Secularism : Black Spot on India's Constitution
By Devesh Bele
Introduction
India today stands at a crossroads of
identity—torn between its ancient civilizational soul and modern constitutional
structure. The recent calls to remove the words secular and socialist
from the Preamble of the Constitution are not just political reactions—they
reflect a deeper philosophical struggle. These words were never part of the
original Constitution framed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and other visionaries in
1950. They were inserted during the 42nd Amendment in 1976—under an Emergency
regime, influenced by Cold War-era ideologies1.
Among these, secularism is the most
unnatural addition to India's civilizational ethos. It is not only alien to
Bharatiya philosophy, but has functioned as a black spot on the
Constitution—one that disrupts the organic relationship between dharma
and rajya (state), and distances India from its natural path of
inclusive development.
 |
| AI generated, only for illustration purpose. |
I. Western
Secularism: Born from Religious Tyranny
The concept of secularism was born in
post-medieval Europe, especially after the French Revolution. After
centuries of religious oppression by the Church—where kings were subject to
clergy and science was persecuted—Europe demanded a complete separation of
religion from governance. This was a reaction to trauma, not a
vision of balance2.
In such a context, secularism served its
purpose: to protect statecraft from religious dogma. But transplanting this reactionary
Western idea into India—a civilization where spirituality and statecraft
always coexisted without conflict—is both illogical and harmful.
 |
| AI generated, only for illustration purpose. |
II. Dharma:
The Foundation of Bharatiya Rajya
In Bharata, religion was never a political
weapon. Instead, the guiding principle of governance was dharma—the
moral and ethical duties based on one’s role in society. Unlike Western
theocracies, there was no centralized church, no clerical control, and no
persecution in the name of God.
Dharma is not rigid religious law—it is
a dynamic framework of contextual duties. The king, citizen, merchant,
soldier, and priest each had unique roles to uphold for the functioning of
society. This is strikingly similar to today’s Fundamental Duties
enshrined in our Constitution.
Ancient statecraft—from Chanakya’s
Arthashastra to the Mahabharata—shows a model where governance
was built on values, not ideological walls. The state wasn’t “neutral”
toward religion—it was naturally aligned with righteousness.
As Bhishma tells Yudhishthira in the Mahabharata,
Shanti Parva, Section 90:
"There is no higher duty than protecting
the people... the king should wield power like the Sun, with justice and
compassion."3
Similarly, Manusmriti, Chapter 7,
outlines:
"A king must protect the weak, be
vigilant, keep wise ministers, and ensure the prosperity of his people."4
And Arthashastra, Book 1, Chapter 4,
written by Chanakya, affirms:
"The end of governance is the happiness
of subjects. That alone is the Dharma of a king."5
In Bharata, religion was never a political
weapon. Instead, the guiding principle of governance was dharma—the
moral and ethical duties based on one’s role in society. Unlike Western
theocracies, there was no centralized church, no clerical control, and no
persecution in the name of God.
Dharma is not rigid religious law—it is
a dynamic framework of contextual duties. The king, citizen, merchant,
soldier, and priest each had unique roles to uphold for the functioning of
society. This is strikingly similar to today’s Fundamental Duties
enshrined in our Constitution.
Ancient statecraft—from Chanakya’s
Arthashastra to the Mahabharata—shows a model where governance
was built on values, not ideological walls. The state wasn’t “neutral”
toward religion—it was naturally aligned with righteousness6.
III.
India’s Natural Inclusiveness vs. Imported Secularism
India's true strength has always come from its
civilizational inclusiveness—not from secular neutrality. This
inclusiveness was not engineered, not enforced, and not borrowed. It
grew naturally from the soil of Bharata, where traditions could coexist
without conflict.
Let us use a clear analogy:
Bharata’s statecraft is like natural
soil—rich, diverse, fertile, and alive with potential. It nurtures every
seed—be it cultural, spiritual, or intellectual.
In contrast, secularism is like artificial soil—chemically controlled,
appearance-based, and detached from its ecosystem. It may look orderly, but it
limits the roots and stunts natural evolution.
In this natural soil of Bharata, great
spiritual traditions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism
emerged not by fighting each other, but by mutually enriching one
another.
- Under Ashoka, Buddhism flourished across Asia.
- In Gupta India, Hindu kings patronized multiple paths of
knowledge.
- Parsis, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all found safe haven in India without coercion or exclusion7.
This is not secularism. This is Dharma-based
inclusiveness—a psychological and philosophical openness, not just
political tolerance.
IV.
Secularism as a Byproduct of Geopolitical Misalignment
The word “secular” in our Constitution was not
added due to public demand or philosophical reflection. It was inserted during
the Emergency, under Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian rule, as India leaned
heavily towards Soviet-style socialism and Marxist ideology8.
Secularism became a political signal to the
global order—but at home, it severed India from its philosophical roots.
Our governance model began reflecting ideological loyalty to foreign
constructs, rather than cultural fidelity to Indian soil.
This proves a crucial point: foreign policy
alignments should never define domestic identity. When international
influence controls internal ideology, the nation loses its soul—and the citizen
loses his compass.
V.
Psychological Impact: Shaming the Civilizational Mind
Secularism has done more than redraw the
relationship between religion and state—it has psychologically disarmed
Indians from their own traditions.
It made rituals appear superstitious, faith
appear regressive, and spirituality appear unscientific. One clear
example is how Shastra Puja—worshipping weapons during Vijayadashami—is
mocked by modern secularists.
But this act reflects deep Indian
psychology: even a non-living object, like a sword or a jet fighter, is
respected because it serves the collective good. This is not religion—it is gratitude
to material and metaphysical energy. Such rituals connect the citizen with
the ethos of protection, sacrifice, and consciousness.
Secularism strips that away. It treats faith
as threat, tradition as primitive, and pride as bigotry. It replaces inner
conviction with external conformity.
VI. Reclaim
the Roots: Remove the Black Spot
The idea of secularism, born out of European
trauma, has no roots in Bharata’s civilizational soil. It was added not to heal
India but to satisfy temporary political compulsions and foreign ideological
alignments.
While it claims to protect freedom, it has instead restricted thought, shamed
tradition, and fragmented India's philosophical wholeness.
Bharata's natural statecraft was always rooted
in Dharma—a system that evolves with society while maintaining its moral
compass. It allowed for multiplicity without conflict, assimilation without
annihilation, and freedom without forced detachment from faith.
The natural soil of Bharata nourishes
diversity, spiritual inquiry, gratitude, and duty. In contrast, secularism
acts as artificial soil—containing, shaping, and limiting that which once
grew freely in all directions. It fences the mind, not to protect it, but to
reshape it.
Therefore, this word—secular—stands
today as a black spot on India’s constitutional fabric. It is time to
remove it—not in the name of religion, but in the name of truth, integrity,
and civilizational continuity.
Bharata does not need borrowed ideologies to
survive or thrive. It simply needs to be itself.
References
Footnotes
- Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 ↩
- Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Harvard University Press,
2007) ↩
- Mahabharata,
Shanti Parva, Section 90 – Discussion between Bhishma and Yudhishthira on
Raja Dharma (Duty of the King) ↩
- Manusmriti,
Chapter 7 – Principles of kingship and governance ↩
- Chanakya's Arthashastra, Book
1, Chapter 4 – On the role of Dharma, Artha, and Danda in ruling ↩
- P. V. Kane, History of Dharmaśāstra, Vol. 1 (1930) ↩
- Mark Tully, India in Slow Motion (Penguin, 2002) ↩
- M. N. Roy Foundation, Review of the 42nd Amendment ↩