DC Debate: Whether there’s a need to redefine what is secularism

India has been secular always

I believe the spirit of secularism is important than the word. One can call it secularism or use any other word in any language, but the essence of it all is peaceful co-existence.

Arguments over the non-presence of the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ in the Preamble of the Constitution and their addition to it later do not make any sense because India as a nation has always been secular in its outlook. If we take the past 1,200 years’ history of India, the country has always been secular. There was peaceful co-existence between all communities until the British came here. There was never a riot before 1857, as far as I know. Even the fights between Akbar and Maharana Pratap, or those between Shivaji and Aurangzeb were for power. They were never religious wars. There was never an assertion of the supremacy of religion. Whenever there were wars between Shivaji and Aurangzeb, there were both Hindu and Muslim soldiers on both sides.

In the 1936 meeting of Muslim League in Lucknow, a resolution was passed, which stated that “we voluntarily will not eat beef and (will not) sacrifice cow, with due regard to the sentiments of the majority community”. Such was the spirit of harmony that existed in this country. Now, if the word secular is removed from the Preamble or if it is written ten times in it too, it will not matter because secularism exists in the spirit of this nation. That too, India's idea of secularism is the best, as it is an all-inclusive one. Unlike some countries like France, where secularism means being anti-religion, India’s secularism means respect for all religions.

There of course are some fringe elements on all sides that are trying to vitiate the atmosphere, but the majority of the people do not fall in their trap. For example, in Ahmedabad in Gujarat, as soon as there were riots in the past, some people used to distribute pamphlets saying Hindu women should not shop in Dhalgarwad — a market where almost all shops are owned by Muslims, and 99 per cent of their clientele Hindus.

Temporarily, once hate is engineered and spread among the people, it affected the business. But once things got normalised, it was business as usual. Even in Gujarat, a tinderbox of riots, I have never seen hatred and suspicion between communities. They temporarily exist but would never last long.

So, my concern is not as to whether the word ‘secular’ exists or not in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. But I will be horrified if this spirit of secularism starts to evaporate from the society. I have travelled to the interiors of Bihar and UP, where I met absolutely poor and illiterate people who had never heard the terms secularism or ‘dharmanirpekshata’, but I saw an all-pervading spirit of secularism among them as they helped each other in life regardless of their religious beliefs.

In Gujarat, there are villages which do not have mosques. There, Hindus open their house or temple doors for members of Tablighi Jamaat so that they can reside there until they start moving again. Intolerance is visible on televised debates, but in real life, or in the society at large, people in this country respect each other’s faith. Secularism is enshrined in the DNA of this nation’s social life, and it cannot be erased by any means.

Zafar Sareshwala, Chancellor, Maulana Azad National Urdu University

Secularism basis of Constitution

It must be stressed that while there is no word ‘secular’ in the original Preamble of the Indian Constitution, it has several provisions that are indicative of the secular character of the Constitution. For example, there is stress on freedom of religion, there are safeguards for minorities’ rights to preserve their language and culture, and there is no mention of a state religion.

The Constitution was secular but the word secular was not used in the Preamble. The same is the case with the word ‘socialism’. If one looks at the Directive Principles of State Policy, or the rights and other provisions mentioned in the Constitution, all of them exist for a purpose, namely the welfare of the people. The essence of socialism is that the state should take care of everyone’s welfare without any discrimination and ensure that everyone has equal opportunities to rise. Therefore, socialism too has been one of the characteristics of India’s Constitution.

However, neither of the two words, socialism and secular, was included in the Preamble. In 1973, a 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court, the largest bench ever, made a pronouncement in the Kesavananda Bharati case, stating that secularism is a basic structure of the Constitution, and that it cannot be taken away, abridged or amended in Parliament. There are also judgments which say that our Constitution advocates socialism and welfare of the people and that it should look after their economic interests. After this, in 1976 when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister, the Parliament brought in amendments to the Constitution wherein the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were added to the Preamble.

The thrust on secularism and socialism had always been there in the Constitution, but they were brought to our attention by the Supre-me Court, and thereafter, these words were added to the Preamble. Thereafter, in 1977, the Janata Party came to power. Indira Gandhi lost the election after Emergency and a government under the leadership of Morarji Desai was formed, in which senior leaders of the present Bharatiya Janata Party were ministers.

This government again amended the Constitution to ensure that the basic liberties of the people are not suspended. Notably they did not drop the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ from the Preamble. It is noteworthy that even a non-Congress government too in which senior leaders of present BJP were present, endorsed the words ‘secularism’ and ‘socialism’.

Now, however, Rajnath Singh says, “We were not there and the words were added to the Preamble by Indira Gandhi for political reasons.” This is absolutely incorrect. The Supreme Court was clear from day one that secularism and socialism are the basic characteristics of our Constitution. The Preamble highlights what is given in the Constitution. If the Parliament decides to drop the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ through an amendment, this will be challenged in the Supreme Court.

The dropping of the words — secular and socialist — would amount to someone trying to change the nature of the Constitution. The BJP is trying to do something that’s very dangerous.

P.P. Rao, Constitutional Law expert and a senior advocate at SC

Download the all new Deccan Chronicle app for Android and iOS to stay up-to-date with latest headlines and news stories in politics, entertainment, sports, technology, business and much more from India and around the world.