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 first part in the series.
In 1950, India proclaimed itself a sovereign republic with the adoption of its Constitution, precisely seventy years ago. Later, through the 42nd Amendment in 1976, India was officially declared a secular, democratic republic. Yet even after all these decades, we still fail to grasp what true secularism really means. Why wasn’t the word secular included in the Constitution right from the beginning, in 1950? Why did it take so long? And how did India’s political parties and religious groups together distort and twist the very essence of secularism? Yet, we didn’t know! Because, quite simply, we never took the time to understand it, it was never a subject of serious public debate or introspection. But now, it’s time to awaken to this truth: for decades, in the name of secularism, political forces and religious institutions have deceived us. We still believe secularism is whatever they taught us to think it is.
For the majority community, secularism is seen as an unnecessary ideal — something that denies them certain privileges they believe they deserve. On the other hand, the minority groups hold secularism close to their hearts! Yet, would these same groups practice secularism if they were the majority in their own nations? Certainly not. The irony is sharp. This double standard exposes how tragically secularism has been distorted in India. The time has come for us to question, fearlessly and honestly, what true secularism really means.
We can start from the word “secularism” itself. The word secularism derives from the Latin term saeculum, meaning “generation,” “age,” or “world.” Its modern sense was coined in 1851 by the English writer and social reformer George Jacob Holyoake, who used it to describe a philosophy that focused on human affairs and ethics without reference to religion. Secularism, at its core, is the principle of separating religion from political and public life. It emphasizes governance and social organization based on reason, humanist ethics, and scientific understanding, rather than religious authority. Politically, it advocates for the state to remain neutral in matters of religion, treating all citizens equally regardless of their faith, while culturally, it supports a non-religious approach to education, morality, and civic life. In the 20th century, secularism emerged as a guiding principle in many nations, shaping constitutions and laws to ensure freedom of religion, equality, and the effective functioning of modern democracies. Countries such as India and France incorporated secular ideals to maintain a clear distinction between religious influence and state governance, reflecting a broader commitment to human rights and rational governance. In essence, secularism is the idea that society and government function best when public life is guided by reason, justice, and universal human values rather than religious authority—a principle that has evolved over centuries but remains central to modern democratic societies.
Now let’s focus on and discuss the history, insertion, and true meaning of secularism in India. Although there was a strong demand in the Constituent Assembly to explicitly include secularism in the Constitution, the idea was rejected. It was only later, during the Emergency in 1976, that the word was added to the Preamble of the Constitution. Perhaps the Emergency’s lone redeeming moment. Among those who raised their voice for secularism in the Constituent Assembly, one of the most prominent was Prof. K. T. Shah. Shah was an economist, constitutional expert, and a prominent member of the Indian Constituent Assembly. He is best known for consistently advocating the inclusion of explicit terms like “secular,” “socialist,” and “federal” in the Constitution. Shah moved the amendments to ensure that the Preamble clearly reflected these principles, especially the idea of secularism. Not once, but twice. Both times, the Assembly mercilessly rejected it. And whenever Shah argued for secularism, he faced the Assembly’s strongest voice—Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Yes! It was Ambedkar who argued the most against inserting the word “secular” into the Indian Constitution. Why would someone like Ambedkar do that? What exactly is meant by secularism in this context?
To find answers to these questions, we need to travel back to 15 November 1948, to a striking exchange in the Constituent Assembly between K. T. Shah and Ambedkar on the subject of secularism. The debate taking place then was on Article 1 of the Constitution, which states the name of the country and the extent of its authority. When amendments to Article 1 were invited by the chair, it was K. T. Shah who first rose to speak, presenting his 98th amendment proposal. Shah wanted three words to be added to Article 1: Secular, Federal, and Socialist. In other words, he proposed that the existing phrase — “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States” be changed to “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States.” Shah explained very clearly what he meant by these three words and why he believed they were necessary to include in the Indian Constitution. No one should mistake the Assembly’s refusal to include the word for a rejection of the idea. The Assembly had already accepted that secularism is an inseparable part of the Indian nation and that the Indian Constitution is, in spirit, secular. The debate in the Assembly was only about whether the word “secular” needed to be explicitly inserted into the Constitution or not.
After the demand for the word “Federal,” K. T. Shah firmly argued for adding the word “secular” to the Constitution, explaining its meaning and why it mattered. He said: “We are repeatedly told that India is a secular State. If that is true, then I don’t see why this word cannot be included in the Constitution itself. Adding it would help prevent any confusion or misunderstanding in the future…. The secularity of the state must be stressed in view not only of the unhappy experiences we had last year and in the years before and the excesses to which, in the name of religion, communalism or sectarianism can go, but I intend also to emphasis by this description the character and nature of the state which we are constituting today, which would ensure to all its peoples, all its citizens that in all matters relating to the governance of the country and dealings between man and man and dealings between citizen and Government the consideration that will actuate will be the objective realities of the situation, the material factors that condition our being, our living and our acting. For that purpose and in that connection no extraneous considerations or authority will be allowed to interfere, so that the relations between man and man, the relation of the citizen to the state, the relations of the states inner se may not be influenced by those other considerations which will result in injustice or inequality as between the several citizens that constitute the people of India.”
Shah’s question before the Assembly was simple: If we already accept that India is a secular State and that our Constitution is secular in spirit, then why should we hesitate to include the word “secular” explicitly in the Constitution? He argued that the emphasis on secularism was not merely because of the communal riots that had scarred the country, both before and after Independence. More importantly, he believed that once the State clearly affirmed this principle, it would help reduce the influence of external forces on the relationships between Man and Man, and between citizens and the government. By doing so, the State could prevent the injustice and inequality that such outside interference might otherwise create. Here, it is clear that by the term “outside interference,” Shah was referring to religion and its influence. He wanted the word secularism to be included in the Constitution to protect the affairs of the State from the interference of religion. He understood that allowing religion to intrude into matters of governance would only create chaos. By inserting the word secularism into the Constitution, he hoped to clearly separate religion from the functioning of the State. Shah’s intent and his idea of secularism become unmistakable. Whatever the merits of the proposal, Shah’s amendment seeking to insert the three words “Secular, Federal, Socialist” into Article 1 was rejected by the Assembly. To be more precise, it was Ambedkar who rejected it.
Ambedkar began his speech by expressing his regret that he could not accept Shah’s amendment. He said, “Mr. Vice-President Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment proposed by Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. First, as I mentioned in my opening speech while moving the motion before this House, the Constitution is merely a mechanism for regulating the functioning of the various organs of the State. It is not an instrument for placing particular individuals or particular political parties in power….. What the policy of the State should be, and how society ought to be organised in its social and economic aspects, are matters that must be decided by the people themselves, according to the needs and circumstances of their time. These cannot be fixed within the Constitution, for doing so would destroy democracy altogether. If you declare in the Constitution that the State shall follow one specific form of social organisation, then, in my view, you are depriving the people of their freedom to choose the social order in which they wish to live.”
Ambedkar put forward two main reasons for rejecting Shah’s amendment. First, he explained that the Constitution is a framework meant to regulate the functioning of the key organs of the State; it is not a mechanism to control individual citizens. Questions such as what the policy of the State should be, and how society ought to operate socially and economically, must be decided by the people themselves according to the needs and circumstances of their time. If such matters are written directly into the Constitution, he argued, it would undermine the very idea of democracy. Second, Ambedkar felt that Shah’s proposal was far too broad, and the concepts Shah wanted to insert were already reflected—though in different forms—in various parts of the Constitution. This, in essence, is the heart of Ambedkar’s argument. And truly, what else could be expected from someone like Ambedkar, who gave supreme importance to democratic values and individual freedom? His concerns were also valid. Every time secularism came up for debate in the Assembly, another question inevitably arose: How can secularism be implemented in a society so deeply rooted in religion? Imposed prematurely, it would force upon the nation a value it neither held nor demanded. That, he implied, would be nothing short of placing a knife at the throat of democracy itself. Therefore, Ambedkar believed that a value like secularism should be formally adopted only when society had matured enough to embrace it, and only when the people themselves desired it. This was the core of Ambedkar’s reasoning.
