Secularism or Vote Bank Politics? India’s Dilemma

The Editorial discusses the misinterpretation of secularism in India, leading to political appeasement of minorities and divisive policies.

Secularism or Vote Bank Politics? India’s Dilemma

By K. Srinivasan, Managing Editor and Priyadharshni Rahul, Editor

(This editorial was published in September 2024 edition of eMagazine PreSense)

(The Editorial discusses the misinterpretation of secularism in India, leading to political appeasement of minorities and divisive policies.)

In recent years, the topic of secularism in India has become a frequent subject of public discourse. Many now believe that the concept of secularism is often misinterpreted to appease minorities for vote-bank politics, while Hinduism is depicted in a negative light, hurting the sentiments of the majority.

A recent statement by a Tamil Nadu Minister calling for the 'eradication of Sanatana Dharma like mosquitoes' sparked a nationwide debate and led to legal challenges. There have been numerous instances where leaders who claim to be 'secularists' mock Hindu practices and mantras while addressing minority communities. Though minority community leaders do not object to such comments, many feel uncomfortable and embarrassed by these incidents. These so-called ‘secular’ leaders enthusiastically extend greetings to festivals celebrated by minority communities. However, it is unfortunate that they often neglect to do the same for the festivals celebrated by majority Hindu community.

In the early 1990s, Kashmiri Pandits were driven out of their homes, becoming refugees in neighbouring States within their own country. Unfortunately, political parties that claim to be "secular" did not raise their voices against this brutal incident, including the killings of Pandits. These parties often remain silent when the majority community is under attack, ostensibly to protect "secularism." There have been several such instances where those parties that profess secularism turn a blind eye to violence against the majority community.

In 1986, under Rajiv Gandhi's regime, the Supreme Court's judgment in the Shah Bano case was nullified to appease the minority community. This action led to further complications and unrest in the country, including the resurgence of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement.

Often, in the name of secularism, these political groups provoke minority communities by spreading false information, creating divisions among people. The recent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were largely based on false fears instigated by these groups, even though the CAA has nothing to do with Indian minorities.

While Dr B.R. Ambedkar strongly opposed and did not support Article 370, secular parties continued to defend it, which denied reservations to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Similarly, Dr. Ambedkar advocated for implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Yet, these parties now oppose the UCC, which could help bring legal uniformity among the people. Ironically, all of them claim to be followers of Dr. Ambedkar.

These actions do not reflect true secularism; instead, they create divisions between Hindus and minorities, making Hindus feel alienated. This is far from the vision India’s founders had for the nation.

Dr Ambedkar’s Views on Secularism

Dr Ambedkar, the architect of Indian Constitution, firmly believed in the principle of secularism, not as a form of atheism, but as the state's religious neutrality. His goal was to ensure that no religion dominated or influenced the functioning of the state, particularly given India's history of caste-based oppression and religious conflict. In his view, secularism meant that the state would neither favour any religion nor interfere in religious practices, as long as these practices did not violate public morality or infringe upon individual rights.

Despite clearly understanding secularism, Dr Ambedkar did not push for including the word "secularism" in the Constitution's Preamble. One of the main reasons for this was his belief that the principles of secularism were already embedded within the Constitution, especially in the provisions related to fundamental rights and non-discrimination on the grounds of religion. He believed that the Constitution inherently guaranteed a secular framework without the need to use the term explicitly.

Dr Ambedkar once said, “What should be the state's policy? The policy of the state should be neutral in the matter of religion. The state should not impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. This is the essence of secularism.”

Dr. Ambedkar believed that secularism was sufficiently implicit in the constitutional framework, and there was no need to declare it overtly in the Preamble. He was wary that narrowly defining secularism or making it a constitutional slogan could invite unnecessary controversy or conflicts over its interpretation. Furthermore, by not explicitly including secularism in the Preamble, he avoided reducing it to a political tool for exploitation by parties or groups.

Scholar Christophe Jaffrelot, a noted commentator on Ambedkar's ideology, argues:

"Ambedkar preferred a substantive secularism based on equality before the law and the non-interference of the state in religious matters over a declaratory secularism that might lead to political posturing."

Constitutional Provisions

Ambedkar ensured that Articles 25 to 28, under the chapter on Fundamental Rights, explicitly guaranteed freedom of religion and equality before the law, irrespective of religious identity.

• Article 29 protects the rights of citizens to preserve their distinct language, script, or culture.

• Article 30 gives minorities the right to establish and administer their own educational institutions.

• Article 25 provides religious freedom to all, though in practice, it has sometimes been interpreted in ways that afford certain privileges to minorities, such as personal laws for Muslims and Christians.

These provisions are inherently secular. Dr. Ambedkar believed the Constitution already protected secular values by allowing individuals to practice their religion freely while ensuring the state's neutrality.

Adding ‘Secular’ to the Preamble

During the Emergency in 1976, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi included the word “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution through the 42nd Amendment. After this amendment, some argue that secularism began to be misinterpreted to appease minorities for vote-bank politics. However, India has practised secularism since ancient times, with a history of respecting different faiths.

Ancient India’s Secular Ethos

A well-known mantra in Hindu rituals is “Sarve Jana Sukhino Bhavantu” (Let all people be prosperous). The Rig Veda states, “Let noble thoughts come from everywhere,” and also quotes “Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava” (treat all faiths equally). Ancient Indian rulers supported Christianity and Islam when they arrived in India, allowing them to preach their beliefs. Buddhism and Jainism originated in India, reflecting a longstanding tradition of religious tolerance. The distortions we see today began only after the invasions of the British and Mughals. Secularism and tolerance are part of the very fabric of Indian society.

Challenges in the Present Day

Today, it has become fashionable for political parties to claim they are ‘secular’ while appeasing minorities and ridiculing the rituals of the majority community. Sadly, even knowledgeable and educated minority leaders do not object to this trend.

While leaders of all communities, including Hindus, greet minority communities during their festivals, Hindus rarely receive reciprocal greetings for their own festivals. Moreover, there are allegations that minority institutions enjoy more privileges than those of the majority community in areas such as education, recruitment, and the teaching of religious texts. These privileges are not extended to institutions run by the majority.

While the Government manages Hindu religious institutions like temples, they allow the religious institutions of minorities to be run by their own leaders.  While the students of minority communities get scholarships and interest subsidies, their Hindu counterparts do not get any such support. Such discriminations happen in the name of protecting ‘secularism’, though the Constitution prohibits discrimination.    

As a result, many feel that in India, under the guise of secularism, the majority population is being treated as second-class citizens, even though the Constitution guarantees equal rights without discrimination to all.

Over the years, this has led to growing resentment among the majority population, further fuelling division. Political parties exploit this situation in the name of secularism to advance their vote-bank politics.

The Way Forward

All political parties must cease using the secularism card to appease minorities while taking an anti-Hindu stance. They must learn to treat all citizens equally, without discrimination. Media and Civil society, including leaders from both the Hindu and minority communities, cannot remain silent spectators to these trends. Minority community leaders should condemn the derogatory statements made about Hinduism by political leaders during their meetings. They should recognise that such leaders are disrupting communal harmony.

In the name of Secularism, moral instruction classes have been dispensed with at the School Level. A recent study reveals that this lack of moral instruction is generating bad habits and also promoting juvenile offenders.  

As desired by Dr Ambedkar, the Uniform Civil Code should be implemented in consultation with all religious groups. Political parties should not mislead minority communities with false information for their political gains.

India, that is, Bharat, should continue to be a secular nation as it was in ancient times, with mutual respect for all faiths.

सर्वे भवन्तु सुखिनः, सर्वे सन्तु निरामयाः। सर्वे भद्राणि पश्यन्तु, मा कश्चिद् दुःखभाग्भवेत्॥

May all be happy; May all be free from illness; May all see what is auspicious; May no one suffer in any way; Om, Shanthi, Shanthi, Shanthi.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.4.14)

(The co-author of this Editorial, Priyadharshni Rahul (Editor, PreSense), is an advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India)

[contact]