Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi recently said that secularism is a European concept, and not Bharatiya, which is why it was not part of the Indian Constitution until an ‘insecure’ prime minister added it during the Emergency.
The saffron establishment has time and again mounted such attacks on constitutional values and they cannot go uncontested. The detractors of secularism often argue that the word secular was not there in the original draft of the Constitution and was only added to it through the 42nd Amendment.
Though this is factually true, any reading of the Constitution and Indian jurisprudence reveals beyond doubt that it was and is secular. Those who argue to the contrary are actually not just misreading the history of the making of the Constitution but are giving a distorted interpretation of it to suit their ideological project.
A perusal of the Constituent Assembly debates reveals that the framers of the Constitution did not feel the necessity of mentioning the word secular. Such an explicit mention was considered superfluous, and therefore, redundant.
The Supreme Court in the historic verdict in SR Bommai & Ors vs Union of India & Ors in 1994 held secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The apex court observed:
Notwithstanding the fact that the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’ were added in the Preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment, the concept of secularism was very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy. The term ‘secular’ has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this amendment what was implicit was made explicit. The Preamble itself spoke of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
As held by the Supreme Court in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case, even Parliament has no right to amend the basic structure of the Constitution.
An array of Constitutional provisions clearly depicts the secular nature of the Indian Constitution.
For instance, citizenship (Article 9); non-discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, etc (Article 15), generally and specifically in public employment (Article 16); the fundamental rights to freedom of religion both individually (Article 25) and collectively (Article 26); non-discrimination in state-aided educational institutions (Article 29[2]), on taxes for the promotion of religion (Article 27); on religious instruction in state-aided educational institutions (Article 28) and on exclusion from the general electoral roll on any religious grounds (Article 325). Whether implicit or made explicit, these provisions envisage that secularism is embedded in our Constitution.
Yet, another argument is that Hinduism is intrinsically secular, and therefore, there is no need to mention the character of the Constitution in a country where the majority of its citizens are Hindus. No quarrel. Hindu religious texts indeed consist of several secular features. But that alone does not justify denuding the Indian constitution of its secular nomenclature or character.
Sardar Patel in a reply to BM Birla’s letter on 10 June 1947 said:
I do not think it will be possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all.
Ambedkar wrote in a Memorandum on the Rights of States and Minorities, dated 24 March 1947, which he submitted to the Sub-Committee on Fundamental Rights set up by the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, Minorities, etc:
Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism.
India’s challenge, as described by Jawaharlal Nehru, has been to build “a secular state in a religious country.” This is precisely why India adopted its own version of secularism in theory and practice.
While the West saw a confrontation between the political authority and the religious authority, Indian secularism is routed more toward the justice, equality, and liberty it promises to its citizens, not the state–religion conflict.
Therefore, as per a secular constitution, the state does not discriminate on the grounds of religion against any person professing any particular religious faith. No particular religion will receive any state patronage, nor will it suffer exclusion and discrimination at the hands of the state.
India’s constitutional commitment to secularism emerged out of the freedom struggle. In 1908, Gandhiji wrote in Hind Swaraj:
India cannot cease to be one nation, because people belonging to different religions live in it... In no part of the world are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms; nor has it ever been so in India.
The Constituent Assembly rejected the idea of invoking "in the name of God" in the Constitution. However, even while accepting "in the name of God" in the official oath, the framers took extra care to provide an alternate option to take an oath on his or her conscience. Such was the spirit of the Constitution.
The major tirade against secularism is that it is anti-religion. This canard on secularism is intended to make it unpopular in a deeply religious society. But, as Dr S Radhakrishnan, whose authority on religion is impeccable, rightly wrote:
Secularism is embedded in our constitutional values. When India is said to be a secular State, it does not mean that we exalt irreligion. Indian State will not identify itself with or be controlled by any particular religion.
Thus, secularism does not advocate for an irreligious society but mandates only an irreligious State. Still, in practice, the state in India has redefined secularism as equal respect for all religions. But certainly, a secular state is an antithesis to a theocratic one. The present ruling dispensation is ideologically wedded to the latter.
Justice Chinnappa Reddy has observed:
Indian constitutional secularism is not supportive of religion at all but has adopted what may be termed as a permissive attitude towards religion out of respect for individual conscience and dignity.
Even while recognising the right to profess and practise religion, etc, the Constitution has excluded practices repugnant to public order, morality and health and abhorrent to human rights and dignity, as embodied in the other fundamental rights guaranteed.
The ecclesiastical jurisprudence reveals that the fundamental right to religion is confined to essential religious practices and is subjected to the primacy of public interest. The test of reasonableness is subject to judicial review. Freedom of religion is the rule and any power of the state to restrict such freedoms is an exception. An exception cannot prevail over the rule.
Any tinkering with the secular character of the Constitution of India will undermine national unity and integrity, peace, and tranquillity by alienating a large section of citizens, given the diversity and plurality of the Indian society. World history is replete with examples of how even the majority community suffers when such alienation disrupts the social order.
(Prof K Nageshwar is a senior political analyst, faculty member of Osmania University, and a former MLC. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)