Secularism in India

India is a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-racial, and multi-cultural society. Religious minorities constitute roughly 20% of India’s population, out of which Muslims account for 14.2%. No society can prosper or be at peace if its 20% of the population feels threatened, deprived, neglected and unwanted. Some of the recent incidents have made some to question India’s credentials as a secular nation. Secularism, instead of being a cementing force as envisaged in the constitution has brought forth the opposite results.

Important Facts

Relevant constitutional provisions pertaining to secularism

Fundamental Rights

• Article 14: Equality before law.
• Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Article 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
• Article 21: Protection of life and personal property.
• Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.
• Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs.
• Article 27: Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
• Article 28: Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions.
• Article 29: Protection of interests of minorities.
• Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.

Directive Principles of State Policy

• Article 44: Uniform civil code for the citizens.
• Article 48: Organization of agriculture and animal husbandry.
• Article 51A: Fundamental duties
  • Clause (e): to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
  • Clause (f): to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture.

Preamble:

• 42^nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution.

Questions for analysis

• “Constitutionally India is secular, but social it is not.” Justify this.
• Constitution does not define what is secular. Has Judiciary played any role in defining secularism?
• Secularism was not found in the preamble of Constitution; and it was included by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976. Did the framers of constitution obviate the communal violence at the time of framing the constitution?
• Many say that secularism’ in preamble has divided country into pigeon-holes of different ‘isms’. Is it correct to say so? What is justification for the same?
• What measures can we suggest towards making India a truly secular society?

“Constitutionally India is secular, but social it is not.” Justify this?

For a state to be secular, it is expected that religion should be purely personal and private matter and is not supposed to have anything to do with the governance of the state.  Non-separation of religion from politics and the few incidents in the past like the demolition of the Babri Masjid, anti-Sikh riots in 1984, Mumbai riots in December 1992 and January 1993, Godhra riots in 2002 have showed the deep seated problem of communalism rising its head now and then. Also, banning of cow slaughter and instructing people what to eat have led people to question the credentials of India as a secular nation.

Thus, reality is totally different from what we have enshrined in the constitution. In fact, most of the people are confused about working of secularism, and this concept is still vague. There are several political failures that led to this. For example, implementation of Uniform Civil Code could never be realized and personal laws have dominated the life of most communities. Similarly, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 overturning the supreme court’s decision on “The Shah Bano Case” was an attempt to appease the radical and conservative Muslim element. These examples show that where government was supposed to be neutral was found biased towards a certain religion. Similarly, events such as demolition of Babri mosque, anti-Sikh riots. Hindu-Muslim riots etc. have been politically motivated. In most parts of the country, even today elections are fought and won directly or indirectly in the name of religion.

Thus, the major issues that plague secularism are:

• Grievance of the majority Hindus that rules, regulations and restrictions are applicable only to their religious institutions.
• Non implementation of the uniform civil code.
• Appeasement of radical and orthodox Muslim elements by the passage of Muslim Women’s Divorce Act.
• Propagation of religion and large scale religious conversions by Muslims and Christians especially in the tribal belts and among poor people.
• Provision of unjustified protection to minority educational institutions.

Thus, we can conclude that India is totally secular constitutionally but socially it is still not.

Constitution does not define what is secular. Has Judiciary played any role in defining secularism?

Constitution does not define what secularism is and who is secular. In fact, till date even judiciary has not been able to define secularism. Thus there is a need to initiate a national debate to ascertain what should constitute the term ‘secular’ and a political and social consensus has to be achieved.

However, despite its being very subjective and vague, secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, thanks to Supreme Court. In multiple constitutional cases especially the S.R.Bommai case, Supreme Court has ruled that secularism forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. In the Ayodhya case also, the Court opined that the secular nature of India would form the basic structure of our Constitution, even if it hadn’t been specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, despite all this, there is a need to define what secularism means to India and Indians, and how it translates in implementation.

At the same time, Constitution does not define who is minority. As a result, the Supreme Court and other state institutions have adopted numerical strength as the criteria for determining whether a community falls under minority bracket or not.

Secularism was not found in the preamble of Constitution; and it was included by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976. Did the framers of constitution obviate the communal violence at the time of framing the constitution?

It wouldn’t be correct to say that our founding fathers obviated communal violence while framing the constitution. Communal violence in India had already raised its ugly head in 1946 before the Constituent Assembly began its work. So the constitution makers were aware of the need to contain it by providing enabling constitutional provisions. Thus, “public order” and “police” were listed in the State List in Schedule 7 of the Constitution, which gives state governments the exclusive right to legislate on these subjects. The State governments also exercise administrative control over the police force. Public order and police are state subjects because states are in a better position to legislate over them considering the widespread diversity in the country and the resultant difference in causes of public disorders in various states. For example, a state such as UP might face public disorder due to communal tensions while a northeast state may experience disruption of law and order due to insurgency. Also, the Union government would find it extremely difficult to manage the police force for entire country because of purely administrative reasons. Dividing the management of police forces between all states makes it administratively convenient and efficient. In addition, the founding fathers could also foresee situations when state government would be unable to maintain public order and protect people from harm. Thus, Article 355 was provided under “Emergency Provisions” of the Constitution. It imposes a duty on the Union government to protect every state from external aggression and internal disturbance and make sure that the state government is carried on in accordance with provisions of the constitution. Communal violence was very much in their mind when they used the words “internal disturbance” in this Article. Under this article, during incidents of communal violence when the state government has been unable to stop the killing of minorities, the centre has deployed armed forces and paramilitary forces to quickly bring about public order and save citizens, especially the vulnerable minorities. In fact, these powers of the centre were made explicit when entry 2A was added in the Union List through 42^ndAmendment in 1976. It reads as follows: “deployment of any armed force of the Union….in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deputation.” Thus, in addition to the implicit powers granted by Article 355, the union govt can now deploy armed forces in any state to control communal violence under a law made to give effect to entry 2A. Thus, considering all of the above evidences, it would be appropriate to remark that our founding fathers did not obviate the communal violence while framing the constitution.

 ‘Secularism’ in Preamble has divided country into pigeon-holes of different ‘isms’. To what extent is this correct?

In our constitutional scheme, a citizen of India is only an Indian. No person can claim himself to be a Hindu nationalist, Muslim nationalist, Sikh nationalist, Buddhist nationalist or Christian nationalist. These expressions denote that there is a ‘Hindu nation, Muslim nation, Sikh nation, Buddhist nation or Christian nation”. These expressions or thoughts are antithesis and abhorrent to the Constitution of India.  If India has to survive then only “Indianism” has to be there and all other “isms” have to disappear from the firmament of the country. However, there was no need to bring in the term “secularism in the Preamble of Constitution, as this expression had evoked a sharp reaction and “divided the people of India into “pigeonholes” of different “isms”. The constitutional provisions, in “loud and clear terms” forbid the use of such expressions. Any person “persisting” with their use had to be dealt with and proceeded against in accordance with the mandate contained in the Constitution and other laws of the land.

If India, which is created by its Constitution, which ‘we the people’ have given to ourselves, has to survive, then it is only “Indianism” which has to be there and all other “isms” have to disappear from the firmament of the country called India.”

What measures can we suggest towards making India a truly secular society?

Following are some of the ground level measures that can help in making India truly secular.

Separation of religion from politics

Suitable legislation has to be immediately passed to separate religion from politics. On April 3, 1948, the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) had already passed an explicit resolution to separate religion form politics. But nothing concrete has been achieved on this subject. In 1993, P.V. Narasimha Rao government attempted to amend the Representation of the People Act and brought the Constitution (Eightieth Amendment) Bill before Parliament. However, the bill was withdrawn as it did not have adequate support.

The suitable amendment will make the political parties to behave in a responsible manner. For example, in 2007 Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) faced a serious threat for its survival after Turkey’s constitutional court reviewed a case to ban the political party for its anti-secular activities in violation of the country’s constitution.

Right to propagate religion

There is a considerable controversy over placing Right to propagate religion as a fundamental right. In this area, there have been many verdicts delivered by the Supreme Court and the High Court all of which have stated that the right to propagation is not a right to conversion. This problem has to be addressed by removing the word “propagation” from Article 25.

Withdrawing protection of minority educational institutions

Article 30(1) of the constitution gives right to minority educational institutes the right to establish and administer educational institutions. There was significant opposition to this article in the Constituent assembly. It is the right time to do away with this right as it encourages separate identities and undermines the spread of secular education. With globalization and spread of information technology, there is no justification to continue this right even to linguistic minorities.

Rationalize prohibition of cow slaughter

There is no universal demand for the ban of cow slaughter form all the Hindus and the prohibition cannot only be solely justified only based on the religious sentiments of the Hindus. This demand is unviable especially in drought hit areas in a number of states like Maharashtra.

Restructuring police departments

Weaknesses and inadequacies of police have been attributed for starting or escalating of communal violence. Politicisation and Communalisation of police in various states has to be prohibited.

A Commission on secularism

A commission on secularism has to be set up by amending the constitution to ensure adherence to the constitutional mandate on secularism. The commission should be made to be presided over by a former chief justice of India. The report of the commission has to be submitted to the Parliament and also has to be simultaneously released to media and public.