The remarks by Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankar criticising the inclusion of the word “secular” in the Preamble to the Constitution have led to controversy. “Addition of these words in the Preamble during the Emergency signals betrayal of the mindset of the framers of the Constitution,” he said.
Mr. Dhankar’s remarks came in the wake of statements on similar lines by Dattatreya Hosabale, general secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Both have raised questions about the secular nature of the Constitution and most important, the larger structure of Indian politics. In the Constituent Assembly debates, the makers of the Constitution deliberated over varied models of secularism. While they disagreed over which one to subscribe to, the broad political commitment to secularism was unwavering. It was agreed that there shall be no state religion. While accepting that the state should not favour any religion, members like K.M. Munshi believed that India should develop its own secularism and the American “non-establishment clause was inappropriate to Indian condition”. This unique conception adopts a flexible approach to the state’s relations with religion.
Though the word “secular” was not mentioned in the Constitution, its chief architect, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, suggested that including it in the Preamble was superfluous. He found that the overarching characteristics of the Constitution indicated its secular foundation.
The Constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion through Article 15. Article 16 mandates that public employment shall not be denied on the ground of religion. Article 25 promises the equal entitlement to “freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion”. It also holds that the state is empowered to regulate “economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice”.
Yet any understanding of rights must not be isolated from political realities. However much strong a Constitution is, it must be held together by a political framework that is robust. Legal scholar Mark Tushnet offers a beautiful exposition of this idea when he says: “The Constitution matters, you’re likely to think, because it protects our fundamental rights. The answer I provide here is different: The Constitution matters because it provides a structure for our politics. It’s politics, not ‘the Constitution’, that is the ultimate — and sometimes the proximate — source for whatever protection we have for our fundamental rights.” (Why the Constitution Matters, 2010).
Multiple challenges
Therefore, the point is even a secular constitution can be attacked by an unsecular political dispensation, having no regard for protection of our rights. This threat reveals itself not always by strictly breaching the law, but by operating outside the realm of the law. In the context of secularism, at least three contemporary challenges emerge.
The first is selectively criminalising certain actions of the minority communities, Muslims in particular. Alleging illegal encroachment, since 2020, a large number of Muslim houses were demolished in various States. An Amnesty International report documents that “at least 617 people, including men, women, children and older persons, were rendered homeless or deprived of their livelihoods” between April and June 2022 alone. The study was conducted in five States – Assam, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh ruled by the Bhartiya Janata Party and Delhi by the Aam Aadmi Party at the time. (Bulldozer Injustice in India, February 7, 2024).
By the time a belated judgment of the Supreme Court was pronounced in late 2024 (In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures), the country had witnessed several years of illegal demolitions. People who have lost their houses still await compensation and the government officials who ordered and led the demolitions remain unaccountable. Attempts to seek compensation against the state are likely to be met with questions of proof and problems of delay. In these instances, even while statistics show the targeting of minority communities, matters get complicated by the difficulty in proving discrimination. The story of illegal demolitions reminded how conveniently can an aggressive executive enforce collective punishment, by escaping the rigour of the law.
The second challenge is targeting of certain religions in state policy. The anti-conversion laws promulgated in various States showed that members of certain communities were penalised more than the others, though the laws appeared neutral. In a sample study conducted in Uttar Pradesh, out of the “love jihad” cases examined, Muslims were accused in all except one. (Article 14, Amrashaa Singh, October 13, 2023).
The Waqf Act is the latest in this series. It is said that the government did not conduct any effective consultation with the stakeholders. The amendment mandates the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf management. In comparison to Devaswom Boards having only Hindu members, this proposal has raised questions on the government’s differential treatment of affairs of one religion. The law requires people to wait for five years of being a practising Muslim to contribute to Wakf.
The third is the symbolic assault on secularism. These are reflected in scattered, but clear attempts to disturb the secular fabric. In Kerala, in two different events attended by the Governor, the image of “Bharat Mata” with a saffron flag, a symbol associated with the RSS, was displayed. In fact, the Tricolour was adopted precisely by the Indian Republic to pronounce that the country’s democracy assimilates different beliefs and religions. The push to merge the Hindu identity with that of the Indian identity is at odds with the plurality and diversity of faith that India cherishes and holds dear.
Minimum core
Whatever be the ideological disagreement between political parties, a minimum core of secular values is the bedrock of any democracy. Along with secularism, other ideas such as respect for oppositional rights, commitment to independence of courts and transparency in decision-making, and equality in sharing of resources are part of the minimum core of democracy.
There is no doubt that India’s Constitution is a historical culmination of the demand for self-governance and a charter of fundamental rights. But the Constitution can always be weakened by a politics that abandons this minimum core altogether. Dr. Ambedkar had the foresight to caution that “However good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because those who are called to work it happen to be a bad lot.”
(The author is a lawyer at the Supreme Court of India; Views are personal)
Published – July 08, 2025 12:20 am IST