Secularism with Indian characteristics

Secularism as a desired political and social credo was a matter of intense debate in the Constituent Assembly and many of its members wanted it to be part of the Preamble. They intended to make it a constitutional imperative. However, they departed from the Western notion of secularism.

HV Kamath on December 6 1948 said: “When I say that a State should not identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or irreligious. We have certainly declared that India would be a secular State. But to my mind, a secular state is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious state.”

KM Munshi was of the view that, “a secular State is not a Godless State. Any State that seeks to outlaw God will very soon come to an end”.

According to Munshi secularism in India would imply that “citizenship is irrespective of religious belief, that every citizen, to whatever religion he may belong, is equal before the law, that he has equal civil rights, and equal opportunities to derive benefit from the state and to lead his own life; and nothing more”.

Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr BR Ambedkar's approach to secularism emanated more from the idea of justice and equality than from an anti-religious position.

Constitution and courts

SR Bommai's case declared secularism as the basic structure of the Constitution. It listed Articles and Articles 14, 15 and 16 and more specifically Articles 25, 26, 29, and 30  to show that the Constitution guarantees to all persons equally the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion and manage their religious affairs without having to face any disability or discrimination on the ground of religion. Further Article 44 enjoins upon the State to endeavour to secure to its citizens a uniform civil code and Article 325 abolishes the separate electorate.

The SB Bommai judgment concluded that these provisions by implication prohibit the establishment of a theocratic State and prevent the State from either identifying itself with or favouring any particular religion or religious sect or denomination. The State is enjoined to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious sects and denominations.

While on one hand the Constitution through its various provisions tried to establish a secular State, the Supreme Court through its landmark judgments established secularism as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and polity.

In Aruna Roy vs Union of India, the apex court held that, “All religions have to be treated with equal respect (Sarva Dharma Sambhav) and that there has to be no discrimination on the ground of any religion (Panthnirapekshata).

In Gopalakrishnan Nair vs State of Kerala, it was held:

1. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a theocratic State

2. The State is not only prohibited to establish any religion of its own but is also prohibited to identify itself with or favour any particular religion.

3. The secularism under the Indian Constitution does not mean the constitution of an atheist society but it merely means equal status of all religions without any preference in favour of or discrimination against any one of them.

In SR Bommai's case, while quoting eminent jurist MC Setalvad, the apex court tried to explain what Indian secularism really means for India.

Setalvad in a lecture delivered in 1965 pointed out that the Indian Constitution undoubtedly lacks a complete separation between the church and the State as in the United States and at the same time India has no established church as in Great Britain or some other countries. In India, all religions are placed on the basis of equality and it would, therefore, seem that it is erroneous to describe our country as a secular State.

Setalvad highlighted the fact that in the Constituent Assembly, two attempts to introduce the word 'secular' in the Constitution failed. Nevertheless, he asserted, that it could not be said that the Indian State did not possess some important characteristics of a secular state and pointed out some of the provisions of the Constitution to buttress his claim.  He concluded that the ideal of a secular state in the sense of a State which treats all religions alike and displays benevolence towards them is in a way more suited to the Indian environment than that of a truly secular state by which he meant a State which creates complete separation between religion and the State.

RN Ravi might be well within his rights to reject the Western notion of secularism. However, does that mean the idea of secularism, which in India has a very different meaning, also stands discarded? Certainly not. Secularism as defined in the Bommai case is a “mainstay” of India’s multi-religious society. And, at no cost, it can be done away with.