Stripped Preamble: What remains of secular socialist republic with the rise of corporate capitalism?

By Prem Singh 

The RSS/BJP’s demand to remove the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’—added during the Emergency—has stirred widespread discussion. However, the debate is largely focused on the word ‘secular’; ‘socialism’ appears to be of no concern to anyone. The Indian Express editorial dated 1 July 2025, titled ‘Secularism isn’t just a word. It’s at the heart of India and its Constitution’, is a case in point. 

The Bhoomi Poojan ceremony for the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya on 5 August 2020 marked the formal political and social endorsement of majoritarian communalism in India. In the various articles, news reports, editorials, party statements, and commentaries that emerged in reference to the Constitution and the Republic of India, one thing stood out: no intellectual or political leader acknowledged—even in passing—the role of three decades of corporate capitalism in enabling this deeply troubling shift in Indian polity and society. Most analyses ignored the link between the near-complete penetration of communalism and the economic policies and development model of "New India."

Secular intellectuals were right in condemning the August 5 event as an assault on the secular Indian Republic. Some strongly criticised the RSS/BJP; others blamed the English-speaking elite, secularist parties (including the Congress), the communal masses of the Hindi belt, or middle-class families where communal ideas have been normalized. Yet almost none of them mentioned neoliberal policies as a contributing factor. Some well-meaning commentators argued that with the Bhoomi Poojan conducted by the Prime Minister, a long-standing and bitter dispute had finally ended—now, they insisted, it was time to fast-track India’s rise as an economic superpower, albeit through neoliberal policies.

Those who argued that the Prime Minister had violated the constitutional oath by attending the Bhoomi Poojan as Chief Guest did not raise objections when the state pursued indiscriminate corporatization and privatization—developments that also violate the spirit of the Constitution. A few senior Congress leaders did critique party colleagues who celebrated August 5 as a historic day, pointing to the Congress’s own role in facilitating it. While they invoked the party’s secular heritage, they failed to reflect on why the Congress strayed from that very legacy. It would have been more honest to admit that the imposition of New Economic Policies in 1991 marked a turning point, a setback for the Indian Republic.

This scenario reveals that secular intellectuals and leaders have refused to learn from the neoliberal experiences of the past three decades—precisely the period during which majoritarian communalism has gathered strength. The August 5 event is not an isolated incident; it is a culmination of an increasingly aggressive form of communalism, enabled and sustained by corporate-driven policies.

The reality is clear from just one example: Narendra Modi and Amit Shah turned Gujarat into a laboratory for fusing Hindutva with corporate power. Now, the entire country is being shaped in that mold. Once hailed as an antidote to the Kamandal politics of Hindutva, Mandal politics has also bowed before the communal fascism of the RSS/BJP. With a Prime Minister from a backward caste and a Dalit President, communalism—which was once more urban and elite—is now entrenched in rural India as well. In this context, the August 5 event may not be a final culmination (purnahuti) of communal politics, but merely one of several intermediate milestones.

It is evident that many secular intellectuals and leaders believe that constitutional secularism can coexist with corporatization and privatization. Neoliberal intellectuals have held this view from the outset. However, even those who identify as socialist or champions of social justice have, albeit in a roundabout way, shared this belief. The difference lies in presentation: neoliberal intellectuals envision a polished, 'presentable' New India, where communalism is an unsightly blemish; socialist/social justice intellectuals try to preserve the illusion among minorities—particularly Muslims and Christians—that secularism can survive despite the neoliberal economic agenda.

These secular leaders seem to think that the issue lies not with the RSS/BJP's victory on August 5, but with the failure of secular politics. Their implication is that in a New India, devoid of any real commitment to socialism or social justice, politicians must be taught how to "do" secular politics properly. If they acquire these skills, they believe, they will be able to resist communal politics. As a model of this approach, they hold up the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and its brand of ‘revolutionary’ politics.

Such reasoning reveals a deeper truth: secular intellectuals do not see corporatization and privatization as contradictory to the Constitution or the Republic, even though the Preamble clearly identifies India as a “Socialist Secular Democratic Republic.” They maintain that the Constitution’s basic structure has remained intact, despite three decades of neoliberalism. What we witness today is a hollowed-out constitutionalism, where constitutionalists have become entangled in the very world created by neoliberalism: they receive funding from foreign foundations like Ford; win prestigious (often international) awards; lead movements from the World Social Forum to India Against Corruption; serve on government advisory panels promoting the vision of New India; align educational institutions with market agendas; publish reports on the suffering caused by neoliberal policies; and take up prestigious posts in private universities. They write op-eds, appear on talk shows, and act as public intellectuals—without challenging the very system they critique.

By refusing to challenge neoliberalism head-on, these intellectuals have also failed to resist the communal politics it enables. The struggle against communalism, deeply rooted in the colonial period, has grown more complicated under neoliberal rule. Moreover, the issue of minority communalism cannot be separated from majority communalism. The rising activities of Khalistan supporters both in India and abroad demonstrate this, especially in light of reports that such elements backed the Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab to weaken the Congress-Akali dominance.

If the secular political and intellectual elite believe that constitutional secularism can be sustained alongside neoliberal economic policies, they must now explain—seriously and honestly—how they plan to achieve this near-impossible task.

---

Prem Singh, associated with the socialist movement, is a former teacher at Delhi University and a fellow of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. A version of this article was first written by the author five years ago