. I tried to raise this issue but I did not get an opportunity to raise this issue”, he added.
The words ‘socialist and secular’ were added in the preamble through the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi during the period of emergency imposed by her to save her government from going out of power. This decision is to this day deemed as controversial by many who opposed this amendment.
The day 2 of the special parliamentary session started in the new parliament building which was unveiled just some time back marking the end of an era after an official notification said that the newly built triangular complex will be named as ‘Parliament House of India’. The former parliamentary building which was designed by Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker that stood for over 96 years will now be called the ‘Samvidhan Sadan’ and will be used for parliamentary events.
During the special session in Lok Sabha, Adhir Chowdhury had invoked the constitution and said there is no difference between ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’, while referring to the controversy that erupted over the G20 dinner invite sent in the name of ‘President of Bharat’ instead of ‘President of India’.
“This Constitution is no less than the Gita, Quran and Bible for us. Article 1 says, “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States…” It means that there is no difference between India and Bharat. It will be better if nobody tries to unnecessarily create a rift between the two”, Chowdhury was quoted by ANI as saying.
Please, also have a look into : Bharat Renaming: The Need, The Cost and the Constitution
