The word socialist was added to the constitution because of Indira Gandhi, the only dictator to ever hold power in India. So I think you are making my point for me
Are you seriously arguing that India didn't practice socialist policies before that amendment? And continued to do so for decades afterwards? Arguably continues to do so in some respects even today.
Even the link you provided notes the same thing: "Ambedkar's (the original author of the constitution)...objection [to putting "socialist" in the original preamble] was [it was] "purely superfluous" and "unnecessary", as "socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution" through Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy."
I can't quite express it, but there is something very fundamentally "unfair" or "undemocratic" at the core of socialism and its policies. And it's not that I'm selfish and don't want to help those that are suffering. To me, socialism means I am giving less consent. At least with democracy, that is less apparent and I technically have "more consent" to the things imposed on me.
Yes, if a socialist government is democratically elected it's overthrown shortly afterwards by the CIA.
(sarcasm, but this is basically what happened to South America, and there's longstanding questions about some of Italy's postwar politics)