Few words in India have been subjected to such intense dual treatment as secularism. On the one hand, it is glorified; on the other, it is so thoroughly misused and misunderstood. Some believe it is a shield for minorities. Others think it is a punishment for the majority. Political parties weaponise it; religious leaders distort it. Yet the country that chants the word most loudly rarely pauses to ask: what does secularism actually mean? And why does the Indian version look nothing like the principle it claims to uphold?
The answers lie not in political slogans but in the forgotten debates of our constitutional past—debates that shaped, resisted, and ultimately complicated the place of religion in the Republic. This two-part exploration uncovers how secularism evolved globally, how India reinterpreted it, and how the fierce confrontation between K. T. Shah and B. R. Ambedkar still defines the nation’s uneasy relationship with religion and the State.
This is the second and final part in the series.
Beyond the democratic concerns, there were also several legal issues involved. The defining characteristics of a nation and its Constitution are always stated in the Preamble. Shah, however, wanted these terms inserted into Article 1. But Article 1 deals only with the name of the country and the territory of the Union. How could concepts such as those proposed by Shah be placed in a provision that merely defines the name and extent of the nation? This point was, in fact, elaborated on in detail at the time by H. V. Kamath, another member of the Assembly. Kamath had qualified for the Indian Civil Service, but he resigned in 1938 to join the freedom movement. He was elected to the Constituent Assembly from the Central Province of Berar on a Congress ticket. In the Assembly debates, he emerged as a vocal and at times controversial figure, known for his sharp questions and frequent interventions. Even today, many believe that the Assembly rejected the proposal because secularism was somehow a flawed idea. But that is far from the truth, and it is precisely to clarify this misunderstanding that all of this has been explained.
Now, let us look at what secularism actually means. Secularism is the principle of keeping the State separate from religion. Yet, in India, many people argue that our idea of secularism is something entirely different. Among them are religious leaders and politicians. Let me say this upfront: this is a carefully constructed lie.
Even today, the common belief among a vast majority in India is that secularism means “treating all religions with equal affection.” Because of this misunderstanding, we end up seeing things like “all-faith prayers,” or pictures of three men—one wearing a cross, another a sacred thread, and another a skullcap—standing hand in hand under the label of secularism. The truth is that none of this has anything at all to do with the idea of secularism envisioned by our Constitution. At best, this is religious harmony—not secularism.
The idea of secularism put forward by Shah and others was the classical principle of keeping religion completely separate from the affairs of the State. A model of secularism that links religions to the State is, in fact, impossible. Although the Constitution does not explicitly define the word secularism, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly clarified its meaning through various landmark judgments. One of the most significant among these is S. R. Bommai v. Union of India [1994 AIR 1918; 1994 SCC (3) 1], where the Court laid down the true essence of secularism as understood in the Indian constitutional framework. “The State has absolutely no place for religion in any of its functions. Religion and the State are two distinct spheres. The Constitution never allows religion to be mixed with the powers or activities of the State. They are separate — and must always be seen as separate. This is what the Constitution mandates. As long as this Constitution governs our nation, no one can claim otherwise. If the State is to remain truly secular, this principle must apply equally to political parties. Politics should never have any association with religion. If any State government behaves in a manner that is non-secular or engages in activities contrary to secular principles, Article 356 (the President’s power to suspend the State government) will come into play.” This, in essence, is the Supreme Court’s distilled definition of secularism. In other words, religion has no role in the affairs of the State. The State has no obligation to protect or promote any religion. Religion has no authority to interfere in matters of governance. The State will not allow religious considerations to compromise constitutional values. Nor will the State show favour or sympathy toward any particular religion. Every citizen is free to believe in any religion—or to believe in none. In all this, the State has no role. Religion is purely a personal matter for the citizen.
Conducting religious ceremonies— even holding all religions’ rituals together—promoting religion, or involving religion in the functioning of the State—not only have no connection with the secularism envisaged by the Constitution, but they are in fact directly opposed to it.
It is often said that a secular State must treat all religions equally. This is the only aspect of secularism that most Indians are familiar with. But for a State to be truly secular, another principle must also apply: religion must have no role in the affairs of the State. So, what is real secularism? It is a system in which all religions are treated equally, and at the same time, religion has absolutely no influence over State matters. When this is the case, what else can secularism be but the principle of keeping all religions separate from the affairs of the State? This is precisely the secularism envisaged by the Constitution.
Conducting religious ceremonies by the nation, or allowing religion to interfere in the affairs of the State, is not secularism. Treating all religions equally is one thing—but if you include all three popular religions in a ritual and call it “equal treatment,” does that make it secular? If that is the question you are asking, the answer is no; the truth is that you are seeing only one glorified aspect of secularism. But what about the other side? If secularism is to be truly implemented, should it not also include the principle that religion and the State are separate? When this principle is applied, true secularism means keeping all religions equally removed from the affairs of the State. Everyone knows this in theory, but few admit it—because accepting it would curtail the privileges of religious groups and political-religious brokers. The truth is simple: once people understand that secularism means keeping all religion equally out of State affairs, the power of opportunistic politicians and religious profiteers would diminish. That is why it is resisted and never fully embraced.
It must be understood: religion is entirely a personal matter. Keep it personal. You are free to follow any religion—or none at all. You may practice your faith as long as it does not violate the law. The country has no objection to this. But if religion is brought into politics or State administration, the nation must stand firmly against it. This is the foremost duty of a secular State. Since Independence, India has struggled to uphold this principle, and this failure has been one of the country’s greatest challenges. In today’s India, political parties based on religion continue to flourish, with Hindus supporting Hindu parties and Muslims supporting Muslim parties. Religious rituals are often performed with State support, and temples, mosques, and shrines are constructed and maintained by the government. But is this truly the duty of a nation? Is this what a secular state is meant to do?
If you wish to resist this, to dismantle such religious entanglements, and to free politics and governance from religious influence, then secularism is your weapon. Understand its true meaning, and the nation will begin to change.
