When India gained independence in 1947, it was not merely a transfer of power from British hands to Indian leaders. It was the birth of a new nation founded on deeply held ideals—liberty, equality, justice, and pluralism. Unlike Pakistan, which was carved out explicitly as a homeland for Muslims, India’s founders rejected the idea of a theocratic state. They envisioned a country where every individual, regardless of religion, caste, or language, would have equal rights and dignity.
The partition of India, which led to the creation of Pakistan on religious grounds, was a dark and painful episode.
While Pakistan’s formation was driven by the Muslim League’s two-nation theory, which claimed that Hindus and Muslims were distinct nations, the leaders of independent India remained firm in their belief that the new India would not be defined by any one religion. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, Maulana Azad, and others championed a secular India where all communities could coexist peacefully. They believed that secularism was essential to preserving India's composite culture and vast diversity.
Rise of Hindu Nationalism and the Counter-Narrative
Yet, there were voices during and after the independence movement that opposed this vision. Leaders and organisations aligned with Hindu nationalism interpreted the Partition as confirmation that religion could define nationhood.
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who popularised (but did not coin) the term Hindutva in his 1923 tract Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?, argued that only those who considered India both their “fatherland” and “holy-land” truly belonged to it—thereby excluding Muslims and Christians by definition.
M. S. Golwalkar, the second chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, reinforced these ideas in his 1939 book We or Our Nationhood Defined, declaring that Hindus were the authentic “sons of the soil” and that “foreign races” must either assimilate into Hindu culture or accept subordinate status.
Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, then president of the Hindu Mahasabha and later founder of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, likewise rejected the Congress’ secular model; he contended that after Pakistan’s creation India should assert its Hindu cultural identity, though he framed this primarily as cultural, not theocratic, nationalism.
Such views grew more vocal during Partition within the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, which portrayed secularism as appeasement of minorities.
Nevertheless, India followed a different course. The Constitution of India adopted in 1950 enshrined justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity, and well before the 42nd Amendment of 1976 inserted the word “secular”.
The Supreme Court had already recognised secularism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. Indian secularism, therefore, demands equal respect for all faiths rather than privileging any single religion.
Recent Attacks on the Word “Secular”
In recent years, however, there has been a growing chorus questioning secularism’s place in the Indian Constitution.
Leaders affiliated with the RSS and ruling party have expressed discomfort with the term “secular,” often framing it as a Western import alien to Indian culture.
On June 25, 2025, during an event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Emergency, RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale publicly called for a debate on the inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble. He emphasized that these terms were not part of Dr Ambedkar’s original draft and were added during a politically charged period.
Supporting Hosabale’s remarks, Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan echoed the sentiment that these words do not reflect India’s "core values."
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma went even further, calling it a “golden time to act,” hinting at an opportunity to remove them from the Constitution altogether. The debate reached new heights when former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar described the inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble as a “sacrilege to the Sanatan spirit,” suggesting a fundamental clash between constitutional secularism and traditional Hindu beliefs.
These calls are not new. As far back as 2000, former RSS chief K. Sudarshan proposed replacing the Indian Constitution with one based on ancient Hindu scriptures like the Manusmriti—a document that enshrines caste hierarchy and patriarchy.
In 2020, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy even filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of “secular” and “socialist” from the Preamble. Though the Supreme Court rejected similar challenges in November 2024, affirming that these words form part of the Constitution’s basic structure, the political push to redefine India’s secular character continues.
Why Secularism Matters in India
This resistance to secularism raises a critical question: Why does a pluralistic, democratic country like India, which is home to more than 200 million Muslims, over 28 million Christians, and other minorities like Buddhists, Sikhs, need to debate the validity of secularism at all?
Secularism is not just a constitutional formality. It is the foundation that guarantees equal treatment to all religions and ensures that the state does not discriminate based on faith. It promotes harmony, prevents sectarian violence, and upholds individual freedoms. In a religiously diverse society like India, where history is marred by communal conflict, secularism acts as a buffer against polarisation.
Countries that have abandoned secularism in favour of religious nationalism often face social unrest, persecution of minorities, and political instability.
Pakistan, which once had a significant Hindu and Sikh population, is a sobering example of what happens when religious majoritarianism takes over the state policy. On the other hand, nations like the United States, France, and Canada, despite their own flaws, continue to thrive on secular principles, ensuring that no single religion dominates public life or government policy.
India’s Future Depends on Secularism
In today’s climate, attempts to dilute or remove secularism from the Constitution are not merely symbolic. They carry real risks. They threaten to unravel the inclusive fabric that holds India together. They embolden fringe elements, sow distrust among communities, and weaken the moral foundation of Indian democracy.
India’s strength lies not in becoming a Hindu nation or a Muslim nation, but in being a nation for all—where religion is a personal matter, not a political tool. The call to rethink secularism must be seen for what it is - not a desire for reform, but an attempt to redefine the very soul of the Republic.
To defend secularism is to defend India’s pluralism, its Constitution, and its future.
Have you liked the news article?