dw.com
RSS Pushes to Remove Secularism from Indian Constitution
India's ruling BJP faces pressure from the Hindu nationalist RSS to remove "secular" and "socialist" from the constitution's preamble, a move opposed by the Supreme Court and major opposition parties, despite the RSS's influence across various sectors of Indian society and its past success in achieving its political goals under the Modi government.
- How does the RSS's ideology connect to its political goals and influence within India?
- The RSS believes secularism and socialism are Western concepts imposed on India, advocating that India's identity should be rooted in Hindutva, the belief that Hindu values are the cornerstone of Indian society. Their influence extends through a vast network of organizations across education, media, and civil society. The Supreme Court, however, recently upheld the constitution's inclusion of "socialist" and "secular", reinforcing its commitment to fundamental values.
- What is the immediate impact of the RSS's push to redefine India's constitutional secularism?
- The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist organization, is pushing to remove the words "socialist" and "secular" from India's constitution's preamble, arguing these terms were added illicitly during a 1976 state of emergency. This action is supported by some within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), although a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in parliament and support from half of India's states.
- What are the long-term implications of this debate on India's social fabric and international standing?
- While a constitutional amendment is unlikely due to the BJP's lack of sufficient parliamentary support, the RSS's campaign has already fueled anxieties among minorities and increased political polarization. This debate lays groundwork for future election narratives, potentially impacting India's social cohesion and international image as a diverse democracy. The push reflects a long-term strategy to redefine India's identity in line with Hindutva ideals, with significant consequences for the 2029 elections.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the RSS and BJP's campaign to redefine India's secular identity. The headline and introductory paragraphs immediately highlight the RSS's push for constitutional change. While the article presents counterarguments, the initial framing may predispose readers to view the RSS's perspective as the dominant narrative. The article's structure, prioritizing the RSS's arguments before presenting counter-narratives, also contributes to this bias.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, although the descriptions of the RSS's ideology might be considered somewhat loaded. Terms like "Hindu-nationalist" and "ideological sponsor" carry connotations that could subtly influence reader perception. While accurate, these terms could be replaced with more neutral phrasing, such as "organization promoting Hindu values" or "political ally.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the RSS and BJP's perspective, giving less weight to opposing viewpoints. While it mentions the Supreme Court upholding the secular nature of the constitution and quotes the Congress party spokesperson, a more balanced representation of diverse opinions on the proposed constitutional changes would strengthen the analysis. The perspectives of minority groups potentially affected by shifts in India's self-definition are largely absent.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between a secular and Hindu-nationalist vision of India. The complexity of Indian society and the existence of multiple perspectives beyond these two extremes are not fully explored. This simplification risks misrepresenting the nuances of the debate.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the RSS's push to remove "secular" and "socialist" from India's constitution. This action could undermine India's commitment to secularism, potentially increasing social unrest and harming the country's image as a diverse democracy. The potential removal of these terms could lead to a more majoritarian political approach, harming the rights of minority groups and potentially escalating social tensions. The ongoing debate itself is increasing polarization and anxieties among minorities.