On Constitution and Secularism
Most readers may already be aware of this but there continues to be a widespread misconception that the word “secular” was part of the original Constitution drafted during 1947-1950.
E.g. a recent post on Indian Muslims Blog mentioned:
…an India which started out in 1947 with a “tryst with destiny†to build a secular state as Jawaharlal Nehru so eloquently promised…
As far as I know, Nehru didn’t utter the word “secular” in his now famous speech (see here and here).
The word “secular” (along with “socialist”) was introduced in the preamble to the Constitution by the late PM Smt Indira Gandhi in 1976. As this article by Arvind Lavakare notes:
It is on record that ‘at least twice in the Constituent Assembly efforts were made to make a specific mention of the principle of secularism in the Constitution. For example, an amendment had sought to ensure that no law could be made which discriminates between man and man on the basis of religion, or applies to adherents of any one religion and leaves others untouched. All such amendments were summarily rejected by Dr Ambedkar. Later… he made it clear that he did not believe that our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities.’ (Subhash C Kashyap, a renowned constitutional authority, in Reforming The Constitution, UBS Publishers & Distributors, 1992).
It is a fact of history that despite Ambedkar’s erudite view above, the Indira Gandhi government’s Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, thrust the term ’secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution without defining or explaining the significance of that term. It was, you see, the period of the Emergency, and Madam Gandhi didn’t need to explain anything to anyone.
Hopefully this will help clear the air a bit. While on this, do read the post on IM Blog and the comments…it is a thought-provoking discussion.
Related Posts:
Time to dump some anachronisms? – This is a regularly updated post
Clearing the dust off Macaulay’s “famous” quote
The importance of accurate referencing
Update:Â Pl read this post which has a lot more information on this topic: “Time to dump some anachronisms”
HOW IS THAT THIS WAS DONE DURING EMERGENCY BY INDHRA GANDHI THAT TOO IN PREAMBLE WHICH NORMALY NEVER TOUCHED. SURPRISING JANATA EXPERIMENT OR OPPOSITION DID NOT REVERSE AS DR AMBEDKAR OBJECTED WITH SO MANY BI PARTISON TREATMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION HOW CAN WE CALL WE ARE A SECULAR COUNTRY. THIS MUST BE WIDELY PUBLICIZED. SECULARISM MEANS GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS TO DO WITH ANY RELIGION. HERE PARTIES ARE PROVIDING RESERVATION ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION.
RAJAGOPALANSUBRAMANIAN
I read the article on the Indian Muslim blog. In fact I read many more articles including the one on Babri Masjid and the way forward. One thing that always stands out when any discussion with Muslims is started–how they have a totally different view of history. According to the articles and the underlying assumptions, India was this mass of people who were riddled with caste conflicts and had no concept of governance or even an aesthetic ability prior to the arrival of the Muslims. The Muslim invaders apparently saved us by giving us a good government and protected us .
We as a people benefited by the great and wonderful architecture of the Muslims for which we should be thankful (esp. Taj Mahal). There apparently is no historical or archaeological record of temples broken and people killed ( we should discount archaeology because it is not “scientific).
We should of course not wonder why so many muslims decided to stay in India after demanding a homeland for themselves. To do so is automatically communal.
Even the brutal western nations with their violent pasts don’t indulge in so much self-delusion. They own up to the atrocities of the past.
It is difficult to understand whether one can actually have a dialogue or whether a dialogue would be productive between people who have such a varied understanding of the past.
@ Harapriya: This remark of yours caught my eye:
I would like to invite other readers’ views on this…I think this is an aspect that needs serious discussion.
Dear Shantanu,
I am no expert on these matters but except for insignificant percentage of Indian muslims rest are under this mass delusion for possibly 2 reasons:
1. Intentional i.e they are indulging in AL-TAQIYA.
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec97/phares.htm
2. With madrasa education and bombardment during Friday prayers throughout their lifetimes there is a possibility that truth never gets to them. And if they are intellectually dishonest the circle of community members indulging in 1 will influence them constantly. The net effect is irreversible. Few generations like this and the damage is done.
Immediate 2c
One of my favorites, can one extend this to Indian muslims if they are focussed on Pan-Islamic identity?
http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=9
Yes it needs serious discussion, but how many would do that?
On another note, I heard in Banglore there was an interfaith dialogue betwen His Holiness Shri shri Ravi Shankar with one fanatic Zakir Niak. Those who watched it were down with shame on the behaviour of Zakir N., and muslim audience. No decorum in language used by Niak. He welcomed Holiness with arabic word of alekum and to everyone. Is he unknown to greetings of Hindu religion. that is Namaste! We cannot stoop their level of mind and behaviour.
Before having any dialogue with Muslims I think I will go for reading a book “Understanding Muslim Mind” By Ali Sina. This is what he is telling everyone, its hard to have dialogue with them. Or I will watch some Wafa Sultan’s video on You Tube.
Jai Hind!
Should check out Patcondells videos. He articulates these issues beautifully
Kiran, Indian and Nishka: Thanks for your comments and links…I will have a look at them later
What defined the secular in the American constitution has a different conotation and meaning to the Indian one. The American framers of their’s were highly educated enough to have a good dose of sceptism about allowing religion to constrain the state in political affairs. With their security firmly anchored in the moral world as defined by Christian practices, they were willing to follow the example of the anceint Roman and Greek powers for their’s to rise to greatness. The brevity and efficiency of the American constitution is a reflection of this. The Indian anxiety was that left to themselves India’s religions far from working to advance the country would constrain its rise and development. Everything was spelled out in great detail and this makes the Indian constitution unwieldy. No sanctity attaches to the constitution of any country more than that of their authors. For that reason, any Indian looking to the future would have to make the leap by redefining society and politics for any new constitution to be meaningless. Indian politics and the constitution cannot be fixed by the usual means. We have seen with France for example that it is not beyond the bounds of a single men to usher in a new republic and a age for his country and people.