India should never become a “majoritarian” or a “theocratic” State which is what “Hindu Rashtra” means, regardless of whatever spin the Sangh Pariwar members give to the meaning of the moniker. Secular State is one that does not ascribe to any particular religious order and it is careful not to have any of its functionaries project any religion in any State activity or State programs. Hindu Rashtra or a “mirror image of Pakistan”, is an idea disapproved of by most Indians who do not favour NDA besides many dissenters within NDA itself. NDA comprising BJP and its allies had a 45% share of the votes polled in 2019 General Elections.
Majority of Indians are not enamoured of “Hindu Rashtra”, for them it is a regressive idea – quite an antithesis to the idea of India or the Hindu ethos. In fact, it could become the common plank on which most opposition parties could unite against the NDA. BJP supporters, pejoratively refer to “secular” as “sickular” as the term is equated with appeasement of minorities for vote bank politics.
All Western democracies, which are more evolved than India’s is, are secular. They recognize the State to be separate from the Church (Religion). The State is not only equidistant from all religions, in many cases it is totally irreligious – like France or Nordic countries are – these States are generally averse to public exhibition of religious fervour as in dress codes or wearing religious artifacts which are their markers. In none of the matured secular democracies will a head of State be found inaugurating a Church or performing a religious ceremony or dressing like a preacher – unless it is a private function not attended by media crew!
Most religious fanatics and radicals come from theocratic States – which include Arabs of MENA and Muslims from Pakistan and maybe Bangladesh and Indonesia. Fewer religious radicals are found in secular States. Violent white Supremacists or Hindu Supremacists can no doubt be found in America & Europe and India respectively, but their proportion and influence are declining except in India – this is because the Hindu Supremacists are being cut a lot of slack, if not encouraged, by the BJP Governments.
There is canard being spread that India’s 42nd constitutional amendment by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi inserting the word “secular” in the preamble, was made on the sly – because the move did not have adequate support in the Parliament. Further the narrative goes that India’s constitution was not written with the intent of State staying aloof of any religion. The fact is that Indira Gandhi amended the constitution with proper approval in the Parliament and the framers of the COI were 100% secularists and intended India to be always a secular country, though they avoided using the word “secular”. In opposition to the words “socialist and secular republic” in the preamble, a petition was filed in the SCI. Before reading about the petition, let us read what the preamble of COI and what Article 19 & Article 25, about freedom of speech and religious freedom respectively, say.
Preamble to the Constitution of India:
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION
Source: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/constitution_of_india/preamble
Central Government Act
Article 19 in The Constitution Of India 1949
- Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise
Article 25 in The Constitution of India 1949
- Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly
29-Jul-20 Hindustan Times article about the petition filed requesting removal of the words “socialist secular” from the preamble to the COI.
Now let’s read what Dr B R Ambedkar thought about India being a secular state in this article authored by Jayita Mukhopadhyay:
6-Apr-18 The Statesman
A thorough reading of the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly leaves no doubt in the mind of a sensitive reader that the framers of our Constitution took the secular undertone of our nascent republic as axiomatic and had no intention of making India a theocratic state.
https://www.thestatesman.com/opinion/ambedkars-vision-secular-constitution-1502618002.html
Second let’s read what Jawaharlal Nehru thought about India being a secular country – in this article by Vivek Kumar Srivastava
16-Nov-14 Mainstream
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article5316.html
If you are serious about forming your opinion based on authentic information, go the source (CA debates) rather than relying on others’ interpretations.
Archives Source: http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Debates/cadebadvsearch.aspx
File: http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Debates/cadebatefiles/C06121948.html
In the above press articles, the dates of discussions in the CA (Constitution Assembly) are mentioned. You can easily find the relevant transcripts from the archives.
What is not secular? Here are few examples:
PM in a spree to attend religious programs and launching Temple projects in official capacity is not being secular- it is clearly against the tenets of COI. Here is how PM stokes communalism:
https://twitter.com/PMOIndia/status/1472129422157176834?t=TqjUBuFSDskIt86-mnmqIg&s=19
Modi fans refer to him as Hindu Samrat – image building with a religious undertone is non-secular behaviour:
18-Dec-21 NewsLaundry Modi’s dubki in Ma Ganga!
14-Dec-21 Twitter – Every move of Modi is choreographed in the public space. Among his image makers, one can count bosses of top A-listed advertising companies. No matter where he visits, cameramen surround him- even inside the holiest temples – against rules that apply to commons.
17-Dec-21 The Wire- Pratap Bhanu Mehta interview by Karan Thapar- 47 minutes – damning indictment of Modi regime – undermining the Indian ethos – damaging democracy and State Institutions
12-Jun-19 The Pioneer PM Modi sanctions scholarships to 5 crore students studying in Madrasas. Devendra Fadnavis and Himanta Biswa Sarma – two BJP leaders on the other hand, had derecognised Madrasas in Maharashtra and Assam respectively. It is well known that Madrasas are religious Muslim schools, therefore, a secular State ought not to fund them.
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2019/page1/scholarships-for-5-crore-minority-students–naqvi.html
Promoting and subsidising pilgrimages or Haj Yatras is clearly a non-secular conduct of the State. Congress Government had been doing this for decades when Supreme Court of India (SCI) intervened and forbade the State funding of Haj Yatras. Before the SCI order, Mr. Modi, in the name of gender equality, had introduced Haj Yatra funding support to females which was not provided earlier.
15-May-20 IE Secular States can control aggressive behaviour of Muslims or any religious groups. Here is one example. PIL filed by Salman Khurshid and others – they asked that Azaan should not be allowed to be played loudly with amplification.. court agreed.