Secularism in spirit, not in letter

By Tushar Singh

Before everyone goes into a frenzy after reading the title, it is important to understand that the introduction is not a true guide to what the following matter will be. Same applies to our Constitution. Decades of rule by Indira Gandhi and most of her successors have made us believe that the word “Secular” is an integral part of our Constitution.

However, it is not. ‘Secular’ was not a part of the original constitution adopted in 1950 and was introduced by Indira Gandhi in 1976 via the 42nd amendment–along with the word “Socialist”. What has followed the introduction of the word Secular is a politics of appeasement which still is an obstacle in the social development of the nation.

The first question that comes to our mind is why Nehru and Ambedkar—preachers of secularism in independent India along with Patel—did not want the word Secular in the constitution. The answer is simple; the word secular is difficult to apply in an Indian context. Secularism has two distinct meanings, none of which fit India. The first is by Rev. Martin Luther who said Secularism would simply mean a distinction between the State and the Church. The second is by Karl Marx which simply means secularism is a negation of religion.

The concept by Martin Luther

It is more than obvious why Karl Marx’s version of secularism doesn’t fit India. In a land so ancient, whose culture has been shaped by religious beliefs for thousands of years, it is impossible to invalidate religion. The reason why Martin Luther’s definition doesn’t suit India is that religion and state have constantly interacted with each other throughout our history, for better or worse. Moreover, Indic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism, practised by an overwhelming majority of citizens, are more of ways of life than an institutionalized religion. Specifically speaking, Hindutva has been called a way of life even by the Supreme Court. In fact, it is so difficult to define Hinduism that when Jawaharlal Nehru introduced the Hindu Code Bill, he defined a Hindu as someone “who is not a Jew, Parsi, Christian or Muslim”. Hinduism functions without a centralized institution like a Church, a book or the Pope. Therefore, in a country with more than 80% Hindus, it makes little sense to apply Rev. Martin Luther’s definition as well.

This was the primary reason why, even though our Constitution is ‘Secular’ in character giving equal religious freedoms to all, the word ‘Secular’ was not in the original preamble because it is difficult to apply it in letter in an Indian context.

The concept by Karl Marx

The second reason why introducing the word secular was not looked favourably upon by our founding fathers is because it would have made our Constitution conflicting in nature. If secularism is interpreted to be a policy of non-interference by the State in people’s religions, then some of our Directive Principles, in Part IV of the Constitution are ‘un-secular’. If the State cannot dictate religious practices, then prohibiting cow slaughter, introducing a Uniform Civil Code and reforming religion in general becomes difficult. In fact, the argument that India is Secular has been used by many conservative groups to block any attempts to introduce a UCC in the country, as is evident by the recent opposition to the bill criminalising Triple Talaq. What is ironic is that the ideologue of today’s ultra-secularists, Jawaharlal Nehru, himself was a major proponent of the Hindu Code Bill, which brought revolutionary changes in Hinduism, and was passed merely 5 years after the Constitution was adopted. Reservations, restrictions on freedom of religion, Anglo-Indian quota, banning centuries-old caste beliefs of Hinduism are all interventionist in nature which in spite being against the dictionary definition of ‘Secularism’, are the need of the hour.

Religion and law

Unlike the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which proscribes the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, the Indian constitution recognizes religion as a source of law. While on one hand religion is a source of inspiration for the State, it is subject to constant reform on the other, and the word secular, often quoted by ultra-conservatives, has come to be a hindrance in the smooth functioning of this process.

One mistake that many people make is that they think removing secular from the Constitution will lead to the establishment of a Hindu Rashtra. What they are ignorant of is that the whole body of the Constitution, particularly the various fundamental rights that it guarantees, is itself democratic and ‘secular’ enough, and introducing the word secular brings a lot of technical difficulties due to its European origin as explained above.

HV Kamath, a member of the Constituent Assembly, wanted the Constitution to allow the state to impart spiritual training on the basis of “Dharma”. Even though this did not find acceptance in the Assembly, even Subramanian Swamy has recently proposed that the word ‘Secular’ be replaced by the word ‘Spiritual’, keeping in mind the ancient Hindu ethos of the country. These are some of the more creative solutions to replace the word ‘Secular’, which is in sync with the rest of the constitution.

It is regrettable today that the mere idea of debating the validity of the word ‘secular’ invokes strong opposition. Unabashed criticisms of Anant Kumar Hegde for calling on the removal of the word ‘Secular’ from the Constitution and the Government for releasing a Republic Day advertisement in a newspaper 3 years ago with the original preamble (without the words ‘Secular’) are testimonies to the stated fact.

Freedom or no freedom

While it may be argued that the presence of the word ‘Secular’ in the constitution is stating the obvious, the fact is that it is the beauty of the original constitution to religious freedom to everyone and yet not mention ‘Secular’ explicitly. What better way to finish the argument by quoting the man who wrote the constitution, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, “What should be the policy of the state, how the society should be organized in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances…It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether.”

Featured Image Source: Wikimedia Commons