Setting the record straight: Panth, Dharma & Secularism..
..as well as “Dharma-Nirapekshata” धरà¥à¤®à¤‚ निरपेकà¥à¤·à¤¤à¤¾ vs. “Panth-Nirapekshata” पंथ निरपेकà¥à¤·à¤¤à¤¾ (or “Panth Nirpekshata”)..From Defining ‘Secular’: The war rages on by Arvind Lavakare, comes this illuminating excerpt (emphasis added):
“Dr Ambedkar made it clear in Parliament that he did not believe our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities and the legislatures could frame separate laws for different communities.” (‘Reforming The Constitution’, UBS Publishers Distributors Ltd, 1992, edited by Subhash C Kashyap, an eminent Constitutional authority).
In the above book, Kashyap writes, ‘Where there is discrimination between man and man on the grounds of religions… where the administration of places of worship can be entrusted to Government Officers… where even fundamental rights are demanded and conceded on grounds of communities, it is a cruel joke to talk of secularism.’
The Indian nation as a whole is itself not ‘secular.’  Unknown to almost our entire political class, the Preamble of the separate Jammu and Kashmir State Constitution, November 1956, does not proclaim J&K State as a ‘Secular’ State, courtesy Article 370.
Come now to Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS chief who was provoked by Kumar’s remark to talk of dharmanirpeksh. He too was wrong in not realising that the word dharmanirpeksh does not denote the adjective ‘secular.’ The exact Hindi word for ‘secular’ is panthnirpeksha, coined, at the behest of Indira Gandhi, by Lakshmi Mall Singhvi, (1931-2007), a literary figure and an altogether very versatile personality who was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 1998…
He said the word ‘secular’ should more appropriately be translated as panthnirpeksh. He argued that dharma, the fundamental duty, is the foundation ethic of the Indian nation..and the very foundation for the section called Fundamental Duties of Citizens being part of Mrs Gandhi’s Constitutional amendment. Panth, on the other hand, meant religion. That is how the word panthnirpeksh to denote ‘secular’ got into the Hindi version of the Preamble of our Constitution. It is, therefore, a shame that dharm continues to appear in Articles 15, 16 and 25 of our Constitution’s Hindi version with regard to ‘Prohibition of discrimination…,’ ‘Equality of opportunity…’ and ‘Right to freedom of Religion’ respectively in the English version.
Below is another true story. In 1977, the Janata Party government introduced a Constitution Amendment Bill wherein one clause sought to define the word ‘Secular’ as ‘equal respect for all religions.’ The proposal was passed in the Lok Sabha where the newly elected Janata Party was dominant, but was rejected by the Congress majority in the Rajya Sabha. The Congress should no longer object to that definition suggested 34 years ago. Why? Because in a lecture delivered on June 9, 2007, at the Nexus Institute, The Hague, Sonia Gandhi herself proclaimed that ‘India is a secular country. The term secularism means equal respect for all religions.’
Let me end with a poser. A political party represented in our Parliament from 1952 till now says in its website that among its aims is ‘To secure and protect the rights and interests of the Muslims and other minorities in the state.’ Which is that party? And can it be labelled as ‘secular?’
So there you are..The word “secular” has not been defined to date by Parliament. Worse, it has been wrongly translated in Hindi. Reminds of another shibboleth that similarly remains undefined: “Socialism”. So, I ask – once again – Is it not high time we dump these anachronisms?
* This was the 44th Amendment (here is a link to the infamous 42nd Amendment which introduced this word)
Also read: A humble attempt at understanding Dharma, Secularism or Politics of Appeasement?,  Hinduism as a secular concept and finally, Of Subsidies and Politics of Secularism
Somewhat Related: Time to dump some anachronisms“
Here’s a brief history of “Secularism”.
http://www.edwardjayne.com/secular/biblio.html
It doesn’t matter how holier than thou the word secular is meant to mean. End of the day, as Indians, we are victims of western universalism as a democratic nation. Everything emanating out of it has got into a pseudo mode thanks Indians trying to accomodate and adjust to a christian created set of rules and trying to overpower an already efficient Hindu way of living. One glance at Arthashastra, will tell how superior it was/is in comparison to every other form of ruling. Just that Indians are feeling squemish to the point of inferior in accepting the Hindu way of living and it’s superiority to every Abrahamic religion creation. Blame the mind set created through Macaulay form of education and the daily dose of rigmarole in our so called main stream media.
By the by, as far US is concerned, even that isn’t a secular country. The overbearing of RC and recently the mormon phenomenon is quite evident. UK’s PM David Cameroon recently proclaimed that they are a Christian country, and right on cue we have an “intellect” in Amartya Sen issuing statements on having just christian based institution and banning other faith based organizations there.
What a bunch of sold out selfish Indians we have in these self tomtoming “seculars”, liberals, intellectuals et al.
The vociferous objection raised against the NDA’s constitutional review during their tenure means: (1) Quite a few don’t want these anachronisms dropped (2) Only the rotten commies or Congis can/may change the status quo (3) There are forces beyond the Indian govt in the picture
“.’ Which is that party? And can it be labelled as ‘secular?’”
A good and a relevant question.
There are Many Denominations of Secular around the world. The issue is competitive populism, as practiced by all shades of parties in our country (some more than others yes, but there are culprits in all hues). 7 years ago, I hoped that a Saagar Manthan would usher in a real choice, but alas, the current opposition party chose to swing towards disarray.
Some remarks I made in a different context:
Pl remember, Dharma is NOT religion – by any definition, while Panth does mean “creed”
Similarly, the appropriate word for “(religious) conversion” in Hindi is not Dharma-Parivartan but Mat-Parivartan (Mat = opinion; belief etc).
From
Why ‘secularism’ is not an Indian concept by Sanjeev Nayyar, August 02, 2013:
…
The founders of the Constitution deemed it appropriate to use the concept of secularism without spelling out its meaning. The word ‘secular’ was made part of the preamble of the Indian Constitution during the Emergency (1975-77). However, the word was left undefined.
During the Emergency, former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made the word ‘secular’ part of the preamble of the Constitution but did not define it. When the Janata Party came to power in 1977 an attempt was made to define ‘secular republic’ to mean a ‘republic’ in which there is equal respect for all religions’. The Janata government had a majority in the Lok Sabha but was in a minority in the Rajya Sabha where it was voted down by the Congress.
…
The Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya Acquisition Act, 1993, has some thoughts on the subject, excerpts. Former Chief Justice A M Ahmadi said: “Notwithstanding the fact that the words socialist and secular were added in the preamble of the Constitution in 1976 by the 42nd amendment, the concept of secularism was very much embedded in our constitutional philosophy. The term ‘secular’ has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition and perhaps best left undefined. By this amendment what was implicit was made explicitâ€.
Secularism has come to mean that the government has a right to take over, manage Hindu temples and in some cases donations made in temples go to the state treasury but this is not applicable to Muslim and Christian places of worship! Or appoint non-Hindus to oversee sacred shrines and events like the Kumbh Mela!
..
The concept of secularism originated in Europe where the church, controlled education/ property etc, became so powerful that even the king felt oppressed. So secularism meant separation of the church and state with intent to curb the influence and power of the church.
The situation in India was different. Sanatan Dharma or Hinduism, as it is erroneously called, was neither governed by a monolith organisation like the church nor did it own property and control the state. Thus, the need for turning secular never arose.
…
The concept of secularism imported into India by the British. It was a strategic tool to suppress and deny India’s quest for independence by repeatedly asking the Indian National Congress that was predominantly Hindu, to address the concerns of the minorities (Muslims).
Ok: but how does secularism operate in other parts of the world?
When Barack Obama took oath of office (first term) as President of the United States of America, he kept one hand on the Holy Bible.
Can you visualise the furore if A B Vaypayee had taken oath as prime minister keeping his hand on the Bhagavad Gita? All of Macaulay’s children and the secularists would have taken to the streets and asked him to apologise for insulting the Indian Constitution.
In England the queen is head of state and the church.
Since being head of state is the equivalent of the India President it is like saying that President Pranab Mukherjee is head of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
Christians in Germany and some other European nations pay a tax on their income to the church. This is akin to Hindus paying a tax to the Shankaracharya or the sadhu akhadas, the sant samaj!
Yet the secular credentials of these countries are never questioned! This, however, does not prevent them from giving India sermons on secularism.
The word secular does not exist in the Muslim world. The condition of non-Muslims in those countries is well known and does not merit comment. Moreover, there would be discrimination even if you are Muslim but belong to a sect i.e. a minority in that country for e.g. Shias and Ahmediyas in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Secularism enters the Muslim discourse in countries where they are in a minority.
I learnt today (unverified) that Parliament Hall has these words inscribed at the entrance: “धरà¥à¤®à¤‚ चकà¥à¤° परवरà¥à¤¤à¤¨à¤¯à¤®” – i.e. for the prevalence/continuation of “Dharma Chakra”.
Also that the motto of the Supreme Court is “यतो धरà¥à¤®à¤‚, तथो जयः” i.e. where there is “Dharma”, there is (will be) victory (from the MahaBharatam)