Emergence of the Concept of ‘Secularism’

When the term was first used in 1851, secular had only one basic meaning. It described laws
relating to morals and social values as having been created by human society in order to ensure
the well-being and harmonious functioning of the society. These laws were neither the creation
of divine authority nor did they require the sanction of divine authority. Authority lay in working
out, through reasoning and sensitivity, what was best for society in keeping with generally
accepted values of tolerance and social responsibility, by those who constituted that society.
Authority was exercised through laws. Social values therefore grew out of rational thinking,
debate and discussion. What this means is that the laws and social values that govern the society
should be observed as laws in themselves and not because they carry any divine sanctions. They
have their own authority distinct from religion, caste, etc.

Secularism in India

Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. With the 42nd
Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the
Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. Secularism in the Indian context means, in
practice, tolerance of other communities, especially the religious communities. It means not only
the non-interference in the affairs of other communities but also developing a positive
appreciation for distinctive ways and styles of life. Secularism is not merely about how religious
groups are treated by the state. What it meant in essence was how to forge positive and proactive
solidarity between religious groups in their everyday social and cultural life.

Secularism refers specifically to a political doctrine. It is not concerned with the loss of religious
practice and belief but is rather an attempt to steer the polity and its institutions and laws away
from the direct influence of religion. Secularization refers to the process of social and ideational
transformation.

According to Andre Beteille (2006), two distinctive forces have contribute to secularization. The
first is the compulsion of fairness, or equality, between religious communities in a country where
diverse religious faiths co-exist. The second is a process of specialization and differentiation
whereby institutions and practices earlier regulated by religious authority and religious doctrine
cease to be so regulated.
After independence, India adopted a new constitution providing a charter for a secular state and a
secular concept of citizenship. This was dictated, above all, by the compulsions of history and
demography. A constitution that was the end-product of a nationalist movement that had
resolutely opposed the two-nation theory could hardly prescribe a Hindu state or any kind of
religious state. The secular ideal was an integral part of the freedom struggle. The separation of
politics from religion was considered essential for establishing a modern nation-state.

A secular legal and constitutional order is dictated also by the compulsions of demography. India
is a land of many religions, and, within each religion, of many sects and denominations. There
are more Muslims in India than in any other country, except for Indonesia. There are also
populous minorities of Christians and Sikhs. It will be impossible to govern such a country
without secular public institutions that treat citizens without fear or favour, irrespective of their
religion.

Secularization does not mean that religious institutions will cease to exist; it only means that it
will cease to encompass or regulate all other institutions of the society. These other institutions
will then act relatively autonomously in their respective specialized domains, such as those of
education, science, finance, administration, communication, etc.

Models of Secularism:

Nehru and Gandhi represented two major models of secularism in modern Indian political
thought. Both stood for Indian national unity and a common legal basis for Indian citizenship.
But whereas Nehru emphasized the liberal-individualist foundation for Indian citizenship and
national identity, Gandhi patronised an approach that sought to aggregate the primordial
pluralities and communitarian-ethnic identities into a larger national communitarian
consciousness.

Thus the Nehruvian stance came closer to the western liberal-individualist view of secularism
drawing sustenance from rationalism and scientific temper. The Gandhian approach, on the other
hand, adhered to the traditional Indian ideal of sarvadharma samabhava (equal empathy for all
religions). The Hindu nationalists have been pushing the idea of ‘positive secularism’ which
means ‘justice to all and appeasement of none.’ They argue that since Hindus are the majority
community, Hinduism must mean nationalism, and vice versa (Rudolf Heredia, 2007).
Constitutional Rights:

The Constitution first guarantees a series of Fundamental Rights; right to equality before law;
right to political, civil, occupational, and religious freedoms and protection of life and personal
liberty; right against exploitation; and right to Constitutional remedies: to all Indian citizens
irrespective of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. It then extends some
cultural and educational rights to religious and linguistic minorities to conserve their language,
script or culture and establish and administer educational and religious institutions of their
choice. However, no educational institutions maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state
funds shall deny admission to any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language, etc.

Conclusion:

According to Romila Thapar (2015) being a secular society and polity does not mean abandoning
religion. Instead, it means that the religious identity of an Indian has to give way to the primary
identity of a citizen.  And the state has to guarantee the rights that come with this identity, as the
rights of citizenship. This demands that the state provides and protects human rights. Such an
identity, while adhering to human rights and social justice, would also be governed by a secular
code of laws applicable to all. Secularism is not a denial of religion, but a curtailment of the
control that religious organisations have over social functioning.

The state can intervene in religion and its affairs but within the limitations prescribed by the
constitution. This might sometimes lead to differential treatment, as long as it is justified on the
grounds that it promotes freedom, equality or any other value integral to secularism. Supporting
or dismissing ‘secularism’ is not just a political slogan. It is tied to the question of what kind of a
society do we want. Secularism in our Constitution, though not adequately defined, has meant at
least minimally, a guarantee of equitable treatment to all religious communities by the state.
Indian secularism is not centred on the separation of religion and the state, as in the west. It is
peculiarly Indian, both pluralist and reformist, not a completed project yet, but a struggle for
religious tolerance and freedom of conscience.