Fact or Fallacy? The HSLC Question Controversy That’s Raising Eyebrows

A storm has erupted over Question 57 in the Class 10 Social Science examination. But does this controversy have any merit, or is it yet another instance of manufactured outrage? Is every question that challenges a dominant political ideology inherently problematic, or should students be encouraged to think critically about their nation’s constitutional values?

The contentious question appears in the chapter on India’s democratic system and constitutional framework. The chapter extensively covers the Indian Constitution, from its Preamble to its defining principles. It is not an arbitrary addition but an integral part of the syllabus. The Preamble’s core ideals—sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic, and republic—are explained in detail. If students are expected to understand these principles, why is there opposition to a question that tests their grasp of them?

Was the Question Wrong?

A quick look at the textbook reveals that this is not the first time students have encountered such concepts. The chapter provides an in-depth discussion on constitutional ideals, including secularism. The inclusion of a question related to secularism in an exam should not be a surprise—students have already studied it in lower grades. So, where is the problem?

Consider the exercise section at the end of the chapter. Question 4 asks: What do you understand by sovereignty? The expected answer would earn three marks. Similarly, the debated Question 57 simply asks about secularism. Why, then, should one question be acceptable while the other sparks a debate? Is it because it challenges certain narratives?

The Role of Educators: Are We Encouraging Rote Learning or Critical Thinking?

If teachers have adequately explained the Constitution’s principles in the classroom, students should have no difficulty answering such questions. If a student has been taught the true essence of secularism, they should be able to articulate why India cannot offer healthcare benefits based on religion. The concern should not be about the question itself but about whether our education system is equipping students to think critically or merely memorize answers.

Following the exam, many educators have admitted that the question was neither incorrect nor unnecessary. It aligns with the syllabus and tests students’ understanding of fundamental constitutional principles. So why is there a controversy? Is it because some are uncomfortable with students engaging in discussions about India’s secular framework?

A Manufactured Debate?

Let’s be clear: the question was not misleading. It was based on content that students have studied since Grade 8. The syllabus covers the Indian Constitution, its Preamble, and its guiding principles. How can questioning students on these fundamental ideas be deemed problematic?

Secularism is a cornerstone of India’s democracy. Shouldn’t students be encouraged to reflect on its implications? If teachers have done their job well, students should have no problem answering the question thoughtfully. If not, is the real issue the question itself—or the failure to teach its importance?

This controversy raises a bigger question: Are we fostering an education system that encourages students to analyze and understand key democratic principles? Or are we conditioning them to avoid difficult questions? In a democracy, should asking about secularism be seen as a problem—or a necessity?