Bolumbu's erratica: Why the Term ‘Secular’ Should Be Removed from the Indian Constitution

Why the Term ‘Secular’ Should Be Removed from the Indian Constitution

India’s civilizational ethos has always been pluralistic, tolerant, and dharmic. From the times of the Mauryas and Guptas to the modern era, governance was not about imposing a single religious ideology but about upholding righteous order (rājyadharma), justice, and social harmony. In such a context, the insertion of the word “secular” into the Indian Constitution through the 42nd Amendment of 1976 was not only unnecessary but also redundant and culturally alien.

1. The Original Constitution: Secular in Spirit

When the Constitution came into effect in 1950, it did not include the term “secular”. Yet, Articles 14, 15, 25–28 already guaranteed equality before law, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.[1][2][3]

In the Constituent Assembly, B. R. Ambedkar affirmed that India would be a secular state with no official religion and that all faiths would be treated equally. He did, however, oppose adding the word “secular” to the Preamble, arguing that its principles were already woven into the Constitution's fabric. [4]

Ambedkar's arguments against adding 'secular' to the Preamble included:

Redundant provisions: The constitutional framework already guaranteed religious neutrality and non-discrimination. Specifically:

Fundamental Rights: Article 25 protects the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
Prohibition of discrimination: Articles 15 and 16 prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion.
No state religion: Article 19 affirms that the state shall not recognize any religion as its own.

Rajendra Prasad, the first President of India, also acknowledged that India’s civilizational pluralism naturally protected the rights of diverse communities without needing Western labels [5]. In short, the Constitution was secular in content and spirit, even without explicitly stating it.

2. The 42nd Amendment: Political Context

The Emergency of 1975–77 saw the enactment of the 42nd Amendment, which added “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble. Critics argue that this move was politically motivated and rushed, with little parliamentary debate [6]. By inserting Western terminology into a Constitution already grounded in India’s pluralistic culture, the amendment created a symbolic redundancy. While supporters claim it merely formalized the existing spirit of equality, it introduced a conceptual frame alien to India’s civilizational understanding.

3. The Dharmic Perspective on Governance

Indian civilization’s approach to religion and governance is fundamentally different from Western notions. The principle of sarva-dharma-sambhāva—equal respect for all religions—is not imposed by law but is culturally ingrained. Historical examples illustrate this vividly:

The Vijayanagara Empire (14th–17th centuries) patronized Hindu temples, Islamic scholars, and Jain institutions, maintaining a plural court with officials of different faiths.
The Samoothiri (Zamorin) of Calicut governed a coastal trading hub where Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and Christians coexisted, with the ruler facilitating trade, law, and protection for all communities.
The Maratha Empire under Shivaji and his successors respected local religious traditions, appointed Muslims in military and administrative roles, and ensured temple reconstruction alongside mosques’ protection.
The Kingdom of Travancore maintained harmony between Hindus, Christians, and Muslims, funding educational institutions and temples, while respecting the religious autonomy of communities.

Temples, mosques, gurudwaras, and churches coexisted for centuries, with the state ensuring protection and order without privileging any single faith. Religious pluralism in the Indian ethos was therefore not an external policy goal but a lived reality, a principle that guided governance naturally [7].

4. Savarkar and the Nationalist Argument

Veer Savarkar argued that India’s national identity transcends religious labels and is rooted in its civilizational unity. He emphasized that political governance should reflect the organic culture of Bharat, which has always accommodated multiple faiths without importing foreign secular doctrines [8]. In this light, the term “secular”, derived from Western experiences of state–church conflict, is not only unnecessary but inconsistent with India’s civilizational self-understanding.

5. Guruji Golwalkar on Cultural Sovereignty

Guruji M.S. Golwalkar underscored the need for civilizational coherence and the protection of India’s indigenous cultural and spiritual ethos. While he recognized religious diversity, he also stressed that governance should not adopt alien frameworks that dilute India’s cultural essence [9]. By this reasoning, borrowing the Western secular model and embedding it in the Constitution undermines India’s dharmic worldview, which has historically balanced spiritual freedom with social order.

6. Legal Perspective: Supreme Court Observations

Even the judiciary has recognized that secularism in India is distinct from Western secularism. In the landmark S.R. Bommai case (1994) and Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Supreme Court affirmed that secularism is part of the basic structure, but it is defined as state neutrality and equal respect for all religions, not as exclusion of religion from public life [10]. This further underscores that the term itself is symbolic; India was secular by civilizational practice and constitutional design, even before its inclusion.

7. Why the Term Is Redundant

The Constitution already protects religious freedom and equality.
India’s civilizational ethos naturally enforces pluralism.
The Western notion of secularism entails removing religion from public life entirely, which is alien to the Indian experience.
Retaining the word allows misinterpretation that secularism is a foreign import rather than an indigenous value.

8. Conclusion

The term “secular” in the Constitution is therefore redundant and externally derived, rather than reflective of India’s civilizational ethos. India’s secularism is organic, dharmic, and pluralistic, embedded in its culture, governance, and legal framework. Historical examples—from the Vijayanagara Empire to Travancore, the Marathas, and the Samoothiri governance—demonstrate that pluralism was practiced naturally by rulers who understood dharmic balance. Ambedkar’s own arguments against explicitly adding “secular” reinforce the idea that constitutional safeguards were sufficient. Removing the word would restore the Constitution to its original, culturally coherent form, affirming that India’s pluralism and spiritual inclusiveness are civilizational defaults, not borrowed ideals.