Secularism and the law

SECULARISM
AND
THE LAW
National Foundation for Communal Harmony
New Delhi
August 2010
i
Secularism and the law
Published by
National Foundation for Communal Harmony
9
th
Floor, ‘C’ Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan
Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003
© 2010, National Foundation for Communal Harmony (NFCH)
‘Any part of this publication
may be reproduced or utilized in any form
or by any means without due acknowledgement to NFCH’.
ISBN – 81 – 887772-19-4
i
Secularism and the law
Foreword
The National Foundation for Communal harmony (NFCH) has been
organizing essay writing competitions regularly among the officers of the All
India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services, who undergo training at the
Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA). This
monograph is an outcome of one such essay competition organized during
the 78
th
Foundation Course of the Academy in the year 2006. The subject of
the essay competition was “Secularism and the Law”. As the subject has
become quite topical in the recent years, selected essays have been
presented in the form of an e-monograph for wider dissemination.
Since time immemorial people of different faiths, sects, communities and
culture have co-existed in peace & harmony in the country and we are proud
of our ‘unity in diversity’ and secular credentials. In spite of such deep-rooted
tradition of pluralism, tolerance and syncretism, the land has also witnessed
some communal disturbances orchestrated in the name of religion, caste,
ethnicity or community, compelling thinkers to revisit the concept of
secularism in contemporary context.
We are grateful to the bright young officers, for covering various dimensions
of the topic comprehensively in their essays, ranging from the meaning of the
concept of ‘secularism’, its comparative analysis from the Indian and other
Constitutions, debates on uniform civil code, rulings of the Supreme Court,
role of political parties, etc. Views have been expressed freely with clarity,
cogency and precision. These well argued, thought provoking and
meticulously designed essays would evoke a wider debate and response on
the subject.
The views expressed in these essays are those of the contributors alone and
do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.
(Lalit Kumar)
Secretary
NFCH
i
Secularism and the law
SECULARISM AND THE LAW
CONTENTS
Sl No. Contributors Title Page
Foreword i
1. Shri A. Akbar Secularism- Conceptual contradictions
need for secular minds
1-6
2. Shri K. Srinivasan Secularism - Constitutional provisions
and need to strengthen secular values
7-14
3. Smt. Sripriya Rengarajan Secularism - A goal and a process 15-25
4. Shri Kumar Ravi Complex relation between Religion and
Law
26-35
5. Shri Darez Ahamed Secularism and the Law - Options ahead 36-46
6. Shri V. M. V. Naval
Kishore
Implementation of Secularism related
laws depends on collective conscience of
the people
47-51
7. Shri Appu Joseph Jose Building a secular state in a religious
society
52-60
8. Shri Tukaram Haribhau
Mundhe
Secularism and the Law in a multi-
religious society
61-66
9. Shri Deepak Rawat Secularism and the Law - A process in
nation building
67-72
10. Shri Akash Deep Secularism and the Law - Theory &
Practice
73-76
11. Shri Vishal Gogne Uneasy relation between Secularism and
the Law
77-81
12. Shri Vishal Vasant
Solanki
Secularism and the Law - Question of
attitude
82-87
13. Dr. Saket Kumar Secularism - Strong law required to
contain communal crimes
88-95
14. Shri Govindaraju NS Secularism - indispensable for peace &
prosperity
96-101
About the Contributors 102-103
i
Secularism and the law
Secularism- Conceptual contradictions need for secular minds
A. AKBAR
A discussion on ‘Secularism’ seems to be highly pertinent at this moment
given the fact that our country is now witnessing fissiparous tendencies apparently
based on religion. Although the menace of communalism is not a new phenomenon
in the Indian society, yet it is quite baffling and embarrassing that even after more
than six decades of independence and despite an emphatic proclamation by the
constitution that we are secular, still things are not so bright.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to have an idea of the nature and
meaning of the term ‘secularism’. It is interesting to note that there is no agreed and
precise meaning of ‘secularism’ in our country. As Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his
autobiography… “no word perhaps in any language is more likely to be interpreted in
different ways by the people as the word ‘religion’. That being the case, ‘secularism’
which is a concept evolved in relation to religion can also not have the same
connotation for all”.
There are two possible models of secularism. In the first one, there is a
complete separation of religion and state to the extent that there is an ‘impassable
wall’ between religion and secular spheres. In such a model, there is no state
intervention of religious matters and vice versa. In the other model, all religions are
to be treated equally by the state; in other words, the state is equi-distant from all
religions. This model is also referred to as ‘non-discriminatory’ and is particularly
relevant for multi-religious societies. In contrast to the former model, the latter
allows for state intervention on grounds of public order and social justice.
The principle of ‘secularism’ as understood in the United States means that the
state and the church co-exist in the same human society without having to do
anything with each other. In Europe, the vision of secularism evolved as the negation
of all things religious, particularly in political functioning. In India, it means the
1
Secularism and the law
opposite, i.e., equal respect for all religions. A ‘secular state’ in the Indian context
means one, which protects all religions equally and does not uphold any religion as
the state religion. The Sanskrit phrase ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ is the most
appropriate Indian vision of secular state and society. But it should not be forgotten
that the word ‘Secular’ has not been defined or explained under the constitution either
in 1950 or in 1976 when it was made part of the preamble.
Secularism as a modern political and constitutional principle involves two
basic propositions. The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sects are
equal before the law, the constitution and the government policy. The second
requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics. It follows that
there can be no discrimination against any one on the basis of religion or faith nor is
there room for the hegemony of one religion or majoritarian religious sentiments and
aspirations. It is in this double sense – no discrimination against any one on grounds
of faith and separation of religion from politics – that our constitution safeguards
secularism.
India is a multi-religious society and the survival of such a society is possible
only it all religions are given equal treatment without any favour or discrimination.
The partition of the country was apparently based on religion and this was an eye-
opener for the makers of the constitution when they were engaged in the task of
giving a concrete shape to the constitution of our country. The word ‘secular’ was
not there in our constitution when it actually came in the being. It was subsequently
incorporated in to the preamble of the constitution by the 42
nd
Amendment Act of
1976. The formal inclusion of the adjectival terms ‘secular’ is mainly the result of
meeting out the exigencies of the prevailing circumstances, requirement of party
politics and ideological window-dressing. The some extent, it also reflects the
ignorance and apathy of the ideologues that they added it merely to the preamble, and
did not take care to bring about suitable modifications inside the constitution. It can
2
Secularism and the law
be pointed out that the term used after the word ‘Socialist’ is redundant as a socialist
democratic state has necessarily to be secular. In view of the various articles
appearing in part III of the constitution, it can be said that India was already a secular
state and there was no need of such addition. It rather gave a false impression that
previously India was not a secular state.
Although, the word ‘Secular’ was not there initially in the constitution, a mere
perusal of the various articles of it would amply demonstrate that ‘Secularism’ is an
integral part of the Indian constitution. At this juncture, it would not be inappropriate
to have a glance at the relevant constitutional provisions pertaining to secularism.
Article 14 of the constitution provides for equality before law for all people. Article
15, inter alia, lays down that the state shall not discriminate any citizen on the ground
of religion. Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of employment
under the state, irrespective of religion. Article 25 provides for freedom of
conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of one’s
choice. The constitution not only guarantees a person’s freedom of religion and
conscience, but also ensures freedom for one who has no religion, and it scrupulously
restrains the state from making any discrimination on grounds of religion. Article 26
provides freedom to manage religious affairs and Article 27 prohibits compulsion to
pay taxes to benefit any religious denomination. The impact of Secularism can also
be seen in Article 28, which states that no religious instruction shall be provided in
any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. The analysis of the
above said constitutional provisions makes it amply clear that Indian secularism is
unique and it treats all religions alike. In our country, judiciary is the guardian of the
constitution and it has been held by the Supreme Court that secularism is a basic
structure of the constitution and it can not be altered by a constitutional amendment.
The constitution requires that there shall not be any state religion and that the
state shall treat all religions equally. It does not, however, prevent the state from
3
Secularism and the law
financially assisting educational institutions sponsored by the ‘church’ or religious
organizations. The state has also reserved to itself and has sometimes exercised the
right to interfere in the religious practices of various communities in the interest of
their peaceful coexistence and cultural development. Although freedom of religion is
granted to all people as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the constitution,
Article 44 directs the state to enact a uniform civil code applicable to all irrespective
of their religions faith and beliefs. Further, the directive principles contain a special
provision-enunciating ban on cow-slaughter as a desirable policy.
Is India truly secular? Well, if we go through the basic feature of secularism as
understood in the west, it can be seen that state has nothing to do with religion and
there will be no discrimination between citizens on the basis of their religion or form
of worship and that everybody will be equal before law. If this is true secularism,
India ceases to be secular for it has different sets of laws for different communities.
For instance, in the case of Muslims, a separate civil code exists, though Article 44
requires the state to frame a uniform civil code. Moreover, concessions given to
certain communities on the basis of religion undermine the theory of secularism and
create perhaps, grounds for a rapid increase of majority communalism.
If we analyze the various legislations, which are in vogue in our country, we
would find that some of them are not in consonance with the concept of secularism.
For instance, under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, bigamy is an offence and a
person, who contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting, is
guilty of the offence. But this provision is in applicable to those people who can have
more than one wife as per their religion. The very fact that operation of a penal
provision is not alike among all people and that it is dependent on one’s religious
faith tantamount to making a mockery of the very concept of secularism. Similarly,
the enactment of the Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
with a view to circumvent the apex court’s decision in the ‘Shah Bano case’ and to
4
Secularism and the law
treat the divorced Muslim women differently from their counterparts in other
religious faiths can not be termed as secular. To deny rights to Muslim women which
are available to the women of other faiths is a violation of the provisions of the
constitution that the state shall not discriminate against any citizens as grounds of
religion. Although Article 15 of the constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis
of religion, even today the rights and liabilities of people relating to maintenance,
inheritance etc. differ according to their religion. This casts a shadow on our claim of
being a truly secular state.
It is a matter of great concern that secularism is struggling for survival in our
country now. The anti thesis of secularism is communalism, which is gaining
momentum in our society at an alarming pace. The mixing of religion with politics
and the dangerous growth of communal parties pose a major threat of the secular
framework of our country. India is a secular state and yet communalism continues to
shape its policies. Frequent occurrences of violence in the name of religion give fatal
blows to the very existence of secularism. There have been reports that some state
governments were partisan and were instrumental in aggravating communal violence.
Such shocking incidents would undoubtedly affect the secular credentials of our
country. The divorce of politics from religion is the need of the hour and unless this
task is expeditiously accomplished, secularism is bound to have its last breath in our
country. The constitution of India does not clearly and explicitly and hence there is
hardly any remedy if the state acts in an un secular way.
The Indian concept of secularism is full of contradictions and therefore, is
unable to provide a clear, un-ambiguous guidelines either to the individual or to the
state. As a consequence, the religious values continue to dominate the day-to-day
affairs and in the process generate tension because of plurality of religious views. In
such circumstances, it is imperative that serious attention is paid to revive secularism
and curb communalism. A secular state in India is not only necessary from the point
5
Secularism and the law
of view of the religious minorities by is in the interest of all the people in India
including the majority community. In order to permanently banish the recurrence of
communal riots, it is necessary to advance the concept of secularism. We need to
progress to a stage where politics is completely free of religion and religious freedom
of an individual is allowed only to the extent that is does not interfere with the
personal freedom of others and betterment of the society in general.
With that end in view, we need to have a second look at the provisions of the
constitution concerning secularism. At present, there is hardly any remedy available
to us against the state jettisoning secular path or for using the organs of the state for
religious and communal purposes. There is nothing in the constitution to stop
formation and functioning of communal organizations and groups and their
participation in elections. Such loopholes need to be plugged without any
procrastination.
Over and above all these measures, there is need for positive change in the
attitude and outlook of the society towards Secularism. In a multi-religious, multi-
racial and multi-cultural developing society like India, it is necessary that rulers,
leaders, administrators and citizens have very clear ideas about Secularism. If we are
to evolve a secular state, we need to produce secular minds.
6
Secularism and the law
Secularism- Constitutional provisions and need to strengthen secular values
K. SRINIVASAN
India has a long tradition of secularism. It was not only a cradle of many
religions, but also of progressive thoughts, Charvakas and Lokayatas opposed
religious practices. Gautama Buddha and Mahavira propagated tolerance and non-
violence and equal respect to all. Social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who
opposed the inhuman custom of Sati, championed secularization of society and
positive interference of the state with a view to curbing antisocial acts of religion.
The advocacy of religious tolerance and equal respect for all religions was, in itself a
progressive step till independence in India.
Secularism in Indian National Movement
The nationalist movement in India, right from the latter part of the 19
th
century,
drew inspiration from the secular concepts. In fact, in Indian nationalism, secularism
was an important strand. Our leaders opposed religious fundamentalism and moves
for the partition of the country on religious basis. Mahatma Gandhi considered
religion a personal matter and he was for the formation of a secular state. Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru was not only a socialist, but also a great champion of humanism
and secularism.
The definition of the word “secularism” in itself is not very clear. It is
generally understood that secularism implies religious tolerance. This word is
supposed to be coined by George Jacob Holyoake. His original definition the term
secularism was – “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the
issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life”. Now the question is
whether India is such a “secular” state.
The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution never hesitated to build India
on secular foundations. They opposed and defeated the amendment of Mr. H.V.
7
Secularism and the law
Kamath to invoke the name of god in the preamble of the Constitution. Pandit
Kunjru said that we invoke the name of God, but I am bold to say that while we do
so, we are showing a narrow, sectarian spirit, which is contrary to the spirit of the
Constitution. The Indian Flag consists of Ashoka Chakra in its center. The wheel
has many spokes but, all are of equal length. It indirectly refers to the Indian stand on
the principle of equal treatment of all religions. (Sarva Dharma Samba ).
A constitution is superior to all the laws of the country. Every law enacted by
the government has to be in conformity with the constitution. The constitution lays
down the national goals of India, i.e. democracy, socialism, secularism and national
integration. On the other hand, India’s challenge, as described by its first prime
minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, has been to build “a secular state in a religious country.”
Indeed, the Indian constitution, which came into force in 1950, affirms “the right to
freely profess, practice and propagate religion.”
On the other hand, the Constitution made no mention of the word “secular”
until 1976 during Indira Gandhi’s brief Emergency rule as the Prime Minister.
India’s founding fathers were deliberately ambiguous on religious rights – both
giving the Muslim minority their own Islamic-based civil code but also promising the
overwhelming Hindu majority that the government would work towards a uniform
civil code. Because the Constitution gives something to everyone, all sides claiming
to march under the banner of secularism. One group says secularism means
government intervention on behalf of persecuted minorities. Another group decry
this as “pseudo secularism” and say true secularism means government remaining
neutral. However, the terms democracy and secularism, as the modern world
understands today, do not approve the authority of any religion with temporal power.
“…THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
into a SOVERIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to
8
Secularism and the law
secure to all its citizens…”. So we have decided that we will create India as a secular
state. The only other place where the word secular appears in our Constitution is in
Article 25 (2) (a) while discussing the “Right to freedom of religion”. Surprisingly in
the Appendix II, which discusses the modification to the text of Constitution as
applicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir, the term “Socialist secular” is omitted
from the preamble.
What is problematic in this context is the absence of a proper definition of
secularism. How can we interpret the term secularism? Do we interpret it as the
complete detachment of state from religious activities or do we accept the original
definition of Holyoake? What is the stand of the government regarding this? To find
answers to these questions, we have to look at the related discussions in the
Constituent Assembly. An important amendment (Amendment 566) was moved in
the meeting dated December 03, 1948 by Prof. K.T. Shah. “The State in India being
secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith; and shall
observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any
class of its citizens or other persons in the Union.” It is now clear that this idea of
making India a secular state was not there in the original draft. It was only on
December 18, 1976 the word “SECULAR” was added in the preamble of our
Constitution. The 42
nd
amendment Act reads – “In the Preamble to the Constitution, -
(a) for the words “SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” the words
“SOVERIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” shall be
substituted”. So the word secular entered our Constitution only almost 25 years after
it had come into effect.
If one makes an attempt to look at the secular aura in our Constitution, the only
point to reach is Article 25, which refers “Right to freedom of religion”. It reads thus
– “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion –
9
Secularism and the law
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this
Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely
profess, practice and propagate religion”. Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious
affairs), Article 27 (Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular
religion) and Article 28 (Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious
worship in certain educational institutions) can be considered as the interpretations of
the principle of secularism in the constitution.
We have seen how Article 25 gives freedom for all to practice any religion they
want. This is a basic right guaranteed in the Constitution. Art. 26 deals with the
freedom to manage religious affairs. Accordingly any religious denomination is
given right to establish religious institutions, acquire properties (movable and
immovable) and manage affairs regarding the religion.
Art. 27 is also very important which reads – “Freedom as to payment of taxes
for promotion of any particular religion. – No person shall be compelled to pay any
taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for
the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination.”
The implication and implementation of this article is debatable. We know that
government gives donations for all major religious activities. Is this action by
government not questionable under this Article? Art. 28 reads – “Freedom as to
attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational
institutions – (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational
institution wholly maintained out of State funds.” This article prohibits any religious
activities in educational institutes. But this limits itself to state-maintained institutes.
Nevertheless, this is one important aspect of secularism in India.
In order to completely understand the interpretation of secularism in Indian
context, it is important to analyze these Articles. This along with a few judgments of
Supreme Court can give us a clear idea on this issue.
10
Secularism and the law
Before looking into the Articles in the Constitution that are supposed to
interpret the idea of secularism, it will be worthwhile to look into one important
judgment given by the Supreme Court of India viz. Kesavananda Bharati vs. Kerala
case which was decided by a full Constitutional bench of judges on April 24, 1973.
By a water-thin majority of 7-6, the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the
Constitution under Article 368 couldn’t be exercised in such a manner as to destroy
or emasculate the fundamental features of the Constitution. In identifying the
features, which are fundamental and thus non-amendable in the constitution was this
statement – A secular State, that is, a State in which there is no State religion (5(vii)).
This was (probably) the first time that the concept of secularism was interpreted by
the Supreme Court. Here we get the first authorized interpretation of the word
“secular” as mentioned in our Constitution. So our basic idea of being a secular state
is that we do not have a state religion.
Every time secular India has demanded that the system of personal laws based
on religious injunctions should be done away with, Article 44 which enjoins upon the
government to adopt a Uniform Civil Code that should be taken for what it was
meant to be a cornerstone of state policy in a modern nation state. However, a
countervailing cry has gone up alleging that it is an assault on the identity of minority
communities. We know that there is a directive principle in the Constitution that
calls upon the government to enact a uniform civil code.
The 42
nd
amendment to the Constitution introduced by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the
then Prime Minister, reiterated the secular character declaring India as a “socialist,
secular, democratic state”. The fundamental duties incorporated in the Constitution
through the same Amendment make it the responsibility of every citizen to strive for
the promotion of the spirit of enquiry, scientific outlook, humanism and reform. The
Constitution of India abolished untouchability and prohibited its practice in any form.
11
Secularism and the law
Special preferences in the name of religion do not exist. In India, secularism does not
mean mere separation of religion and state but, the abolition of the practice of
untouchability and promotion of castelessness. Secularism has been one of the
essential elements in the basic structure of our Constitution which lays down that 1)
the state has no religion; 2) all citizens have the fundamental right to follow and
propagate their own religion; and 3) it is the duty of the state to protect and secure the
life, liberty and property of all the citizens of the country. Further, the state will not
discriminate between the citizens on the grounds of religion and language. Thus, it
may appear that our Constitution has been based on secularism or dharma
nirapekshita, our society is steeped in religion.
Chief Justice of India A.M. Ahmedi opined in a case that the term secular has
advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of
a precise definition but perhaps best left undefined……There are several features of
the Constitution which are strongly suggestive of secularism. The prevalent cultural
indicators are supportive of secularism. Some other judges have delivered separate
but concurring judgments on secularism as basic structure. Secularism is,
therefore, part of the fundamental law and basic structure of the Indian political
system to secure to its people socio-economic needs essential for man’s excellence
with material, moral prosperity. Some other judgments read as “secularism is thus
more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance.”
A conference on secularism was held at Vijayawada on October 22
nd
1968,
which was inaugurated by Justice V.M. Tarkunde, the then judge of the Bombay
High Court and a radical humanist leader. He said that the concept of secular state
does not merely imply that the state will be impartial to all religions; it implies that
the state will have nothing to do with religion. Mr. Tarkunde said that the
constitutional provisions might entitle one to claim that ours was largely a secular
state, but merely law could not create a truly secular state. While the constitutional
12
Secularism and the law
provisions represented a significant advance towards the ideal of a secular state, a
good deal had yet to be done before the ideal could be achieved.
Mrs. Chennuapati Vidya, M.P. from Vijayawada introduced a private member
resolution in Lok Sabha (House of the People) on the Necessity to strengthen
Secularism. It was discussed in the Lok Sabha on April 23, 1982. Keeping in view
the secular character of our Constitution and the fact that secularism is one of the
basic tenets of our State Policy, this House recommends to the Government to take
immediate steps to:-
a) Promote a sense of castelessness through inter-caste and inter-religion
marriages;
b) Prepare suitable text books to propagate secular ideas by laying emphasis on
fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution; and
c) Encourage secular outlook among the employees working in Government and
Public Sector Undertakings.
Secularism is an indispensable part of the basic structure of India’s
Constitution. Not only is it postulated in the preamble, the light of this principle
radiates in several provisions of the Constitution. As for the National Policy on
Education (NPE), formulated in 1986 and revised in 1992, it states that the national
system of education will be based on a national curriculum framework, which
contains a common core along with other components that are flexible. The
common core is to be designed to promote values, which include India’s common
cultural heritage and secularism. The policy makes an unequivocal statement: “All
educational programmes will be carried on in strict conformity with secular values.”
In India, secularism receives challenges from many fronts. On one hand,
casteism and communalism appear to be losing their credence, because of the spread
of science and technology and communication, as well as liberal and progressive
outlook. On the other, casteism and communalism are getting a new lease of life
13
Secularism and the law
because of the shortsighted policies of power-hungry politicians and the narrow
outlook of the administrators and the leaders. Instead of proceeding on the path
enunciated in the Constitution, the leaders fanned the communal and caste passions of
the people, with a view to reaping the harvest of votes and to achieving their partisan
ends. The politicization of caste and religion and pampering of communal leaders is
causing great harm to the body politic of the nation. The time has come to strengthen
the secular values, institutions and practices in an uncompromising manner and to
accelerate the pace of change in India.
India is the largest democratic and secularist country. The Indian Constitution
in theory and practice has wholeheartedly adopted the alien concepts of religion and
secularism. Therein lies the root of our problems. We talk of ‘rights’ instead of
‘duty’ with an emphasis on “what is in it for me” instead of “what is it that I can do
for you.” The need of the hour is creating secular society and not necessarily a
secular state, because secular state need not always imply secular society.
14
Secularism and the law
Secularism- A goal and a process
SRIPRIYA RENGARAJAN
“The purpose of the law must not be to extinguish the groups which make the
society but to devise political, social, and legal means of preventing them from falling
apart and so destroying the plural society of which they are members.”
India is the only country in the world where the issue of secularism has
occupied a centre stage in intellectual discussions. Secularism is, as for its genesis,
an alien concept for India envisaging separation of the church and the state – an
apparently impossible proposition in the Indian situation. In practice, however, all
that ‘secular’ means is that the Parliament shall not be competent to impose any
particular religion upon any section of population.
Nehru, on a positive note, observed that the state gives protection and an
opportunity to all religions and cultures and thus brings about an atmosphere of
tolerance and co-operation and equal treatment to all religious communities. Sarva
Dharma Samabhava is the central idea of Indian secularism, however unpalatable it
is to concept puritans.
Secularism and Law through the ages
The secular character of kinship was emphasized by the social contract theories
of ancient India. There is no doubt that dharma and sasana were inextricably
interwoven in ancient times. But, the king had a distinct identity and functional realm
of his own. Moreover, dharma did not signify any established church. Kautilya, with
his unending sense of realism, describes king as the fountain of justice
(dharmapravartaka) and lays down that whenever the sacred law is in conflict with
rational law or the ‘king’s law’, the latter shall prevail. The post-Vedic period,
particularly, abounds in religious polemics and dialectical warfare. There appears to
have been no continuously organized religious persecution or crusade even though
15
Secularism and the law
sometimes there was a measure of state patronage for a particular religion or sect
owing to the personal law of the ruling prince or his clan.
The impact of the Islamic faith on the Indian society would have had a
different history and reckoning had it not been admixed with subsequent Turkish-
Afghan, Turko-Mongol and Mughal invasions which put the assimilative
synthesizing capacities of Indian culture to a severe test mainly because these
invasions introduced an element of political coercion and domination. The pure
theocratic inclinations and the orthodox constitutional jurisprudence attributed to
many of these rulers, who happened to be Muslims did not, it seems, allow them
freely and fully to integrate their subjects belonging to different religions, sects and
races.
During the British rule, notwithstanding the preconceptions of the colonial
power favouring the spread of Christianity, a plausible policy of official neutrality
was formulated. At the same time existing religious differences were so politicized
and encouraged that they led to sharply divisive communal conflicts. Paradoxically
enough, the process of secularization gained considerable momentum under the
British, partly as a result of the impact of the West, partly due to the exigencies of
imperial colonial rule and largely because of the rise of nationalism. On the one
hand, the British power thwarted and retarded national integration in India because
they found it easier to rule by dividing different sections of the people. On the other,
the British ideas and institutions led to progressive unification and secularization of
Indian administrative, legislative and judicial institutions, which became the most
potent promoters of secularism.
The Constitution of India owes its inspiration to the liberal ideals of our
freedom movement, the constitutional evolution and the experience already gained in
the process of modernization and democratization and from the British traditions, the
French Revolution, the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution and the
16
Secularism and the law
worldwide climate for the larger freedom in the wake of the World War II. The
Indian constitution embodies the quintessence of diverse facets of secularism. It is a
mistake to think that the Indian Republic became more secular when the Preamble of
the constitution was amended and the word secular inserted by the Forty-Second
Amendment Act of 1976. It is also a mistake to think that the constitutional
provisions relating to secularism are neatly and separately packaged in the fascicules
of provisions beginning with Article 25 and ending with Article 30 of the
constitution. Doubtless, the right to freedom of religion and the cultural and
educational rights are important and integral part of Indian secularism but Indian
secularism extends far beyond the confines of the bundle of rights contained in the
aforesaid provisions.
Secularism is a goal as well as a process. As an ideology and a bundle of
working norms, it is conditioned by the past legacies and the prevailing realities.
Secularism in our country is an ally of nationalism and national integration.
Secularism in the Indian Constitution is Very simple, it asserts that:
1. The state by itself shall not espouse or establish or practice any religion.
2. Public revenues will not be used to promote any religion.
3. The state shall have the power to regulate any economic, financial or other
secular activity associated with religious practice – Article 25 (2)
4. The state shall have the power through the law to provide for social welfare
and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public
character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
5. Article 17 constitutionally outlaws the practice of untouchability.
6. Every individual person will have under Article 25 an equal right to freedom of
conscience and religion.
7. These rights are however subject to the power of the state through law to
impose restrictions on the ground of public order, morality and health.
8. These rights are furthermore subject to other fundamental rights in Part III.
9. The courts, especially the Supreme Court shall have the final say on adjudging
state action as valid or otherwise under the above principles.
17
Secularism and the law
In Keshavananda Bharti, the full court inscribed secularism as an essential
feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution; in 1957 Justice Khanna, in
Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain reinforced this view. Both these momentous
decisions signify that even Parliament may not modify, by constitutional amendment,
these nine features. By this time, the nine features of secularism had marshaled
behind them a quarter century of national constitutional consensus. To these features
has been now added, a fundamental duty of all citizens under Article 51 A to preserve
the rich heritage of our composite culture. Clearly, the redefiners of secularism have
not asked for abolition of Article 17 or Article 25(2) (a) or (b) or Article 26, 30 and
290-A. Equally they are not saying that the Supreme Court should not have the
power to interpret the scope of rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26; certainly
they are not unhappy with Hanif Qureshi vs. State of Bihar, a decision which held
that sacrifice of a cow is not an obligatory act enjoined by Muslim religion nor with
the result upholding both Orissa and Madhya Pradesh legislations forbidding
proselytization by Christian missionaries which involved force or fraud and they were
not unduly upset by Mary Roy’s judgment striking down Christian laws of
inheritance on grounds of gender justice. Nor was public dissatisfaction voiced on
prohibition on Anand Margi’s Tandavnritya accompanied by sharp weapons and
human skulls.
No outrage was expressed when prohibition of bigamy was upheld by the
Supreme Court in 1966. Further, the redefiners, as well as their brethren pseudo-
secularists, were one in rejoicing at Supreme Court verdict on Shah Bano and acted in
wholesome concert in denouncing its Parliamentary reversal. Clearly, at one glorious
historical moment, secularism had a translucent and compelling meaning.
Manifestly, what the re-definers of secularism were directing their energies on what
they perceived as unequal exercise of power of the state providing for social welfare
and reform of religious practices. And this is, so despite Article 13, which declares
18
Secularism and the law
that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement
of the Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of
fundamental rights, shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. They consider
the inability and the reluctance of the Indian state to subject laws other then Hindu
personal law to the constitution as appeasement to minority fundamentalism.
Moreover, the post Shah Bano discourse is viewed as tainted by violation of directive
principles enjoining the state to endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil
code throughout the territory of India.
Secularism and Legal Distortions
Religious tolerance, which is the essence of Indian secularism, presupposes
mutual understanding. This mutual understanding is possible if we are aware of the
basic principles of our religion as well as religion of others. Secularism has been
accepted today as the guiding principle of state policy and action. Indian secularism
is the product of our cultural heritage, personal attitudes, historical circumstances and
domestic compulsions. All religions are given equal protection in the constitution.
Resultantly, there are religious endowment trusts, waqf boards etc. established under
the law. Secularism, in the positive sense, is the cornerstone of egalitarian and
forward-looking society, which the constitution purports to establish. The point is
that the Indian state is not supportive of any particular religion or religious
community. However, it may be stated that our aspirations for a socialist and secular
state have only been wishful thinking or just plain optimism.
Secularism Vs Individual Freedom
Freedom to individuals and religious groups can be granted by the State as long
as it does not interfere with the freedom of others and is not detrimental to the
maintenance of law and order, public health, morals, safety and sovereignty of the
State. At the same time, the State has the right to impose necessary restrictions on
this freedom of individuals for its security, sovereignty and the well being of the
19
Secularism and the law
majority of its citizens. Besides giving this religious freedom, a secular State refrains
from making discrimination against any individual or group on religious grounds.
The rights of these citizens are decided in such a state irrespective of their religious
beliefs. Now if we take this concept as secularism, India can hardly be categorized as
secular state. This is because she is constitutionally bound to give special protection
and privileges to religious minorities with regard to their education, employment and
personal laws. Similarly, while making laws for its citizens, the state refrains from
making interference with the personal laws of religious minorities. Some important
changes have been made in the Hindu religious laws but minority personal laws have
been left untouched by the lawmakers.
In this context, it is highly pertinent to discuss the two important milestone
cases of Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas. In the earlier case the decision of the
Supreme Court impinged on the issue of conversion when it was held that the second
marriage of the Hindu husband after conversion to Islam, without having his first
marriage dissolved under law, would be invalid and the apostate husband would be
guilty of the offence of bigamy u/s 494 of IPC. The Supreme Court emphasized the
need for having a uniform civil code because of the conflict faced by the court due to
conflict of personal laws. The conflict could be resolved only through legislative
intervention and the result of such an exercise would result in the enactment of a
uniform civil code.
The dilution of the Sarla Mudgal case in the subsequent case of Lily Thomas
brings out a critical question as to whether the court is competent to draw attention of
the State or otherwise issue any direction to the State to make any constitutional
amendments to achieve this objective. In the earlier case, the Supreme Court tried to
make the government aware about realization of the directive and the pattern of
20
Secularism and the law
debate put forward in the latter case is that the uniform civil code though desirable,
may be counter productive.
The best cause in this matter would be reforming of the personal laws through
the process of rationalization before bringing about the code. The abolition of
polygamy and restraining the unilateral power of the Muslim husband to divorce his
wife can be the trendsetters in this direction. This may not hurt muslim sentiments as
this type of reform had already taken place in Islamic countries like Syria, Morocco,
Pakistan and Tunisia and the Islamic Republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union. In the
case of John Vallathom Vs. Union of India, the absence of a uniform civil code led
to discrimination of the Christians for more than fifty years. A law that stood as an
impediment to render justice in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution was
needed to be struck down.
Traditionally, the personal laws regulating relationships in the realm of
marriage-divorce, inheritance-succession, minority-guardianship, adoption-
maintenance are closely tied up with religious practices and any attempt against this
pattern will evoke susceptibilities. As discussed earlier the codification of Hindu law
and bringing of certain other religious communities like the Jains, Buddhists and
Sikhs within the definition of Hindu was achieved by a single stroke of pen and
practice of monogamy was implemented in all these religions instantly. Certain
reforms like equal property rights to women under Mitakshara law in all the States
and abolishing conversion as a ground for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act could be introduced as envisaged under other minority personal laws.
However the crucial question is how to go about this critical exercise. The
basic premise of the promised common civil code is that there is no necessary
connection between religious and personal laws in a civilized society. This indeed is
a profound statement. This simply means that in a civilized society which is
invariably multi religious, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-caste, the social
21
Secularism and the law
relations are required to be regulated on a basis that cuts across all such
considerations as of religion, race, caste, sex etc. Moreover envisaged common civil
code under Article 44 need not be taken as anti-religion, foreclosing all association of
religious sentiments with the institution of marriage. In sum, in view of the clear and
categorical commandment of Article 13 of the constitution, the State under article 44
should have no alibi to move in the direction of securing a uniform civil code. The
envisioned code would indeed be invaluable input for augmenting human resource
development at no expense of State resources. Else, the principles so prudently
prescribed by the founding fathers of our constitution shall cease to be fundamental in
the governance of the country.
Sixty years after independence women continue to be governed by religious
laws in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance and inheritance. In the process
they get deeply enmeshed in deciphering religious texts and interpreting them as
happened in the Shah Bano case.
Is such excessive entanglement with religion by the State and its judiciary
constitutionally permissible?
Relegating matters of family law into the realm of private law as opposed to
public law and linking it up with religion ensures the hands off policy of state to the
women’s issues and consigns them to the mercy of mullas and pandits.
Is there anything in the Indian Constitution that permits such State sponsored support
of religion and religious laws, even when they blatantly violate other Fundamental
Rights?
Essential Core Test: The current judicial analysis of the scope of the right to
freedom of religion, its meaning, content and limitations is entirely wrong. While
deciding whether a particular law violates freedom of religion, judges have got
hopelessly entangled in finding out whether the law interferes with the essential core
or practice of the religion. If it does, the law is held to be bad; it does not, the law
22
Secularism and the law
passes the test and is held valid. This test for determination of the constitutional
validity of a law alleged to violate freedom of religion is hopelessly incorrect and
leads to dangerous conclusions. For example, a law is enacted abolishing polygamy
or unilateral talaq among Muslims or conferring equal rights to men and women on
matters of inheritance. Can it be argued that a law abolishing them is
unconstitutional because they form essential core of religion? Therefore the true test
would be whether there is compelling state interest in making the law and if the
state’s interest is compelling then the regulation stands or else it fails. To date this
principle was followed in National Anthem case where the judge proceeded to find
out whether there is compelling state interest to expel the children for not singing the
National Anthem on grounds of public order, health or decency. The answer was in
the negative and the children’s rights were upheld. The attitude of the Indian State to
personal laws reflects its inability to separate itself from the religious affairs, thus
making religion a convenient tool for the oppression of women.
Indian secularism is religion affirming and not religion negating. The
necessary corollary to the absence of state patronage to any religion is the freedom of
religion to all. The Constitution permits practicing and propagating religion. But the
right to propagate one’s religion does not give right to convert any person to one’s
own religion. The practices of conversions from Hinduism to Christianity, Islam and
Buddhism are against the secular provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore unlike
in India, the constitutions of many countries in the world that provide freedom to
religion do not guarantee the right to propagate as a fundamental right. The Swiss
Constitution simply declares through Article 49 “freedom of creed and
conscience is inviolable”. The Constitution of Ireland and Japan says that the
freedom of religion is guaranteed to all and so is the case of China but it is the hitch
that nowhere religious propaganda is a fundamental right. (Art. 20 and Art. 44). The
23
Secularism and the law
spirit of this right available in our country is in consonance with the provisions of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The decision arrived at by the judges in the S.R. Bommai’s case and Ismail
Faruqui’s case reemphasized the concept of secularism being the basic feature of the
Constitution. There was no dissent by any judges in this regard and the proposition
laid down by the court can be hardly regarded as Obiter Dicta but the law of the land.
The only issue relating to the basic feature was whether secularism is a basic feature
of the Constitution, which was answered in the affirmative. It would be thus clear
that Constitution made clear demarcation between religious part personal to the
individual and secular part thereof. The State does not extend patronage to any
religion; State is neither pro-any particular religion nor anti-any particular religion. It
stands aloof, in other words, it maintains neutrality in matters of religion and provides
equal protection to all religions subject to regulation and actively act on secular part.
Acquisition of certain land under Ayodhaya Act, 1993 was held to be negation of law
and therefore invalid and the court held that the greatest religious tensions are not
those between any one religion and another; they rather are the tensions between the
fundamentalist and pluralist in each and every religious tradition.
The intention of the constitutional guarantee on minority rights, as we
understand it is to promote and to protect the distinctiveness of religious and
linguistic minorities in the country. Over the years, various court judgments have
done much to clarify the gray area lying between minority rights on the one hand and
the larger social good on the other. The question on reservation also becomes another
hotly debated issue. Should minority groups be excluded from reservations merely
on the basis of their religion? Such question needs to be answered clearly after
further discussion until a national consensus is reached. To use minority defensively
to resist the requirements imposed at times, be it running the educational institutions
24
Secularism and the law
or other institutions in the long run, undermines the very legitimacy of minority rights
themselves.
In conclusion, it is religious communalism that undermines minority rights,
often with attacks from the outside by religious communalists from the majority
community, but also with mis-adventures from the inside by extremists from the
minority itself.
From a nationalist perspective we must be ashamed that the Indian tryst with
the secular destiny of wiping every tear from every eye is making head way steadily
backwards in law and much more in life. Why not ban at least the religious symbols
in the elections, forbid political parties with communal labels from the hustling, plead
with Gandhi salesman and Marx merchants to avoid coalition with caste and religion
oriented groups? Can’t we begin the battle for a secular political culture and public
life? Can’t we mass-vaccinate, through a big movement and people’s mobilization,
every Indian against anti-secular disease? Blush, if you can, in a higher dimension
than the author meant, I conclude with a quote from VICTOR HUGO: “I am for
Religion against Religions”.
25
Secularism and the law
Secularism- Complex relation between Religion and Law
KUMAR RAVI
The concept of secularism is not new to India. The vision of secularism -
'sarwa dharma sambhava', i.e., tolerance for all religions - has always been there in
our country and has its roots in the Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda and Rig Veda and
Akbar’s Din-e-Ilahi. However, the word ‘secularism’ was not used in the Indian
Constitution until the 42
nd
Amendment in 1976, which incorporated the word
explicitly in the Preamble. This does not mean that the concept of secularism was not
evident in the 'Constitution or Indian laws. The whole philosophy of Indian
Constitution is based on the three tenets of Equality, Fraternity and Justice. The
concept of secularism is encapsulated in the broader concept of right to equality i.e.
no citizen shall be discriminated by the state on the grounds of caste, sex, religion,
race or colour. The right to freedom of religion is a natural corollary to this concept,
which lays down the basic principles of secularism in India. Indian laws, which
include union and state laws, have been enacted in this broader definition of
secularism. Since secularism in India does not completely separate religion and state,
and the country had a bitter experience of partition because of religious animosity just
before its political birth, the functioning of secularism has not only been a complex
issue but also very sensitive political agenda. Many questions have been raised: Are
the Indian laws really secular in all aspects? How has the state endeavored to secure
the religious freedom of all citizens? How have the laws functioned in the last 50 odd
years? How the rights of religious minorities have been protected? Has the concept of
secularism been politicized? Do we really have any concrete definition of secularism?
And many more such intriguing questions which has made the relation between
secularism and law much more complex.
Before looking at the relation between secularism and law, it is important to
consider what secularism in India means. This concept in India is very different from
26
Secularism and the law
what is practiced in the West. According to Encyclopedia Britannica it means: 'Non-
spiritual, having no concern with religious or spiritual matters... anything which is
distinct, opposed to, or not connected with religion'. Thus, a secular state is one,
which is not connected with and not devoted to religion. It means separation of
religion and state in the West i.e. state shall not involve in any religious activity. This
is, however, not true in India. The Indian Constitution does not envisage an
irreligious or non-religious state. It only tells that all religions shall be treated equally
and there shall be no discrimination among the citizens 'only' on the basis of their
religion in any form or manner (Art. 15). The difference lies, therefore, in the fact
that whereas in the case of western states the discrimination by state is absolutely
banned, the constitution of India permits discrimination on condition that the
religious ground is accompanied by another reasonable ground. By virtue of this, the
state is empowered to legislate different laws applicable to different communities.
This further means that the state can accord legal recognition to its people not only as
citizens but also as members of different communities i.e. as Hindus, Muslims, etc.
The Constituent Assembly also discussed the prospects of banning religious
legislation but ultimately the state was left free to enact such kind of legislation as
part of unique secular polity of India. Thus, the concept of secularism in India has
been defined in accordance with multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-lingual
identity, and the ancient religious tradition of the country.
After the 42nd Amendment, India came to be characterized as a 'Sovereign,
Socialist, Secular and Democratic Republic'. The precise sense in which the word
secular is used is clarified by the corresponding term 'pantha nirpeksha'
(denominationally neutral) in the Hindi version of the document. Besides Preamble,
the Constitution contains many provisions to establish the secular character of the
Indian polity. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on
grounds of religion, caste, sex, or place of birth; Article 16 guarantees equality of
27
Secularism and the law
opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of one's religious identity;
and Article 17 abolishes the practice of untouchability. Articles 25 to 30 deal
specifically with the freedom of religion which are as follows: "Freedom of
conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion" (Article 25);
"Freedom to manage religious affairs", which includes the right "to establish and
maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes" (Article 26); "Freedom as
to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion" (Article 27); "Freedom
as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational
institutions", with the clarification that "No religious instruction shall be provided in
any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds" (Article 28);
"Protection of interests of minorities" (Article 29); and the "Right of minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions" (Article 30). However, all the
freedoms and rights conferred by Articles 25-30 are "subject to public order, morality
and health". Not only that they are to be exercised in a manner that is progressive in
spirit. Clause 2(b) of Article 25 provides for state intervention within the framework
of the said article to promote 'social welfare and reform', for example, throwing open
the Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of
Hindus.
Article 44 of the constitution is an important stone in the Indian secular fabric.
It requires the state to 'endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code'
throughout India. It is, however, included in the chapter of Directive Principles of
State Policy, which has no legal enforceability. The spine of controversy revolving
around UCC has been secularism and the freedom of religion enumerated in the
Constitution of India. Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary
connection between religion and personal law in a civilized society. Marriage,
succession and like matters are of secular nature and, therefore, law can regulate
them. The UCC will not and shall not result in interference of one's religious beliefs
28
Secularism and the law
relating, mainly to maintenance, succession and inheritance. This means that under
the UCC a Hindu will not be compelled to perform a nikah or a Muslim not to be
forced to carry out sindur-daan.
The issue of Uniform Civil Code opens discussion on the nature and working
of Personal Laws in India. The subject of personal law is related to a very important
feature of secularism, i.e; the protection of minorities in a plural setting. Secularism
sans protection to minority religious and cultural groups creates majoritarianism. To
protect minority interests, special protection measures need to be undertaken to cover
the need for different identities and cultures and this is at odds with strict secular
principles. The Constitution is ambiguous on the issue of personal laws, as arguments
in favour and against are both based on provisions laid in the Constitution.
Opposition to reform of personal laws is based on the freedom of religion and
conscience, whereas the guarantee to citizens of equal protection from the law and
before the law supports a uniform civil code. This issue also raises questions
concerning the hierarchy of rights - can the right to be governed by personal laws (a
component part of the right to freedom of conscience) have precedence over the right
to equality - and legal pluralism in a diverse society.
In the Constituent Assembly debates, there were wide differences amongst the
members on the issue of personal laws. On the one hand, there were demands to
protect religious freedom, especially minority interests and on the other, to have a
uniform civil code for all, based on a notion of homogenized citizenship. Unable to
arrive at an agreement, a uniform civil code was seen as a goal to be implemented
and was included in the directive principles. Personal laws of minorities were
maintained and thus, the whole gamut of family, property, marriage, divorce and
adoption rights were left within the fold of religious legislation.
Judicial pronouncements are important in determining the essence of the
implications in our Constitution. As early as 1954, in the State of Bombay vs ‘Narasu
29
Secularism and the law
Appa Mali’ case, it was held that personal laws do not fall within the ambit of laws in
force and therefore, are not void even if they conflict with fundamental rights.
Religious denominations had autonomy and personal laws were recognized as extra
constitutional laws. The judicial perception was that personal laws did not fall within
its purview; scriptures and religious texts were not subject to judicial review.
However, the Shah Bano judgment of 1985 overturned this view and the
Supreme Court took up the role of bringing in reform. The Shah Bano case concerns
an old Muslim woman who went to court against the way her husband had divorced
her. In 1978, 65-year old Shah Bano filed a petition demanding alimony from her
husband, who had abandoned her for another woman after over 40 years of marriage.
According to Muslim law, Shah Bano was entitled to three months maintenance. The
Supreme Court heard the matter years later and upheld her right to maintenance. It
ruled that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code overrides Muslim Personal
Law (shariat) in matters of divorce. While doing so, the court also referred to the
need to enact a uniform civil code to promote social justice. It held that no
community is likely to bell the cat by making concessions on this issue; it is the state
that is charged with the duty to do so. The political aftermath of this judgment -
protest by patriarchal sections of the Muslim community - inverted the efforts of the
court. The Rajiv Gandhi government, giving in to pressure, adopted legislation that
abrogated the right of the Muslim woman divorcee to maintenance under section 125
of the Criminal Procedure Code by passing the Muslim Women's Protection Bill.
The judiciary has been very vocal in giving its opinion on the need of uniform
civil code in the country. Justice Kuldip Singh stated in a case that the uniform civil
code was required for national integration. It was stated that minorities should give up
their commitment to the two-nation theory and accept reforms in a similar manner as
the Hindus and thus promote national unity. In the recent judgment of July 2003, the
chief justice V N Khare observed that it was a matter of great regret that Article 44 of
30
Secularism and the law
the Constitution has not been given effect. It was argued that the common civil
code will help national integration by removing contradictions based on
ideologies.
The issue of religious personal laws reflects yet another aspect of secularism,
i.e., it is limited secularism. In principle, secularism means equal respect and freedom
of all religions, non-discrimination, and the separation of the sacred and secular but
without special protection to minorities, it is a form of majoritarianism.
The right to Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and
propagation of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order, morality and
health, which has generated enough controversy in the past. The Supreme Court
decreed in a case that Muslims of India couldn’t be given the freedom to kill cows by
way of 'Qurbani' as part of Id VI Adha. The court contended that the killing of cows
could not be regarded as essential practice of Muslims. Also, under Article 48 of the
Constitution, which sought to promote animal husbandry, the court has a reason to
ban cow slaughter - an unacknowledged recognition of Hindu belief in the sanctity of
the cow. Thus, Indian legal system has to make a compromise between the
conflicting interests of different religious groups.
Similarly, the court has intervened in the affairs of Anand Margis by restricting
their religious right to practice Tandav on the grounds of maintenance of public order.
The court in one case allowed the believers of Jehovah faith the right not to sing the
national anthem on grounds of genuine conscientious religious objection as there was
no provision of the law that obliged anyone to sing the national anthem. This has
resulted in the transformation of the laws regarding religious freedom into an over
assimilationist mould, to pave the way for an extensive control of religion and
religious affairs by the state. It has been pointed out that in the name of national
culture and a homogenized notion of citizenship, the state has overridden the
toleration of religious, ethnic and cultural differences. In fact, even the decision of
31
Secularism and the law
what is religion and what is not lies no longer with the religious group/individual; the
court determines it. Also, the legitimacy of a secular state to control religious
institutions, even if the denominations agree, is questionable and so, what should be
the extent of intervention. While it is argued that the secular state should be kept out
of interfering with religious denominations, and the maximum interference that can
be allowed is supervision only, social reforms necessitate state intervention. The
difficulty of restricting the state, separating religion from the secular and the
inconsistency of the judiciary has undermined secularism. The legal issues related to
secularism went to courts very frequently. In a major judgment the Supreme Court
three-judge bench held that Bal Thackeray's speech in the election campaign in 1990
asking Hindu voters to vote for Ramesh Prabhu, a Hindu, and making derogatory
remarks against Muslims, amounted to corrupt practice. This was a bright spot in free
and fair conduct of elections and in restricting the role of religion in election
speeches.
In another case, the Supreme Court held that Hindutva should be understood as
a way of life or a state of mind and was not to be equated with or seen as religious
Hindu fundamentalism. It held: "The words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not
necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict
Hindu religious practices, unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India,
depicting the way of life of the Indian people".
The endorsement of the decision of Union of India to dismiss four BJP-ruled
governments after demolition of Babri Mosque was the high point of the Supreme
Court's protection of secular ideals. The court here justified the dismissal of the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid
demolition. It was further added that the use of religion and caste to mobilized votes
in the elections by any recognized political party would amount to corrupt practice
32
Secularism and the law
and was unconstitutional.
In the landmark judgment of S R Bommai vs Union of India, in 1994, a nine-
judge bench again reiterated that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the
polity. More importantly, here the court strongly held the opinion that secularism
undeniably sought to separate the religions from the politics.
The issue of conversions of poor and illiterate people in remote and tribal areas
especially in Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu has been a major area of
controversy in last few years. The state governments have reacted in different ways to
counter this problem under the pressure of majority religious groups. The constitution
allows freedom of choice of religion to every person in India, which means that a
person is free to make his/her choice of religion/sect and hence conversion is per se
legal. However, a person can change his religion/sect only on his own wish without
coming under influence of allurement, force or threat.
Under the cloak of social service and charitable activities, the missionaries in
the areas of education and health were seen linked to the objective of conversion.
They became the basis of new legislation on the issue of freedom of religion in Orissa
(1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968). When challenged in court it was ruled that "what
is freedom for one, is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can,
therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert another person to one's
own religion", because doing so "would impinge on the 'freedom of conscience'"
guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike. The latest attempt in this direction,
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act (2002), goes well
beyond the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Acts to render conversions, particularly of or
by the dalits, virtually impossible. This is so because of the stringent reporting
obligations imposed upon the converts and the converted, the discretionary powers
conferred upon law enforcement officers. Thus it is evident that law has encroached a
bit far into the secular principle of freedom of religion guaranteed to the citizens.
33
Secularism and the law
The preventive detention laws like TADA, POTO and POTA were although
enacted without any religious colour in the beginning but their functioning has not
been communally unbiased. It is alleged that these laws were targeted against certain
communities, which made specific community skeptical towards such laws.
The relation between religion and law is complex. Sometime the governments
fail to protect the ideals of secularism enshrined in the constitution. The legal
enforcement agencies themselves connive with the miscreants to shake the
foundations of Indian democracy. Such instances indicate that despite fifty odd years
of working of the constitution for bringing secularism in a natural way, the country
has lost its way somewhere and religious discrimination by state still remains a bitter
truth. It appears that all hard work done in the past has gone waste and a deep chasm
has been created between the two largest communities posing a big danger to the
secular framework.
Several questions crop up in the mind: What is the future of secularism in
India? Will fundamentalism go down or go up? How will law protect minority rights?
What is the future of UCC? Do we need another model of secularism?
The fundamental limitation in our quest of answers to the above questions is
very clear: we have no other option. We as a nation must adhere to the idea of
secularism in the present context only i.e. giving equal treatment by the state to all
religions. We are a multi-cultural, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. We have
to respect the differences without compromising on national integration. We have to
consolidate opinion on secular issues. The issue of uniform civil code is deeply
associated with maturity of secular idea. Uniform code on maintenance, heritance etc.
is secular in nature and hence requires immediate consensus through debate and
active participation by all political parties. In democracy, the political parties play a
key role in smooth functioning of system. Every party has its own tailor-made
definition of secularism and, when in power, follows suitable appeasement policy
34
Secularism and the law
without giving any real benefits to people. It is high time that they rise above petty
political considerations. The media and judiciary have critical role to play without
any bias. Despite some dark spots we have been able to keep our country on secular
path and with more education and awareness we will be able to fulfill the dream of
our forefathers.
35
Secularism and the law
Secularism and the Law - Options ahead
DAREZ AHMED
It is not entirely clear what is meant by secularism. It is defined extremely
narrowly by some as the separation of religion from the policy and practice of the
state, with out reference to values justifying separation. Others believe that
secularism is a normative purposive concept because of which the values advanced
by separation in part constitutes its meaning. For a third group, deeper second order
justification is also integral to the definition of secularism. The first two distinguish
political from comprehensive secularism but the third group finds such a distinction
untenable.
Secular is a word that finds its original meaning in a Christian context
‘Saeculum’. The ordinary Latin word for century or age, took on a special meaning as
applied to profane time, the time of ordinary historical succession. This time was
interwoven with higher times, the time of ideas, or of the origin, or of God.
Government was more in the saeculum by contrast with the church. The secularism
of today is built on this original distinction. The origin point of modern western
secularism was the wars of religion.
There were in fact two ways in which this could be done. The first one can be
described as the common ground strategy. The aim was to establish a certain ethic of
peaceful coexistence and political order, a set of grounds for obedience, which while
still theistic were based on those doctrines which were common even to all theists.
There was, however, a second strategy, which consisted in trying to define an
independent political ethic. This allows us to abstract one religious beliefs altogether.
We look for certain features of human condition, which allow us to deduce certain
exception less norms, including those of peace and political obedience. “etsi Deus
non dasetur”… even if God didn’t exist these norms would be binding on us. We
have the basis of an independent ethic.
36
Secularism and the law
Law may be defined as the body of principles recognized and applied by state
in the administration of justice. The law consists of rules recognized and acted on the
courts of justice. The term law consists of principles/rules. The law presupposes a
state. Those rules, which are recognized and applied by state, may be called law. To
ascertain the nature of law one should go to the courts. The purpose of law is to
secure justice. Law is means whereas justice is the end.
Conceptually analyzing the terms secularism and law, it is implied that these
terms presupposes existence of a state. The secular state is a state that guarantees
individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen
irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion,
nor seeks either to promote or interfere with religion. So on close examination we
can see that the conception of a secular state involves three distinct but interrelated
sets of relationships concerning the state, religion, and the individual.
The three sets of relations are:
1. Religion and the individual (freedom of religion)
2. The state and the individual (citizenship)
3. The state and religion (separation of state and religion)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: In the relationship between religion and the individual,
the third factor (state) is ideally excluded. The state cannot dictate or compel any
individual to profess a particular religion. It cannot impose religious tax. There is a
limited area in which secular state can legitimately regulate the manifestation of
INDIVIDUAL
SEPARATION
RELIGION STATE
37
Secularism and the law
religion in the interest of public health, safety or morals. In a secular state freedom of
association for religious purpose is safeguarded.
The Indian constitution provides for the individual as well as collective
freedom of religion. The basic guarantee of this right of individual freedom is in Art.
25 (1). This freedom extends to all persons including aliens underlined by Supreme
Court in Ratilal Panchand vs. State of Bombay. The Indian Constitution makes
freedom of conscience as well as right to freely profess, practice and propagate
religion subject to state control in the interest of public order, morality and health.
But Supreme Court has made it clear that state can have no power over the
conscience of individual – this right is absolute.
The Indian Penal Code (sections 295-8) makes it a crime to injure or defile a
place of worship or to disturb a religious assembly etc. even though these actions
might be sanctioned by offender’s own religion. Practices like devadasi, sati may
have religious sanctions but the state still has constitutional power to ban them.
Art. 25(2) grants to the state broad, sweeping powers to interfere in religious
matters. This reflects peculiar needs of the Indian society. The extensive
modification of Hindu personal law has been by legislation based on this provision.
Art. 25(2) thus authorizes the state to regulate any secular activity associated with
religion, to legislate social reforms. Individual freedom of religion is further
strengthened by Art. 27 which prohibits religious taxation. Art. 28(3) which forbids
compulsory religious instruction or worship in state aided institutions strengthens Art.
25(1).
Collective freedom of religion is spelled out in Art. 26.
Citizenship is a relationship between state and the individual and here again
exclusion of the third factor is essential. The secular state views the individual as a
citizen, and not as a member of a particular religious group. Religion becomes
entirely irrelevant in defining the terms of citizenship; its rights and duties are not
38
Secularism and the law
affected by individual’s religious beliefs. The sum total of these individual-state
relationships constitutes the meaning of citizenship.
After guaranteeing in Art. 14 the right to equality before law and the equal
protection of the laws, the constitution goes on in Art. 15(1) provides that the state
shall not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, sex, caste, place of birth or
any of them. The existence of different personal laws contradicts the principle of
non-discrimination by state contained in Art. 15(1). Art. 326 declares that elections
shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. Supreme Court in Nainsuleh Das vs. State of
U.P. held that the constitutional mandate to the state not to discriminate on the
ground, inter alia, of religion extends to political as well as other rights.
The underlying assumption of separation of state and religion implies religion
and the state function in two basically different areas of human activity, each with its
own objectives and methods. The democratic state derives its authority from a
secular source (the consent of the governed) and is not subordinate to ecclesiastic
power. In a secular state all religions are, in one limited aspect, subordinate to as
well as separate from the state. Under the principle of separation, both religion and
the state have freedom to develop without interfering with one another.
The separation of state and religion is the principle that preserves the integrity
of the other two relationships, freedom of religion and citizenship. The unstated
principle embodied in Indian Constitution is that found in 1931 Karachi resolution of
the Indian National Congress, “The state shall observe neutrality in regard to all
religions”.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SECULARISM AND LAW IN CONTEMPORARY
INDIA
British power in India had a reasonably firm policy of not involving the state in
the matters of religion. In 1858 the most significant step was taken in instituting
39
Secularism and the law
equality before law by enacting uniform codes of civil and criminal law. The reason
why personal law was not brought with in scope of uniform civil code was reluctance
of the colonial state to intervene in matters close to the very heart of religious
doctrine and practice.
In second half of the 19
th
century, rise of nationalism led to the refusal on the
part of Indian elite to let the colonial state enter into areas that were regarded as
crucial to the cultural identity of the nation. This meant a shift in agency of reform –
from the legal authority of the colonial state to the moral authority of the national
community. This underlines the basic assumption in nationalist thinking about the
role of state legislation in religion – legal intervention in the cause of religious reform
was not undesirable per se, but it was undesirable when the state was colonial. One
of the dramatic results of this cumulation of reformist desire within the nationalist
middle class was the sudden spate of new legislations on religions and social matters
immediately after independence.
Even as the new constitution was being discussed, enactment of laws like
Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act 1947, Madras Temple Entry
Authorization Act 1947 were enacted. It was possible to justify some of these laws
on purely secular grounds. In bringing about this purification of Hindu religion, the
legislative wing of the state was seen as the appropriate instrument.
After independence apart from reformist legislation of this kind, an enormous
increase in the involvement of the state administration in the management of the
affairs of Hindu temples, the most significant enabling legislation was the Madras
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951, which created an entire
department of government devoted to the administration of Hindu religious
endowments. Clearly the prevailing views about the reform of Hindu religion saw it
as entirely fitting that the representative and administrative wings of state should take
40
Secularism and the law
up the responsibility of managing Hindu temples as it were the “public interest” of
general body of Hindus.
This reformist agenda was carried out most comprehensively during the
making of the constitution and in the enactment in 1955 of what is known as the
Hindu Code Bill, which was series of laws called the Hindu Marriage Bill, The Hindu
Succession Bill, etc. New code legalized intercaste marriage; legalized divorce and
prohibited polygamy, inheritance to daughter and permitted adoption. In one and the
same move it sought to rationalize the domain of religious discourse and to secularize
the public domain of personal law. Here the violation of the principle of separation
of state and religion was justified by the desire to secularize.
ANOMALIES OF SECULAR STATE
What are the characteristics of a secular state? First is the principle of liberty,
which requires that state permit the practice of any religion, within the limit set by
certain other basic rights. Second is the principle of equality, which requires that the
state do not give preference to one religion over other. The third principle is
neutrality which is best described as the requirement that the state not give preference
to the religions over non religions and which leads in continuation with liberty and
equality principles, to what is known in US constitutional law as the Wall of
Separation doctrine namely, that the state do not involve itself with religious affairs
or organizations.
The liberty principle can only be limited by a secular state by need to protect
some other universal basic right, and not by appeal to a particular interpretation of
religious doctrine. The urge to undertake reform of Hindu Personal Law made it
difficult for the state not to transgress into the area of religious reform itself. The
desire was in fact to initiate a process of rational interpretation of religious doctrine
and to find a representative and credible institutional process for the reform of
41
Secularism and the law
religious practice. That the use of state legislation to achieve this purpose comes into
conflict with the principle of freedom of religion is anomaly of secular state in India.
The equality principle recognized by constitution was questioned in early
1950s. The fact that the use of state legislation to bring about reforms in only the
religion of the majority was creating a serious anomaly in the very notion of equal
citizenship. As J.B. Kripalani argued “If we are a democratic state I submit we must
make laws not for one community alone….” If it was accepted that the state could
intervene in affairs of one religious community then why not of others? Clearly, the
first principle – that of freedom of religion – could not be invoked only for minority
communities when it has been set aside in the case of majority community. This
anomaly has provided one of the most potent ammunitions to the charge of
appeasement of minorities. Within the minority communities there were organized
attempts to put an end to local customary practices among various parts of India. e.g.
The culmination of these campaigns for a uniform set of personal laws for all
Muslims of India was reached with passing of the so-called Shariat Act by 1937.
Thus even while resisting the idea of Uniform Civil Code the Muslim
leadership has not shunned state intervention. But the minorities are unwilling to
grant to a legislature elected by universal suffrage the power to legislate the reform of
their religions. On the other hand, there do not exist any other institutions, which
have the representative legitimacy to supervise such a process of reform. This is the
impasse on equality principle.
The third principle of separation of the state and religion has also been
stretched. Art. 290(A) makes specific provision of money to be paid every year to
Travancore Devasom Fund by governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The
conclusion is inescapable that the wall of separation doctrine of US Constitutional
Law can hardly be applied to the present situation. This is precisely the ground on
42
Secularism and the law
which the argument is made that Indian secularism has to have a different meaning
from western secularism.
The Shah Bano case has bearing on two issues of India as a polity made up of
plural religions and cultural communities.
a) Should there be a uniform civil code or should the customary personal laws
prevail?
b) Art. 13(1) of the Indian Constitution says that all laws in force so far as they
are in consistent with fundamental rights shall be void: the fundamental right
include the level of equal protection of the laws for all citizens.
In India there are many views about the desirability of a uniform civil code.
The first view underlines need for a uniform civil code by many sections that do not
share similar views and interests. Secondly, there are the pragmatists who shy away
from imposing a general principle. Finally there are supporters of possibility of
multiple and flexible interpretations.
CONTEXTUAL SECULARISM
“When India is said to be a secular state, it does not mean we reject the reality
of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. It
does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the state
assumes divine prerogatives. Though faith in the supreme principle is basic to Indian
tradition, the Indian state will not identify itself with or be controlled by any
particular religion. We hold that no one religion should be accorded special
privileges in national life or international relations, for that would be a violation of
the basic principles of democracy and contrary to the best interests of religion and
government. No person should suffer any form of disability or discrimination
because of his religion but all alike should be free to share to the fullest degree in the
common life. This is the basic principle involved in the separation of church and
43
Secularism and the law
state”. This is an elegant exposition of meaning of secularism by S. Radhakrishnan.
It is consonant with Gandhi’s faith in the supreme and the reality of the unseen spirit.
Contextual secularism is the view that under certain conditions religious and
political institutions must be separated on the basis of non-sectarian principles.
Separation does not always mean exclusion; principled distance is also one of its
forms. Those who define their identities in terms of traditional practices or modern
institutions are not automatically debarred from public sphere. This is so because the
idea of separation qua principled distance is built into a commitment to participatory
democracy. Any intermingling of religion in whatever form with politics that
violates the basis of equal participation in the democratic process is to be abjured.
What does a right based secularism look like? It acknowledges difference –
difference between religious communities and between religious and non-religious
communities – it is unmistakably distinguishable from hyper-substantive secularism.
Because it abstracts not from every substantive content but only from those that are
identifiably controversial or posing to be universal, it is not the same breed as ultra
procedural secularism. Nor does it exclude religious communities from political
arena. Indeed it readily brings them in. Under certain conditions it grants immunity,
privileges and guarantees to these communities, particularly to smaller ones. Surely
it cannot protect the good of small religious communities unless they come into the
political arena – there would be no one to be protected and nothing to guarantee if the
good was antecedently expelled from political sphere. But the good of all
communities must also be safeguarded against the whims of their own members as
well as the fancies of others. No religious community can hope to bring its internal
or external fancies into the political arena.
Furthermore, a minimally overlapping good exists, namely the ordinary but
dignified life for all that cannot be undermined in the name of any ultimate ideal.
44
Secularism and the law
When this is threatened, all ultimate ideals including those infused with religious
flavour, need to be expelled from public arena. In this sense, a right-based secularism
requires that political institutions keep a principled distance from religious
institutions and practices.
Right-based secularism does not foreclose the possibility of working out a
genuinely common good. Rights enter the political arena precisely when different
individuals and groups have abandoned deliberation once the common good;
currently, differences cannot be overcome. But adhere to of rights have not given up
hope that whenever favourable circumstances arise they will pick up the threads from
where they snapped. In other words, an implicit commitment to conduct a dialogue
in future exists within the discourse of rights. The discourse of rights occupies the
space where people have neither given up the hope of living together not yet arrived
at agreement once crucial substantive issues that could bind them into a reasonable
and vibrant unified existence. They abjure the use of force against others, shun action
in haste that snap whatever tenuous bonds exist between groups and individuals and
in full knowledge that common good is currently non-existent remain committed to
its existence in future.
Before a heterogeneous society such as ours, five options exist at any time. By
far the best option is to forever and only have the politics of common good. The next
best when conditions persist, is to have a politics of common good and deploy a fall
back strategy, the politics of right. Next to make do exclusively with the politics of
right. The fourth to altogether abandon participation and rights. Here, individuals
and groups are shut out from participatory democracy and are unable to get courts to
enforce their claim. Under such conditions, discrimination, subordination and
exploitation thrive. Finally, a society may plunge into what Hobbes famously called
the war of all against all – in other words a Bosnian suicide. Most of the societies are
45
Secularism and the law
stuck at level-4. India is fortunate to have a constitution that envisions and supports a
society that has raised itself to level-2. The least we can do is to stay at level-3,
continuing in the meanwhile to refurbish, by critical interpretation of its article, our
faith in the constitution.
What does secularism in India mean today?
A strong defense of minority rights, to be supplemented on the one hand by
deploying the resources of religious tolerance to isolate bigotry and encourage
internal reforms and on the other hand by consolidating whatever space of the
common good already exists.
46
Secularism and the law
Implementation of Secularism related Laws depends on collective conscience of
the people
V.M.V. NAVAL KISHORE
Secularism may be defined as the neutrality of the state in matters relating to
religion or creed. It may also be understood as non-patronizing attitude of the state to
any one religion. In a secular state, there is no state religion and every citizen is free
to preach, practice and propagate any religion. Thus, secularism defines the way the
people of a country carry on their individual affairs as also their behaviour towards
others.
Law may be defined as a set of principles that are laid down for the purpose of
ordering the life of the people in a country. Law may be understood as a combination
of those rules and principles of conduct passed by the legislative authority, derived
from court decisions; and established by local customs. Law defines the do’s and
don’ts for the people of a country in various spheres like business, work, religion etc.
In case of modern state, law also states whether the country is a secular country or a
theocratic one. But, the pertinent question here is, whether a law can really make a
country secular?
India is a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-caste society. It has been so
from times immemorial. India has always kept her doors open to people of any
religion and assimilated them into its mainstream. India has also been the birthplace
of religions like Buddhism and Jainism. Thus, it can be said that India was a secular
country in the past when her citizens were not only free to follow any religion but
also respected the choice of others in following their own religions; this secular state
was established despite there being no laws to ordain so.
The Preamble of our constitution proclaims India to be a secular state. The
word ‘secular’ was incorporated into the constitution vide an amendment. However,
47
Secularism and the law
the non-inclusion of the word did not make the country a theocratic state. The
constitution itself, and later legislations, made provisions for the treatment of all
religions on an equal platform.
Secularism in India is based on the rich heritage and culture steeped in its
various religions. The secular fabric of the country is very well reflected in the
phrase ‘Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam’ which means that the whole world is one family.
India has always been an inclusive society, which has welcomed people of all
religions and faiths with open arms, never discriminating among religions and never
considering any religion or faith to be a threat.
But this secular fabric has not meant that there is no communalism in India. In
spite of a number of laws treating people of all religions at par, India has had a long
history of communal riots, the worst of them being at the time of partition of the
country when blood flowed as rivers. In a land where tolerance is byword for life,
when did this hatred for fellow beings arise? The answer to this question lies in the
British rule of the country, particularly post-1857. Prior to 1857, the British rulers
restrained themselves from interfering in the social structure of the country. Post-
1857, they realized the importance of dividing the people of the country in order to
weaken them. This gave rise to the (in) famous ‘divide and rule’ policy, which they
used, on religious lines thus distancing Hindus and Muslims. The persistence of this
policy of the Britishers is reflected in the painful partition of the country and the
displacement of a large number of people from their hearths and homes. This has
continued even after the independence of the country in spite of the government
being neutral as far as religion is concerned and the constitution ensuring that there is
no discrimination on the basis of religion as far as employment, education etc. are
concerned.
This is apparently on account of minimal social interaction between various
religious communities leading to a distorted view of other communities and its
48
Secularism and the law
practitioners. Such a social interaction is especially important to heal the scars and
pain of the partition. The delicate secular fabric could not withstand the body blow of
the partition.
This situation was sought to be remedied through the provisions of the
constitution. The pain of the partition revisited the country in the form of communal
violence riots from time to time, as if not to let people forget their wounds. The
action or inaction of the political leaders and the administrative system at times also
added to the communal frenzy. Some major events which changed the way world
viewed India were based on communal frenzy viz. Babri Masjid demolition, the
Gujarat riots, Delhi (Sikh) riots.
Babri Masjid located at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh was demolished on
December 6, 1992 by kar sevaks under the guidance of some of our leaders who are
facing trial in the case. The demolition of the Babri Masjid made the fabled respect
for all religions that Indians have a thing of the past. The fact, that a religious shrine
of any religion could be demolished, raises questions about the secularity of the
people of the country as also the conviction of the state towards secularism.
The Gujarat violence of 2002 is a matter of great shame for the country. The
fact, that people were massacred only on account of their belonging to a particular
religion, is unacceptable in any secular nation. The fact, that the administration
reacted late, also raises questions regarding the State’s belief in secularism.
A similar incident, which happened about two decades prior to the Gujarat
violence, was the riots of Delhi in 1984. Sikhs were brutally slaughtered on the
streets of Delhi just because the person who assassinated the then Prime Minister of
India, Smt. Indira Gandhi happened to be a Sikh. It is ironic that this killing
happened to exact revenge for the death of the person who was instrumental in
incorporating the word ‘secular’ in the Indian constitution.
49
Secularism and the law
This shows that law has only an enabling impact on making a country secular.
Whether a country is secular or not is dependent on the way of life of the people,
which is a result of their values, upbringing, culture etc. and it cannot just be imposed
by law. Secularism is more about humanism, i.e. treating fellow beings as human
beings irrespective of their religion. It is not about following different faiths; it is
about letting others follow their faiths. Secularism can be aptly embodied in the
phrase: ‘Do unto others that you want others to do unto you’.
If the people of a country are secular, the legal system of the land, which is
nothing but the collective conscience of the people, would be for the best interests of
all people, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. People who belong to the
same society, which is secular in its thinking and outlook, would then implement
these laws. Such people would then implement the laws in their spirit rather that in
letter. The existing laws would give the functionaries the requisite authority to give
an impetus to secularism.
Thus, we can see that secularism and law are not unlike chicken and egg. The
laws, if defined as the values and way of life, give rise to secularism as respect of
other religions firmly entrenched in values. These laws would give rise to a large
population of enlightened secular people. These secular people would then
implement the formal law of the land, which is secular, i.e. legislation. At the same
time, it has to be kept in mind that promulgating laws cannot impose secularism.
Both secularism and the laws for this cause are dependent on the people and their
values. Though it is not possible to turn every person into a secularist, what is
required is that the collective conscience of the people resists any attempt to polarize
people in the name of religion. I conclude by saying that the values of the people, i.e.
informal law promotes secularism which in turn gives rise to formal laws to uphold
secularism. This formal law gives teeth to the state functionaries to implement the
laws and further secularism through other steps which increases people’s confidence
50
Secularism and the law
in the secular state. Thus, secularism and law require each other for the peaceful co-
existence of the people of various faiths and the consequent development of the
country.
51
Secularism and the law
Building a secular state in a religious society
APPU JOSEPH JOSE
Jawaharlal Nehru in a conversation with the French intellectual Andre Ualraux
said that the toughest part of his job as Prime Minister was to build a secular state in a
religious society. The observation was extremely prescient. One does not have to be a
sociologist to know that the religion pervades every aspect of life in India. Yet,
India’s commitment to secularism implies that we seek to exclude religion from the
sphere of the state. This separation of religion and politics is not a natural Indian
response to the challenges of governance. It is a learned response; something we have
imbibed from the western political theory and practice. Therefore, we need the
buttresses of law to hold the structure of secularism together.
Secularism is the doctrine that the spheres of politics / state and religion must
be separate. According to D.E. Smith, one of the finest scholars of Indian secularism,
“a secular state is one that guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion;
deals with individuals as citizens irrespective of their religion; is not institutionally
connected to a particular religion; nor seeks either to promote or interfere with
religion.” From Smith’s definition, it follows that a secular order has three
components: (1) individual and corporate freedom of religion; (2) citizenship that has
no religious association; and (3) separation of state and religion. Secularism is a
concept that defies easy summarization. There are contending ideas about what
secularism is and should be. Nevertheless, Smith’s definition is useful and has the
advantage of clarity and wide acceptability. We shall use it as a reference point while
exploring the theory and praxis of Indian secularism.
If Indian society is stridently religious, why should we have a secular polity?
Several arguments may be put forth in defense of secularism:
(i) Political institutions and religious institutions are both extremely
powerful; hence, mixing the two would, therefore, undermine
52
Secularism and the law
individual liberty. So any society that values individual autonomy has to
be secular.
(ii) In a religiously plural society, people of all faiths must have equal say in
matters of state, which affect all citizens. Hence, state should be an arena
where one’s religious identity has no significance.
(iii) If religion and politics are not separated, political decisions will favour
religious majorities and democracy will deteriorate into majoritarianism.
(iv) Religion and politics work on fundamentally different premises, viz.,
faith and reason. It is not wise to mix the two.
(v) Finally, in a society of many religions, the co-existence of different
religious communities demand that in matters that concern everyone,
religion be kept away.
In brief, pragmatic considerations (such as co-existence of diverse religious
communities) as well as commitment to ideals such as individual autonomy, equality
and democracy – ideals that all modern societies hold dear – demand a secular order.
In the Constituent Assembly debate, there was a tussle on the issue of
secularism between those who wanted a strict separation between state and religion
(no links theory) and those who wanted India’s centuries old religious traditions to be
reflected in its polity. The latter group proposed an ‘equal respect theory’ of
secularism which respected all religions and granted religious liberty to all. What
came out of the deliberations was a compromise that leaned towards the latter group.
The thinking of the Constituent Assembly on the issue is well brought out by a
statement made by Shri K.M. Munshi in the Assembly, “We are a people with deeply
religious moorings. At the sane time, we have a living tradition of religious tolerance
- the result of the broad outlook of Hinduism that all religions lead to the same God
53
Secularism and the law
… In view of this situation, our state could not possibly have a state religion, nor
could a rigid line be drawn between the state and the church as in the U.S.”
An examination of the provisions of the constitution relating to secularism
shows that while they fulfill the three criteria for a secular state laid down by D.E.
Smith, they fail to establish a clear cut separation between the spheres of state and
religion.
Individual freedom of religion is assured by Article 25 (1). It provides that
‘subject to public order, morality and health and all the provisions of this part, all
persons are equally entitled to freedom of religion and the right to profess, practice
and propagate the religion of one’s choice.’ However, clause (2) of Article 25
imposes limitations on the right guaranteed by clause (1) and reflects the peculiar
needs of Indian society. Clause (2) provides that, ‘nothing in this Article shall affect
the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from making any law – (a)
regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity
which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and
reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all
classes and sections of Hindus.’
Thus, clause (2) of Article 25 appears to have allowed the state to interfere in
the sphere of religion subject to public order. Making use of Article 25 (2) (a), state
manages temples and other religious institutions. In fact, several state governments
have full-fledged department for temple administration. By virtue of Article 25 (2)
(b), State has enacted temple entry laws and affected changes in the personal laws of
communities.
Article 26 provides collective freedom of religion. It provides that ‘subject to
public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof
shall have the right – (a) to establish and maintain institutions of religious and
charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own
54
Secularism and the law
and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in
accordance with law.’ However, this Article also affords considerable scope for
state intervention in matters of religion. The question that which practices can be
regarded as part of religion so as to merit protection under Article 26 as matters of
religion has often been decided by the Supreme Court. The position it has taken is
that a practice must be an essential attribute of religion to merit protection; otherwise
the state is entitled to regulate and restrict such practices. Thus, ironically, Supreme
Court in secular India has become the arbiter of what constitutes the essentials of a
religion.
Article 30 is another Article that seeks to protect corporate freedom of religion.
Clause (1) of this Article, provides that ‘All minorities whether based on religion or
language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice.’ Clause (2) provides that ‘state shall not, while giving grants in aid to
educational institutions discriminate against any educational institution on the ground
that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language.’
The second criterion laid down by D.E. Smith for a secular state, viz.,
citizenship that is free of ties with religion, has been provided for in the Indian
Constitution. Articles 15 (1), 16 (1) and Article 326, which provides that election
shall be on the basis of universal adult suffrage, ensure this.
The third aspect of Smith’s concept of secular state, viz., separation of religion
and state is imperfectly realized in India. In India, there is no explicit provision in the
constitution, which provides that the state shall not have an official religion. Article
27 is an important article for separating state and religion. It provides that “no person
shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated
in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or
religious denomination.” But this article only forbids taxation for the benefit of any
particular religion. Non-discriminatory taxes for the benefit of all religions would be
55
Secularism and the law
constitutional. Even if there is no religious tax, legislature can appropriate funds for
the promotion of religion out of the revenue of the state. This would be in order. As
per Article 30, state can extend grants in aid to schools run by religious bodies.
Although Article 28 places some limits to religious instruction in state schools, it
provides for religious instruction in state funded schools in certain circumstances.
What this analysis shows is that Indian constitution provides for a wall of
separation between state and religion that is extremely perforated. The Constitution
makers knew the value of secularism, but they could not make a wholehearted
commitment to it. Indian Constitution does not contain a straightforward separation
between state and religion as provided by the 1
st
Amendment of the US Constitution.
The relevant part of the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law
respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of….”
Our constitution clearly reveals the limits of law in the face of intransigent
tradition. Secularism as it emerges from our constitution is unique. As Rajiv
Bhargava points out, Indian secularism is ‘contextual secularism’ - a pragmatic
secularism whose object is not so much the realization of ultimate ideals but to create
a livable polity. The imperfect buttress of law has not managed to hold together the
edifice of secularism. It has been steadily crumbling.
Indian secularism, as we have seen, is the outcome of a compromise between
modernists and traditionalists. But like all compromises, it has not found favour with
either camp. The imperfect (porous or perforated) wall of separation between state
and religion has resulted in the state interfering too much in the sphere of religion.
D.E. Smith points out that the state has emerged as the church so far as Hindu
religion is concerned.
56
Secularism and the law
With political parties, whose commitment to secularism is weak, increasingly
coming to power, the imperfect wall of separation has allowed them to change the
character of the state in favour of the majority religious community.
The Supreme Court has unfortunately played second fiddle to the majoritarian
deviation of secularism. In Ismail Faruqui Vs Union of India (1994), the Ram Janma
Bhoomi case, the court endorsed a version of secularism that has its rationale in
Hindu scriptures. The court accepted the claim that secularism in India exists because
of Hindu tolerance. In Suryakant Venkat Rao Mahadhik Vs Smt. Saroj Naik (SC,
1996), an election case, appeal to Hindu sentiments and promise of ‘Hindu Rashtra’
were tolerated by the Supreme Court. It held that Hindutva was to be understood as a
way of life or state of mind and not to be equated with Hindu fundamentalism.
Hindutva, the court held was the way of life of Indian people and a synonym for
Indianization.
In Manohar Joshi’s case (Manohar Joshi Vs Nitin Bhanu Pate 1996), Supreme
Court ruled that the defendants promise during election campaign to establish the first
Hindu state in Maharashtra did not amount to appealing for votes in the name of
religion. In case such as S.R.Bommai Vs Union of India (1994), Supreme Court has
affirmed secularism as a basic feature of the constitution, however, its recent
judgments are deeply disturbing. Supreme Court has, it seems, brought the argument
that symbols of Hindu India stands for Indian culture and history as a whole. Is the
Supreme Court, the guardian of the constitution, becoming a willing accomplice in
the majoritarian project? On the other hand, the emphasis on minority rights, an
essential aspect of our version of secularism has come under increasing attack. Critics
describe it as ‘pseudo secularism’, ‘appeasement of minorities’ and such like. The
Supreme Court seems to share this view as evidenced by its repeated strictures to
implement the uniform civil code. (Sarla Mudgal and others Vs Union of India, 1995;
John Vallamattom and others Vs Union of India, 2003).
57
Secularism and the law
Secularism is meant to allow people of different faiths as well as non-believers
not merely to co-exist, but to live together as well. However, secularism is
increasingly no guarantee for peaceful co-existence of religious communities in
today’s India. Communal riots are breaking out frequently and its perpetrators go
scot-free. This should make us wonder if the legal buttresses that we have created to
hold together the edifice of secularism are any good. Indian secularism is based
allegedly on ‘sarva dharma sambhav’ and ‘religious tolerance’. What we need is true
secularism. The need of the hour is to insist that the law applies equally to everybody
and that even the high and mighty should be answerable to crimes against citizens.
We have a whole gamut of laws such as sections 153, 153 (A), 153 (B), 155, 295 of
the IPC to prevent incitement of communal hatred. There are also the laws against
murder, mayhem and arson. These constitute our secular foundations, not ‘Hindu
tolerance’. Secular ethnic can be strengthened only if we respect the rights of citizens
and stick to the due process of law.
Perhaps the truest indication of the erosion of secularism is that the doctrine
has come under an intellectual onslaught. Secularism in no longer the commonsense
of India. Secularism has truly become a beleaguered doctrine in India. Two of the
most influential intellectual attacks on secularism were launched by sociologists, T.N.
Madan and Ashis Nandy. Madan argues that there is no civilizational niche for
secularism in India. He suggests that institutions of secularism are linked to the
dualistic conception of Christianity. Since Christian doctrine recognizes the
distinction between spiritual and mundane, it facilitates the development of secular
ideas about the division of church and state. He argues that a secular constitution
which denies any role for religion in public affairs is at odds with popular
commonsense in a deeply religious society. Secularism, therefore, is an ideal of
highly westernized elite and sits uncomfortably in Indian society. Ashis Nandy argues
that by forcing religion out of the public arena, secularists have deeply offended the
58
Secularism and the law
religious people. They in turn have turned religion from faith to ideology. Only in its
latter version can religion find a place in public arena. It is the transformation of
religion from faith to ideology that is the cause of religious discord and violence.
Nandy wants the resources of tolerance inherent in traditional religion to be revived.
An engagement with or rebuttal of these two well-known arguments is not in order at
this place. Suffice it to say that 55 years after the introduction of the constitution,
secularism, one of its cardinal principles, has not won universal acceptance. There
must be something fundamentally wrong with the secular order that we have created.
Trying to build secularism through law is a project that is bound to fail. So long
as Indian society remains intransigently religious, secular polity will remain
vulnerable. As of now, there is a wide gap between constitutional norms of religious
neutrality and civic equality and the religion inspired hierarchical values by which
people order their lives. If we need to move from an uneasy secularism to secularism
of conviction, Indian society itself must get secularized. That is to say, science and
reason must regulate social life and religion must become at best a private
consolation. What India needs is nothing short of cultural revolution inspired by the
values of enlightenment. In the initial years of independence, the state actually
promoted these ideas. Pandit Nehru’s call to develop a ‘scientific temper’ must be
seen in this context. But we abandoned the project soon enough.
Secularization is not the eclipsing of God. It is a demand for God to vacate
those areas of life where she/he does not belong. Secularization is a matter of
delimiting, not eliminating the province of God. If a secular polity is desirable - and I
have tried to argue that it indeed is – we should go the whole way and try to create a
truly modern and secular society as well.
59
Secularism and the law
Notes / References :
1. D.E.Smith, ‘India as a secular state’, in Rajiv Bhargava (ed), Secularism
and its Critics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1998, p.178.
2. Rajiv Bhargava, ‘What is secularism for?’ in Rajiv Bhargava (ed.),
Secularism and its Critics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1998,
p.489-491.
3. Shefali Jha, ‘Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates, 1946-1950,’
Economic and Political Weekly, July 27, 2002.
4. Quoted by Shefali Jha, ‘Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates’,
1946-1950,’op.cit.
5. The analysis of Constitutional provisions is largely based on, D.E. Smith,
‘India as a Secular State’, op.cit., pp. 199-220.
6. Rajiv Bhargava, ‘What is Secularism For’, op.cit pp. 516-536.
7. On Supreme Court judgments and secularism see, Sanghamitra Padhy,
‘Secularism and Justice; A Review of Indian Supreme Court Judgments’,
Economic and political weekly, November 20, 2004.
8. Rajiv Bhargava, ‘What is Secularism For’, op. cit., p. 536.
9. The demand for a hard-nosed’ or intolerant secularism’ is made by
Dipankar Gupta, ‘Limits of Tolerance: Prospects of Secularism after
Gujarat,’ Economic and political weekly, November 16,2002.
10. T.N. Madan, ‘Secularism on its Place’ on Sudipta Kaviraj (ed.) Politics in
India, OUP, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 342-348..
11. Ashis Nandy, ‘A critique of modernist secularism’ in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed.),
Politics in India, OUP, New Delhi, 1997, pp. 329-341.
12. The final section owes lot to Meera Nanda, Prophets facing Backwards:
Post Modernism, Science and Hindu Nationalism, Permanent Black, New
Delhi, 2004.
60
Secularism and the law
Secularism and the Law in a multi-religious society
TUKARAM HARIBHAU MUNDHE
At the twilight of Dark Age and dawn of the modern one, emerges the concept
of materialistic world. It focused on the present life instead of contemplating the life
after death. This concept of looking at the life, later on was termed as secularism,
with certain modifications. It implied, to look at the life from materialistic attitude.
The religious considerations did not come into play while leading a life.
Secularism has different connotations. It means different things to different
people and countries, depending on the socio-cultural background and its milieu.
Yet, it has certain central features, which constitute the core of secularism.
1. Secularism envisages that state should not have its own religion;
2. State should not treat individuals on the basis of religion;
3. State should treat every individual equally i.e. give equal opportunity to
everybody irrespective of religion.
Secularism, thus, contemplates the separation of public and private life. An
individual can pursue religious practices in private life, but when it comes to public
sphere, religion is kept at backburner. Secularism in a way, subscribes to the theory
of ‘wall of separation’ between religious practices and public activities of individual.
Though the concept of secularism originated in fifteenth-sixteenth century, it
has not acquired uniform character throughout the world. It means certain things to
the United States, different things to France and still different to India. Secularism
takes different meaning in different countries.
In the United States, secularism implies the concept of liberty and equality in
religious matters. It contemplates that every individual concedes the liberty to choose
religious practice in his discretion. Neither the state nor society will come in the way
of individual. Similarly, the state provides equal treatment to every individual. No
religion is superior or inferior in the eyes of law. This is called ‘wall of separation’
61
Secularism and the law
between the individuals and private life and public sphere of action. Religious
principles, in France are not recognized. There is little tolerance of religious
principles at public places. For instance, in public schools and institutions religious
symbols cannot be displayed as it affects public life. On the same basis, the sikh
students are not allowed to wear kirpan in public schools. However, Indian concept
of secularism is of different variety. Indian society being multi-religious and multi-
cultural could not accept the concept of neutrality nor that of indifferent attitude
towards religion. India, therefore, has accepted the concept the secularism which
suits its conditions.
India, being a developing society, needs to undertake social reforms. The
social reforms in India necessarily mean socio-religious reforms. Hence, the neutral
attitude of state towards religious matters would not be fruitful. Therefore, state does
not interfere in religious matters; it can reform the secular aspect of it. State can
regulate secular and material spheres of religious activities. For instance, bringing in
secular and positive changes in religious practices, law regarding marriages and the
property rights fall within the ambit of the state. Thus, the concept of Indian
secularism is one of positive neutrality towards religious matters.
India is a multicultural country, wherein the diverse religions, castes, creeds,
etc. are prevalent. Yet, India has maintained its identity as one nation, but none of the
cultural facet is subservient to other. The ‘unity in diversity’ is its manifestation.
Since ancient times, India has upheld the concept of ‘tolerance’ and equal respect for
all religions. Mutual respect for one another is its cardinal principle. The spirit of
tolerance later on came to be known as ‘secularism’. In a way, Asoka’s “Dhamma”
or Akbar’s “Din-i-Ilahi” are nothing but manifestation of secularism.
The framers of the constitution i.e. the makers of modern India were secularist
to the core. This ideology has been reflected in the constitution. Indian constitution
is a secular document. The constituent assembly debates amply reflect the secular
62
Secularism and the law
ideology of the constitution. Though the phrase ‘secularism’ was not specifically
mentioned in the constitution earlier but the spirit of the constitution was thoroughly
‘secular’. The wall of separation has been followed in the making of the constitution.
The endeavour of constitution makers was noteworthy, particularly making
constitutional provisions in the backdrop of religious carnage and holocaust. Despite
the unfortunate partition of the country on religious grounds, Indian constitution is
thoroughly secular. The right to equality as enshrined in the chapter of Fundamental
Rights envisages the ideal of secular society and state. Equality before law, equal
protection of law, equal opportunities and absence of discrimination based on the
principles of religion, race, caste, sex, etc. makes the Indian constitution thoroughly
secular. These principles constitute the very base of the philosophy of the
constitution.
The Indian constitution even goes to the extent of making right to profess,
practice and propagate religion as a fundamental right. Every individual in India has
right to follow any religion, practice it and the state will not come in his/her way.
Even right to propagate one’s own religion is a fundamental right. However, the
fundamental ‘right to religion’ is not absolute right. It has certain restraints in public
interest, morality, public order and decency. One’s right to religion cannot breach the
public order and morality otherwise it will lead to total chaos. The right of minorities
to establish the educational and cultural institutions has been incorporated as a
fundamental right. This provides the platform for cultural minorities to protect their
respective cultures. The secular aspect of Indian constitution goes beyond
fundamental rights. It, in particular, pervades political rights. Everybody in India is
enfranchised equally, without whatsoever considerations for religion. When a person
attains eighteen years of age is provided with right to vote. The delimitation of
constituencies is territorial and not communal. The secular aspect of any constitution
or law can be enforced vigorously only if the society is secular to the core. The
63
Secularism and the law
Indian society is religious to the core, though not anti-secular. The religiosity of
Indian society can be depicted by the religious practices prevalent in the society.
Therefore, the constitution makers contemplated the provisions to make Indian
society a secular and in the form of ‘Uniform Civil Code’ as enshrined in the
directive principles of the state policy.
Article 44 of Indian constitution contemplates a uniform civil code for the
Indian society. A lot of controversy and heated debates have taken place, both in
public and private spheres on the desirability of a ‘uniform civil code’. The issue,
which has created much controversy is whether the ‘Uniform Civil Code’ would be
accepted as the common code of the country as a whole or will it be Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity or any other or combination of all. The personal laws of different
religions have led to heated debates. Every religion practices its own personal laws,
which many a times, if not in confrontation, are in contrast with other personal laws.
In a way, it leads to different personal practices among different religions. Whenever
a question of uniform civil code arises, the issue of marriage comes up. The Muslim
personal law permits bigamy, whereas the Hindu personal law does not.
Bigamy and polygamy had been prevalent norm among Muslims. It goes
against the concept of Human Rights as well as Rights of Women. There is a need of
reform in this matter. However, the hard liners in the Muslim community are
opposed to it on the ground that it amounts to interference in the personal matters of
Muslims, which is banned by the secular nature of the Indian constitution and it
interferes in Shariat. However, it must be remembered that the secular nature of
Indian constitution does not prevent state from bringing about reforms in ‘secular
aspects’ of religion. On the same grounds, Hindu code bill has been implemented
and numerous changes brought about in different spheres of Hindu life. For instance
the prohibition of dowry, ban on bigotry, etc. Nevertheless, the reforms in Muslim
personal law may gain momentum once the Muslim community is more enlightened
64
Secularism and the law
on the issue. The present chaos is due to the lack of information and education.
There is a need of information and education. There is a need for spread of education
in Muslims. Educational reforms will help to a great extent in reforming Muslim
community per se.
Along with the issue of marriage, the controversy regarding ‘divorce’ also
looms large. The laws regarding the ‘divorce’ are different for different religions.
While there are well-established laws for divorce among Hindus and Christians, it is
not the case with Muslims. The ‘triple talaq’ practiced by the Muslims goes against
human rights, women rights and free and fair justice. Of late, there has been some
debate in this regard within the Muslim community itself. Though not sufficient, it
can be considered as a starting point of the reform process in the Muslim community.
Yet another issue regarding the personal laws is the right to inheritance of
property. The controversy is regarding the rights of women in case of inheritance.
Do women possess right to inherit parental property among Muslims? What is the
issue in case of Hindu women? Shah Bano case is pertinent in this regard. A great
opportunity was lost to reform Muslim personal law in regard to right to property of
women. As per the laws passed by the Indian parliament, Hindu women have right to
inherit property of parents. All these issues have become stumbling blocks in the
formulation of uniform civil code. It is the duty enjoined upon the government of the
country to formulate uniform civil code as enshrined in Directive Principles of the
state policy. The governments of country have not been able to stand upto the
expectations in this respect Indian society has also not lived upto the expectations as
society as a whole should push for such reforms. Unless social forces rise to the
occasion, the political class may not undertake such ‘hard’ reforms. Unless social
organizations, civil society and enlightened citizens embark on the mission, no
political class will push for such issues. Political change must be brought about by
the social forces rather than political class.
65
Secularism and the law
Even though the role of legislature and executive has not been worthy in this
respect, judiciary has pronounced certain judgments, which augur good for
contemplating ‘uniform civil code’. It has questioned the rationale of the executive
and legislature for not performing its constitutional duties to implement ‘uniform
civil code’ as per Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. The role of judiciary as one of
the three wings of the government is to legislate as well. It is either through the
interpretation of laws or by filling up the vacuum in the legislation or it can be
through generating public opinion in favour of certain legislation. Indian judiciary,
particularly the supreme court of India is garnering public opinion in favour of
uniform civil code by giving verdicts in its favour and advocating its necessity. The
issue of uniform civil code requires the wider considerations. Neither can decisions
be taken in haste nor can they be taken without wider public debate. There is a need
for wider and greater debate on the issue at various levels and among various
religious communities.
However, uniform civil code must not be imposed, but it should be evolved. It
should not be a patch of religious principles brought in from different religious
scriptures. Rather, it should be reasonable, logical, rational and above all only
secular principles that must be framed as the principles of uniform civil code. These
principles must be acceptable to religious communities and across all sections of
society. The issue of secularism is also intricately interwoven with the socio-
religious reforms. In Indian society, social and religious issues cannot be separated
because religious principles also determine social values like the concept of Karma,
sin, sacredness, etc. Therefore, social reforms invariably take the form of socio-
religious reforms.
66
Secularism and the law
Secularism and the Law - A process in nation building
DEEPAK RAWAT
Despite various ambiguities enveloping the meaning of secularism, it may
perhaps best be understood as a positive ideal of a modern society. In a society, the
ideal of secularism facilitates the transition from tradition to modernity. In very
broad terms, secularism means that the state is not going to make any discrimination
whatsoever on the ground of religion or community against any person professing
any particular form of religious faith. Law, on the other hand is one of the various
means to move towards a secular society. In the context of India, which has a
heterogeneous society including divergent outlooks and differing convictions, law has
a very special role to play in fostering secularism. Law is also an instrument of
socio-economic change, and Roscoe Pond rightly regards it as a branch of social
engineering. The central purpose of law is to satisfy the legitimate desires and
ambitions of millions of its citizens in satisfying these desires and ambitions, law
takes a lead and proceeds to find out solution to the problem of poverty, ignorance
and unemployment purely on secular lines.
Secularism had its origin in the West and developed as a philosophy in reaction
to a strong hold of religion on the state and the necessity of setting up a more elastic
set of moral values for the immediate needs of the developing mercantilist society in
the west. As a concept, it was then equated with rationality, positivism, mercantilism
and utilitarianism.
Machiavel (1469-1527) wanted the state and religion to be separated and the
state to be absolutely independent of the church. However, it was in 1851 that
George Jacob Holyoake, in his book, ‘Principles of Secularism’, introduced
secularism as a new ‘ism’ to the world. Holyoake stated that the secularist is
67
Secularism and the law
intended to be a reasoned. The term secularism was chosen to express the extension
of free thought to ethics. According to him, secularism has three central tenets:
(i) The improvement of life by material means;
(ii) It is good to do good
(iii) Science was the available providence of humans.
Secularism, according to him, differed from Christianity in so far as it accepts
only the teachings, which pertain to humans, and are consonant with reason and
experience. He attempted to define secularism as that which seeks the development
of the moral and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the
immediate duty of life. In the American context, secularism developed as a way of
life based on the premise that religion and religious considerations should be ignored
or purposely excluded. The state is not supposed to have an official religion and
should exercise neutrality in matters pertaining to religion.
In short, we can say that secularism emerged in the West as a concept
antagonistic to religion and as a by-product of materialism and industrialism. Many
Indian and Western Marxists continue to think that religion is dope and the progress
of human society can be made if religion is completely expunged from the human
mind.
Religion, in India is said to be constitutive of society, and this makes
secularism extremely difficult to define in the Indian context, and still more difficult
to outline as a programme of action. All that can be done is to create appropriate
legal institutions.
Colonial rule and the ensuing brutalities unleashed by the partition of the
nation have left India as a highly communalized society. Though secularism
pervades it, the Indian constitution, initially, neither defined secularism nor used the
expression secular. Perhaps, this was because of the peculiarity of the Indian
68
Secularism and the law
situation. The Western concept connotes a separation between state and church;
while the Indian concept of secularism means the acceptance of all religions (Sarva
dharma sambhava). The negative Western notion presupposes the existence of a
church. In India there is no specific church.
The constitution makers could not arrive at a consensus regarding secularism.
Nehru defined secularism in the dual sense of keeping the state, politics and
education separate from religion, making religion a private matter for the individual;
and for showing equal respect for all faiths and providing equal opportunities for their
followers. Mahatma Gandhi also viewed politics from the non-communal point of
view. However, his idea of a secular state was different from that of Nehru.
Secularism for him meant the spirit of religious tolerance, which he postulated on the
basis of universal ethics of Hinduism. The constitution makers, therefore, looked
upon secularism as a functional concept, and provided for it a flexible framework that
would facilitate its evolution or adaptation to the changes taking place in a
developing nation.
The constitution establishes no state religion; creates no category of preferred
citizens, throws citizenship open to all, guarantees status of equality and opportunity
and promises to promote the dignity of the individual. It opens to all communities all
public offices, prohibits discrimination by any agency on the basis of religion. It
provides to all religious denominations freedom of religion, forbids the state from
laying taxes to promote any particular religion. Thus, various secular provisions are
inbuilt in the constitution. However, certain one-time provisions in the constitution
could hardly deal with Indian society and its complexity. This is where the
importance of law in promoting secularism really increases.
State may not have an official religion, but it cannot really afford to be
completely neutral in matters of religion because state is also supposed to remove
69
Secularism and the law
obscurantism and promote modernity. In achieving these objectives, the state uses
law. In all the religions of India, there are obscurantist elements which create
obstacles in the way of human progress. They are unwilling to accept new ideas. The
worse thing is that, even the persons in high positions of government are under this
influence. Law, being a prominent form of social control has an important role in
secularization. Law must remain distinct from religion, but it must also cherish
religion, or risk the destruction of society itself.
When the Hindu Code Bill (1951) was before the parliament, conservative and
traditional people raised the cry that Hindu religion was in danger, but the pressure
notwithstanding the Bill was passed. Thus, the principle was established that
personal law is a secular institution and has to be based on secular and rational
considerations. The Hindu community has now accepted the position that matters of
law included in the Hindu code are secular matters with which religion is not
concerned. Conservative Hindus pleaded to apply it to the whole of India. The
motive for this was to defeat the bill itself. The reformers argued that it was
impractical to apply the code to the Muslims, as the Muslim community had not been
adequately informed and educated in this regard.
Secularism does not believe in absolutes. It realizes that in dealing with socio-
economic problems, competing and conflicting principles have to be reconciled. This
theory of establishing a harmonious relationship is always prescribed in Sanskrit as
samanvaya. The philosophy of samanvaya proceeds on the assumption that there
may be an element of social truth in different competing concepts. However, others
argue that making laws for only one community is discriminatory. Secularism
implying neutrality of the state in religious matters does not, however, rule out
legislation for common national goals, on discriminator social legislation to meet the
demands of social justice. This is also implied in the Directive Principle (Article 44)
70
Secularism and the law
relating to Uniform Civil Code Diversity of personal laws in India, is against the
spirit of the constitution, that guarantees equality before law and equal protection of
law. A uniform civil code is a must for establishing a secular-social order. Personal
laws have to be extracted from the clutches of religion.
The Supreme Court has time and again stated and ordered the legislature to
make provisions for implementing a Uniform Civil Code. We already have a
Uniform Criminal Code, so why not a uniform civil code. However, our political
parties, including national political parties, do not allow secularism to take
precedence over their political interests. The Supreme Court has even declared
(1994) secularism to be the basic feature of the constitution. (SR Banumai Case). The
famous Shah Bano case (1985) illustrates how our political parties sacrificed national
interests favouring their own electoral gains. In this case the Supreme Court ordered
the granting of maintenance to a Muslim woman divorced by her husband. The case
became controversial as it was opposed by orthodox Muslims on the grounds that it
interfered with Muslim personal law.
The government of the day, pandered to communal sentiments and reversed the
Supreme Court judgment through a constitutional amendment, and by opening the
gates of the disputed Ayodhya Mandir-Mosque structure, in 1986. However, what is
noteworthy is that opposition brought to the streets lakhs of people, while the
supporters of Shah Bano could muster only a few. The issue cropped up once more
in the recent Imrana Qadir case in a village of Muzzafarnagar.
Our educational institutions do not radiate secularism. There are always pulls
and pressures by the governments in power to project their brand of history – writing
and vision of the past. It is important to have a legal opinion on this, and it will be an
important step towards secularizing our institutions. However, the Supreme Court
order that such matters ought to be discussed by scholars of the respective fields and
71
Secularism and the law
not by politicians is good. Regarding education, reservation quotas related to minority
seats in minority run educational institutions often create a lot of bad blood. There is
need of a clear unambiguous law on the issue.
Another area, which requires extremely clear laws are religious conversions. A
person’s religion is a personal and a very delicate issue and needs much detailed
attention. India has already witnessed a number of communal riots; Meerut;
Jamshedpur and Bhagalpur to name a few. The case of Dara Singh and Graham
Stains is still fresh in our minds.
Secularism is also a process of national awakening, modernization and nation
building. Secularism through legislation implies an element of force. Therefore,
legislation may not be the most effective means for secularization. There may be
legislation for secularization of social institutions, but it would be ineffective if not
implemented timely and properly.
For secularism to thrive in India, it is necessary to find proper institutions
through which economic motivation of the individual could be channelized into other
interest group motivation. If law is seen as one of the methods of social control in the
hands of political power, it is clear that it must stand in need of social and moral
justification in the same way as political power itself. Therefore, rule of law and
legal theory, cannot be used as mere justification of political power as it happens
today. Law in turn, derives its inspiration from secularism; it helps to herald the
arrival of a welfare state, and hopes to achieve socio-economic justice, by means of
progressive and dynamic legislation. We must, however, remember that though law
is a powerful weapon in the hands of a democracy, by itself it will not achieve its
objective. It must receive the full cooperation of our public conscience, and the
public conscience has to be awakened by the progressive intellectuals of society.
72
Secularism and the law
Secularism and the Law - Theory & Practice
AKASH DEEP
The essence of secularism in Indian context can be understood by the lines
written by famous poet “Iqbal” “Majhab nahin sikhata, aapas mein bair rakhana”.
Yes, it is indeed true, that religion doesn’t aim to divide people on their beliefs, but
unfortunately it has been used as a platform to divide people and to extract mileage
out of it by some vested interests.
Before we look at secularism in Indian context, let us first explore the meaning
attached to this word in different parts of world and in different contexts. In
philosophy, secularism is understood as that life which can be best lived by applying
ethics and world best understood by process of reasoning without reference to a god
or gods or other supernatural concepts. George Jacob Holyoake was first one to coin
this concept of ‘secularism’.
From sociological point of view, it is a range of situations where a society less
automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for
conflict in various forms that in recent generations of the same society.
In government, it is viewed as a policy of avoiding entanglement between
government and religion, of non-discrimination among religions (providing they
don’t deny primacy of civil laws) and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens,
regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing
priority of the universal human rights).
Thus, secularism can be thought as the practice of working to promote any of
these three forms of secularism. But it should not be assumed that an advocate of
secularism in one sense would also be a secularist in any other sense. It is also
important to remember that secularism doesn’t necessarily equate to “atheism”,
indeed many secularists have counted themselves as religious.
73
Secularism and the law
In practice, things do not operate in a clear-cut way. There can be complicated
mix of all these three positions, leading to different positions, which often conflict
with one another.
In India, the theoretical premise of secularism that life should be lived by ethics
and applying reasoning and god should be avoided is partially accepted. On one hand
it believes in living by ethics and reasoning but on the other hand it is believed that
religion is a personal matter of an individual and it should be left to him/her to pursue
the path of his/her choice. As far as second meaning of secularism is concerned, the
situation, which had emerged in recent years is potently dangerous. Even though, our
literacy rate has gone up, and economic standards have substantially improved, but
intolerance especially in matters pertaining to religion has also increased. But it is a
matter of anxiety that the country seems to be divided or rather polarized between
‘secularism’ and ‘fundamentalism’.
At this point, I would pause and would try to discuss the root cause of
fundamentalism (impact communalism more appropriately in Indian context).
Historically, the partition of India in August 1947 was based on religious lines only.
It was the concept of two-nation theory devised on the grounds of different religions
followed by people. Even though the country was divided, we were unable to
eradicate hatred for others’ religion, which resulted in fundamentalism of today.
Fundamentalism nurtures communalism, which in turn opposes the idea of
secularism.
The third concept of secularism has been accepted fully by India, that religion
and state are different matters and they should not be allowed to mix with each other.
It is this strength, which has withstood the assaults of communal forces and retained
the true character of India, which are tolerance, brotherhood and good for all
mankind.
74
Secularism and the law
Our constitution makers were aware of the prevailing socio-political situation
in the country at that time and very wisely gave India a secular image by various
constitutional provisions. It was a step in the right direction as Indian civilization is
known for its ability to assimilate other cultures, beliefs and religions. Throughout
the centuries people from various parts of the world came and became part of the
Indian tradition and culture.
Our constitution doesn’t proclaim any religion as religion of the state even
though partition of 1947 was based on religion and a new state Pakistan was born
which declared Islam as its state religion. Many argued, India by default became a
Hindu nation, but it was resisted and we decided not to be a Hindu nation but a nation
where everyone irrespective of his/her religion, race, caste, sex, creed or place of
birth would enjoy same rights and opportunities. Thus secularism as one of India’s
basic characters was introduced in our constitution. The Preamble, which is the soul
of our Constitution, also proclaims our country as s Sovereign, Socialist, Secular
Democratic, Republic.
To implement it effectively various articles were made. Part III of the Indian
Constitution, which talks about Fundamental rights of citizens of India is an
important measure for above cause. “Right to Equality” is a fundamental right. Any
discrimination by the state only on the basis of “Religion” (also other factors) is not
allowed. “Right to freedom of religion” is dealt in Article 25 to 28 about religion and
state in length. It prohibits the state from levying and collecting any taxes to promote
any religion. It also gives freedom to any individual to practice, profess and religion
of his/her choice, but subject to morality, public order and national interest.
Thus we see that India by constitution has a truly secular image. Again in
Directive Principles for State Policy, it is advised to state to introduce Uniform Civil
Code for all sections of society, but by adding a clause that it should be done by
persuasion and not by compulsion. But at the same time Article 29 and 30 give
75
Secularism and the law
special rights to minorities based on language or religion to protect their interests and
culture.
It is these special rights and the concept of Uniform Civil Code, which has
been the cause of controversy. So-called fundamentalists and secularists derive
different meanings out of these provisions. The fundamentalist says that in order to
give true secular character. Uniform Civil Code must be applied and accuse
secularists to appease one minority religious group and neglecting the majority
religious group. The secularists accuse the government of neglecting the interest of
the majority religious groups and appeasing minority religious groups. The
“secularists” accuse other groups as fundamentalists as communalists trying to create
hatred and suspicion in the society in the name of religion.
It seems that “secularism” and “fundamentalism” are used to suit one’s
convenience and are used and understood differently by different people. Whatever
be the case, there are enough provisions in the law of the land (Constitution) to
safeguard the secular character of the nation. Clear and precise meaning of these
provisions must be redefined keeping in mind the three universal definitions of
secularism. Finally, it is not the law but the people who should be changed by
sensitization and awareness to retain the character of Indian civilization and culture of
universal brotherhood, tolerance and compassion.
76
Secularism and the law
Uneasy relation between Secularism and the Law
VISHAL GOGNE
The analysis of the relationship between secularism and law is essentially a
search for answers to two troublesome questions. Firstly, whether secularism, as we
understand it, is a logical offshoot of modern law and that they are the two sides of
the same coin or whether there is in fact an anti-thesis between the two concepts in
practice, if not in theory (especially in the context of attempts by the State to
“enforce” secular practices). These are vexing questions, particularly in the present
scenario of global terrorism, which has given a severe churning to issues of identity,
especially religious. Such identities are now perceived by many to be under ‘threat’
due to the attempts made by many states to enforce an international ‘secular’ legal
structure.
But before focusing attention on these two questions, one may examine the
meaning of secularism. The traditional western concept of secularism envisages a
complete separation of the church and state where the state subscribes to no religion
and disunites it self from any religious activity on a public/official platform. An
integral component of such policy is the provision of adequate safeguards, protection
and sometimes – special provisions in favour of minorities (whether religious, ethnic
or otherwise). For instance, the indigenous Americans in USA enjoy certain benefits
on the “reservations” earmarked for them.
India, which is considered a successful model of secular laws and practices,
offers a unique case study in terms of how the term secularism is understood in
theory and also the way it is practiced. Unlike the Western model, where the state is
expected to be completely religious and is even anti-religious as in communist
countries), in India the state does not shirk away from involvement in religious affairs
of communities/religious groups. The interesting feature here is that the ordinary
77
Secularism and the law
citizen does not resent state involvement, especially support for religious endeavours.
The only rider is that the state now appears to be even headed. Thus, state subsidy
for one community’s religious pilgrimages is matched by similar subsidy for other
religious groups. As a result, India offers a sui generis model where the government
may give grants for religious celebrations, involve itself in temple administration,
organize religious pilgrimages, and host functions for/in presence of religious leaders;
and all this without any resentment from the populace. The only qualification as
mentioned earlier is that the state action must balance the legitimate expectations of
different communities. The Indian State is, therefore, not expected to be completely
neutral in religious affairs.
In this context, Article 25 of the Indian constitution enumerates the
fundamental right of every person to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practice and propagate religion. But equally importantly, it provides that the
state may regulate any economic, financial, political or other secular activity
associated with religious practice. Article 26 grants the freedom to manage affairs to
every religious denomination. Article 27 prohibits any taxation on the basis of
religion and Article 28 provides for freedom as to attendance at religious instruction
in certain educational institutions.
The rights of minorities are protected under Articles 29 and 30 which provide
for conservation of any distinct language, script or culture and also the right of
minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The
above-mentioned Articles, combined with Articles 15 and 16 which prohibit
discrimination on religious grounds (among other grounds) and also Article 14 (right
to equality) form the bedrock of the Indian secular mandate. India was intended, by
its founding fathers, to be a secular republic notwithstanding that the term
78
Secularism and the law
“secularism” was added to the Preamble of the constitution only in 1976 by the 42
nd
amendment.
Having discussed the features of secularism and also the legal basis for
secularism in India, we may now examine the relationship between ‘secularism’ and
‘the law’. The “secular” debate being in the spotlight the world over, this issue is
best analyzed illustrating the plethora of available case studies.
The first logical question is whether secular practices/laws are a logical
corollary of the modern legal system. In recent decades as the world has moved from
imperialism to democracy, and as the number of dictatorships have considerably
diminished, modern laws are assumed to be more fair, representative and equitable.
The assumption is that democratic practices promote objective law making. The
second development has been the incorporation of the “reasonableness” principle in
law making, especially in the Indian context. The tempting corollary therefore seems
to be that if all laws are essentially and increasingly rational and fair, they must also
be secular, for they would involve no discrimination or bias. It is then a easy
conclusion that law and secularism are the two sides of the same coin and there exists
no conflict between the two. This conclusion would, however, be fraught with the
danger of massive generalization. For, if this supposed harmony were a reality then
the path to a Uniform Civil Code in India would have been an expressway and not a
road made of pot holes, speed breakers, diversions and blockages.
The constitution mandates a uniform civil code in spirit if not in letter.
However, this issue highlights the challenges faced by the state in harmonizing the
opposing demands of law/fairness and religious/personal law interests. In a scenario
where internal reform in most communities is more of an agenda than a reality, state
intervention through legislation is perceived as interference and not reform. It
79
Secularism and the law
becomes evident, therefore, that the law and secularism do not necessarily share a
consequential relationship.
Another instance in this context in the ongoing debate among the Iraqi
lawmakers as to whether Islam should be one source of law or in fact an overriding
influence over all other sources. The other extreme is occupied by Turkey, which
despite being an Islamic state is considered among the more successful secular
polities of the world, notwithstanding the recent rise of religious parties. This brings
us to the second question, that is, whether there actually exists great conflict between
law and secularism in practice. The multitude of examples seems to answer the
question especially in situations where the state has attempted to enforce what it
considers a secular practice/safeguard.
The France Government recently banned the use of conspicuous religious
symbols by students in the state run schools, generating great resentment among
minorities. The stated reason was to enforce a secular standard but the widely
understood motive was the desire to discourage use of headscarves by Muslim girl
students. This in turn raised fears of targeting the minorities in France.
Another illustration of the uneasy relation between secular percepts and legal
codes is the recent action of the Alabama Supreme Court Judge, Roy Moore, in
installing the “Ten Commandments” inside the court premises. This decision was
later overruled by the United States Supreme Court but it highlighted the sensitive
relationship between personal laws and the general secular laws.
Closer home, the recent Aligarh Muslim University controversy, the Ayodhya
dispute, and the Shah Bano case point to the difficulties in legislating on
religious/personal law matters. The extent of polarity among the contending groups
is a reflection of the challenges facing law makers. For instance, those who
supported reservation in Aligarh Muslim University would categorize it as safeguard
for a minority and safeguards/protection being a critical element of minority rights in
80
Secularism and the law
secular set up. The opponents of reservation in AMU would also justify their stand
by claiming that reservation on religious grounds breeds communalism.
Similarly, very few would support legislation as a measure of resolving the
Ayodhya dispute and it would be construed as state encroachment on a domain,
which is perceived as strictly being within the control of religious leaders of the
communities concerned.
The Shah Bano case too brings forth the limitations of the law, whether by way
of judicial pronouncement or legislation in secularizing practices, which are within
the ambit of personal codes.
The above discussion leads to the inescapable conclusion that law and
secularism do not necessarily share a comfortable and symbiotic relationship. The
attainment of secularism through state action is not a feasible option because the law
can at best provide for some substantive rights and a few safeguards. The path to
harmony lies in democracy, for in a democratic set up the laws are more reflective of
diverse needs. However, it is more imperative that democratic functioning is
encouraged among religious and community leaders. This would facilitate secular
reform and practices among different groups. The state can then truly operate as a
harmonizer and not be seen as an interferer.
81
Secularism and the law
Secularism and the Law - Question of attitude
VISHAL VASANT SOLANKI
Vinoba Bhave, a saint and spiritual Guru of Mahatma Gandhi was once asked,
“What do you prefer – Dharma Nirapekshta’ or Sarvadharma-Samabhava?”
(Neutrality towards religion or equal tolerance of all religions) He replied, I uphold
“Sarva dharma samabhava.” Once such an attitude comes, all controversies,
ideological struggles, disputes over legal interpretations would be redundant.
Indian nation has seen a continuous conflict over the last six decades about
various questions: What exactly is Secularism? What is the scope of law? Is religion
only a personal affair or is it above the state? What’s the difference between law and
Dharma? Is Secularism an Indian notion? What’s exactly Hinduism and Hindustan?
All such questions deeply impact our nationhood, determine the character of our
polity and indicate future direction of our society. So it would be necessary to see
what exactly is ‘Secularism and Law’.
‘Secularism’ is essentially a western notion as Nationalism. Historic relations
between the church and state gave rise to this concept. Both the institutions tried to
dominate life of common people, which led to conflict between the two. Finally,
both carved out their own spheres as famously put in this preaching “Reader therefore
to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things are Gods”. It separated
the spheres of the state and the religion. In the era of Renaissance, secularism was
seen as a philosophy, which emphasized reason, scientific attitude, reality of this
world and material existence. It implied neutrality towards religion, aloofness from
spiritual faculty of human brain, agnosticism about different planes of reality. In
1851, George Holyoake introduced this term upholding reason as its basic tenet.
With secularization of western society, science took an ascending position over the
religion.
82
Secularism and the law
Indian viewpoint was on a different plane altogether. India sharply
distinguishes between Religion & Dharma. Dharma is defined as “that which
upholds” – it is that universal order, condition which preserves the existence. A
human being has his own Manav Dharma. Irrespective of whatever religion he may
belong to, his basic Dharma – nature of duty in life remains the same. This broader
viewpoint has naturally given Indians an all compassing, synthesizing ability.
Through philosophy of Anekantavada, Jainism clearly accepts different dimensions
of truth. As social reformer Mahatma Phule puts it, “Even if there are as many
religions as human beings on earth, it doesn’t disturb peaceful coexistence if right
conception of truth is adopted.” Ideal like ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ would flow
only through such attitude. As Arnold Toynbee puts it, “This broad minded approach
to reality is the unique characteristic of India. The most devout shaiva and the most
zealous Vaishnava would each recognize that the other is seeking truth and salvation
in his own way…. It is this total openness that is consequence of total faith and
firmness!”
Gandhiji was annis mirabelis of secularism in India. Being the most religious
man, it wasn’t difficult for him to appreciate ultimate truth, which all religions teach.
Thus his religiosity was never an obstacle to be secular. Thus, true secularism
doesn’t mean absence of religion or neutrality towards religion. It only means not to
allow one particular religion to dominate over others, to have equal respect for all
religions and to uphold harmony amongst all.
There are different viewpoints over what exactly constitutes secularism. There
is dominant class of Hindutva nationalists in India who consistently feel that India is
primarily a Hindu entity and its culture, language, traditions are all testimony of its
Hindu identity. Thus for them, loyalty towards this Hindu civilization constitutes
secularism. Savarkar defines a Hindu as follows:
83
Secularism and the law
“¬il¬·i l¬·i ¤¤ ·ni ¤-¤ ·iiºn·i¸l-¬i
l¤n ·i¸ ¤ º¤·i¸’¤·¬ · lr ·¸ lºn| -- n||”
Thus one whose ultimate loyalty is placed at India and for whom this entity is
fatherland and sacred land is a Hindu. This ‘Hindu’ can also be a Muslim, Christian
etc. Basically, term ‘Hindu’ itself doesn’t connote any religion but probably, a way
of life, an attitude towards it. It is a synthesis of culture, civilization that flourished
here for five thousand years.
Another version of secularism completely rejects the idea of religion. It gives
no place for spirituality in human life. Leftists and communists hold such view.
Such view has not found much acceptance in overwhelmingly spiritual country like
India. There also exists something called ‘Pseudo-Secularism’. Some sections
assume that secularism means to appease minorities, giving them special status and
concessions which are not available to majority. It can be as dangerous to a secular
polity as communalism.
Now we turn to what exactly constitutes Law. There is no universally
applicable code of conduct or rules, which we can call Law. Social norms and
standards of behaviour are bound to be culture-specific and change according to time
and place. Every religion has its personal law, which deals with civil matters like
marriage, inheritance, etc. Such personal laws were formulated in historic times but
were never revised to suit to changing times. Hence they became anachronistic.
Laws like Shariyat in Islam, which permitted polygamy cannot address the current
needs. On the other hand, there are modern laws, which contain basic principles of
natural justice, equality of sexes, separate private life and public life. Modern
legislations are flexible in nature and are constantly reviewed to suit the requirements
of dynamic society. Thus we have rigid, orthodox personal laws, which are
84
Secularism and the law
antithetical to modern secular laws. Nature of polity is determined according to the
preference it gives to either of them.
It was one of the greatest challenges before Indian polity to keep itself secular
in the aftermath of partition. It was a tough test to convincingly establish equality of
all religions. Our constitution makers really did a tremendous job to lay the
foundations of a secular India. Putting freedom of religion as one of the fundamental
rights really strengthened our secular credentials.
There was a historic evolution of laws in British India, which subsequently
minimized the role of religion in public life. Laws like prohibition of sati, widow
remarriage act, minimum age of consent act, etc. slowly removed unjust religious
laws and replaced them by modern rational enactments. This tradition of reforms was
continued even in post-independence India when Hindu Code Bill gave equal status
to women.
Ideal scope of religion and nature of secularism is rightly defined in our
constitution. There are three angles to it – positive, negative and neutral. The
positive religious freedom includes 3 Articles viz. Art. 25, 26 and 30 which deals
with the “freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion”, “freedom to manage religious affairs” and “the rights of minorities to
establish and administer educational institutions”. Negative freedom of religion
includes Art. 15(1) and (4) which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion,
Art. 16 assures equality of opportunity for people belonging to all religions in matters
of public employment, Art. 17 abolishes untouchability, Art. 29(2) caters to
“protection of the interests of minorities”, and Art. 325, 330(1) and 332(1) order no
communal electorates. Neutral provisions include Art. 27, 290(A) and 28(1) (2) (3)
which emphasize that “no religious instruction be imparted through the institutions
run or aided by the state.” Provisions of Art. 44 directs State to bring common civil
code which strengthen the secular foundations of society, Ban on cow slaughter under
85
Secularism and the law
Art. 47 recognizes sentiments of majority Indians. Thus we have a balanced basic
framework of secularism in our constitution.
The constitutional provisions upheld the spirit of secularism fairly well in the
last sixty years, but there are serious issues and areas where we have failed miserably.
Hindu Code Bill was enacted after much agitation and opposition. Then why we fear
to touch and modify unjust personal laws in other religions? Shahbano case was a
litmus test of our convinced stand that religious laws should not discriminate against
women. But our political establishment faultered us. In Kerala, a new district was
created only on a single criterion of having Muslim majority. Does that follow spirit
of secularism? Even though constitution forbids forcible conversion, has it stopped
in tribal, dalit areas? Some sections oppose Saraswati Pujan, Vande Mataram on
ground of religion, when all these are rich symbols of our ancient cultural heritage.
This confusion between religion and culture has been a great source of controversy in
our country. The demarcating line between the two is very unclear and hence creates
many conflicting situations. But if we broadmindedly look at 5000-year-old tradition
of this civilization, no sane person will oppose the best heritage we derive from it –
whether it is Sanskirt language or Muslim architecture or Christian passion for
service to the downtrodden.
Art. 30 which gives minorities fundamental right to establish their educational
institutes, forbids state from confiscating them. Such provision is absent in case of
majority educational institutions. This clearly violates the true spirit of secularism.
Another example is Bangladeshi illegal refugees. Only to cherish vote bank,
politicians underscore serious threat they pose to national security and integrity. All
the border districts of West Bengal, Assam, Tripura have dramatically changed
demographic ratio. State Government machinery has seriously failed to protect
minorities in times of communal riots as happened in Godhra or in Kashmir where
Pundits have fled from their native lands. With the rise of religious extremism in
86
Secularism and the law
country, state is failing in its duty to check those organizations like RSS Shakhas or
Islamic Madarasas, which impart extremist, fundamentalist notions.
Most striking failure to enforce law for upholding secularism has been in case
of uniform civil code. Even after so many “obiter dictas” passed by courts insisting
on its implementation, we still couldn’t enforce it. Lack of political will and vested
interests are responsible for this. If it is applied in the State of Goa so successfully
from 1860, why not for the whole India? Failure of State to increase literacy and
awareness amongst minorities has come in the way of general acceptance of common
civil code. A system like marriage, status of women, inheritance exclusively depends
upon the current phase of society and has nothing to do with religious prescriptions.
Art. 13 provides that all laws in force prior to Constitution, which violate
fundamental rights (like Art. 14 which upholds equality of women) shall become
void. Then how some laws, which allow polygamy, unjust procedure of divorce,
discrimination against women, are still in force? We cannot wait till general
consensus emerges because it will never happen.
Indian constitution also lacks provisions, which make it obligatory on
individual to perform his national duty even though it may be against his religious
beliefs. Art. 49 of Swiss Constitution clearly state it. Hence conscription is avoided
on religious grounds.
With current law provisions, we can say India is one of the most truly secular
countries in the world. It is an immensely difficult task to combine this billion plus
diversified populace in one national bond. Still, we have done it successfully
notwithstanding ugly memories of partition. Finally, we can say that true law always
upholds true spirituality, which brings peace, harmony and goodwill amongst all
ethnic communities. Poet Iqbal has rightly said,
-·r« ·r| l¬ªiini ¬i¤¬ - «º ºªi·i|
87
Secularism and the law
Secularism- Strong law required to contain communal crimes
SAKET KUMAR
The relation of a person and his maker-at best, is a relationship in private
domain. But history has witnessed that religion is the single issue, which has
generated maximum conflict and tremendous bloodshed. As modern civil society we
can’t allow that to happen. Hence law steps in. It regulates individual and group
action, provides a level playing field to all religions and ensures harmony and
peaceful coexistence. This modern view in which the state remains non-partisan and
encourages freedom of conscience and practices secularism.
India has traditionally been a multicultural society. It is a ‘tossed salad’ in
which various religions, cultures and ethnicities came together but still retained their
identities. From time immemorial we have been a tolerant society. Enlightened
rulers like Ashoka and Akbar have practiced secularism in letter and spirit.
Secularism was also one of the fundamental underlying principles of our freedom
struggle. It was only natural that at the time of framing our Constitution our
forefathers provided us the right to religion as a fundamental right.
The relation between Secularism and Indian Law can be examined under 3
heads:
 Constitutional Law
 Civil and Personal Law
 Criminal Law
Each area has generated its share of controversies and fundamental questions
of law. It will be pertinent to examine them one by one.
The preamble of our constitution proclaims that we are a ‘secular’ republic.
But at the outset “secular” word was not incorporated in the preamble. The omission
was deliberate. One of the members Mr. K.T. Shah made two attempts to introduce
88
Secularism and the law
the word “secularism” but it was opposed by Dr. Ambedkar. Constitution makers
might perhaps have felt that it was not necessary to use the word “secular” or
“secularism” particularly as it might give the impression of establishing a state
structure in consistent with the cultural ethos of Indian people. This aspect of
“secularism” as understood in India was empathically asserted by the great
philosopher statesman Dr. Radhakrishnan when he said – “I want to state
authoritatively that secularism does not mean irreligion. It means we respect all
faiths and religions. Our state does not identify itself with any particular religion.
However, within 25 years we found it essential to reiterate our secular credentials via
an amendment (42
nd
amendment, 1976) probably as a response to the growing
communal strains. Therefore, since 1976 it is a proclaimed fact that India is a secular
republic. But mere proclamation does not mean anything unless there are adequate
provisions in the text of the constitution.
Art. 25 lays down that all persons – not only citizens – are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
Interestingly in the draft phase it does not include the right to propagate one’s religion
and it also included a negative provision – “no communal organization, which by its
constitution or by exercise of its discretionary powers vested in any of its officers or
organs admits to or excludes from its membership persons on ground of religion, race
and caste or any of them should be permitted to engage in any activities other than
those essential for bonafide religious, cultural, social and educational needs of the
community.” It is debatable that whether dropping this clause from the final draft is
responsible for some of the maladies that we are facing today specially in political
sphere. Issue of conversion has also been a sensitive issue, which is justified under
the right to propagate religion. Supreme Court (SC) had to clarify that right to
propagate religion does not include right to forcible conversions. (Stainclaw vs. State
of M.P. 1978)
89
Secularism and the law
The right to religious freedom is however subject to public order, morality and
health. These principles have been reiterated by Supreme Court in cases like Anand
Margis case, Mohd. Hanif Quareshi vs. State of Bihar etc. Art. 25 then seeks to
balance the legitimate claims of religion with realities of State craft.
Article 26 flowing from Article 25 bestows a fundamental right on all religious
denominations and sections thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious
and charitable purposes, to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, to own,
organize and administer property. But the administration of property has to be
according to law. This right is also subject to public order, morality and health. But
this again raises fundamental questions of law. What exactly religion means and
what is the meaning of the expression “matters of religion”. Secondly, what practices
can be regarded as part of religion so as to merit protection of Article 26. Courts
have to decide on these critical aspects. Supreme Court prohibited the processions of
Anand Margis with garland of human skulls in their necks. But it upheld the
objection of children belonging to the faith of Jehowh’s witness against singing the
national anthem. To disengage secular from the religion is certainly not an easy task
but other considerations also creep in. In Shah Bano case while Supreme Court
allowed secularism to triumph; the govt. succumbed to vote bank politics and enacted
a law, which set aside this decision. Another important issue is what should be the
criterion by which a religious group can be identified as a new religion distinct and
separate from an existing religion or only as a religious denomination within the
existing religion. This question is not only relevant for Article 26 but also for getting
a minority status under Article 30(1). These questions arose in Auroville case in
Supreme Court and Arya Samaj case in Delhi High Court. In the latter it is was ruled
that Arya Samaj could not be said to be a minority based on religion and therefore not
90
Secularism and the law
entitled to the right under Article 30(1). This decision was widely discussed by
jurists. Hence these are tricky issues where clear-cut criterion is difficult to identify.
Article 27 says that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for expenses
on promotion of any particular religion. Here an important conclusion is that the wall
of separation between state and religion is not absolute. Under the 1
st
amendment in
the US the Congress can’t make appropriations in aid of religious bodies at all.
There, the doctrine of separation between Church and State is wholly accepted. But
in India, under Article 27 there would be no objection if the taxes were used for
promotion of all religions.
Article 28 imparts secular flavour to state sponsored education by prohibiting
religious instructions in any institution wholly maintained by state funds.
Article 29 and 30 confer important rights to minorities in respect of their
language, script or culture. This right however is equally available to all sections of
society – minority or majority (Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society vs. State of
Gujarat 1974). So it has not generated much controversy. But Article 30 is strictly in
nature of minority right. Article 30(1) says that all minorities, whether religious or
linguistic, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of
their choice. Clause 1(A) added by 44
th
amendment in effect provides that if the
property of any such institution is acquired, the compensation paid would be proper
and adequate. Clause (2) provides that in the matter of giving aid, the state shall not
discriminate against minority, managed institutions.
Article 30 lets several important points to be raised in respect to this right.
First, who is a minority? What is the frame of reference – country, state or district?
Secondly, what is the right? Does it allow a minority to establish and administer an
educational institution to teach its religion and culture or lucrative subjects like
medicine, engineering or management also. Thirdly, what makes an institution a
91
Secularism and the law
minority institution – management by minority community or majority of students
from minority community? And last but not the least, why this right has been denied
to majority community. Groups like Arya Samaj and Ramakrishna Mission have to
claim independent minority status to enjoy benefits of Article 30 (DAV College vs.
State of Punjab).
In relation to professional minority institutions some more questions can be
raised. Whether they can have their own fee structure, own methods of selection for
admission and the right to fill 100% of their seats according to their wishes. Whether
minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and
have same rights. Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case interpreted Article 30
liberally and ruled that minority and non-minority institutions do not have an equal
footing. Former have preferential right to admit students of their own
community/language. No such right exists for the latter. Supreme Court has further
clarified that a minority professional college can admit in their management quota, a
student of their own community/language in preference to another community even
though that student is more meritorious. However, while admitting students of their
community/language the inter-se merit of these students can’t be ignored. So in case
of professional education, Supreme Court has balanced national interest with
minority rights. To summarize, it can be said that adequate safeguards have been
provided in our constitution and a plethora of rights have been conferred on religious
minorities. Supreme Court has also declared secularism as one of the ‘basic features’
of our constitution (S.R. Bommai case). It has also, from time to time, by a liberal
interpretation strengthened the secular credentials of our society.
Coming to civil and personal law, Article 44 of Directive Principles of State
policy makes the promulgation of a uniform civil code throughout the country a
constitutional goal. The merit of making it non-justiciable in the communally
92
Secularism and the law
changed environment of the independence period is understandable but even after
60 years of independence this goal is surprisingly distant. Still today a Muslim
woman can be divorced by triple talaq and the right to maintenance are grossly
inadequate. Tax benefits accorded to Hindu undivided family are restricted to Hindu
community. Adoption laws and succession laws vary from community to community
and have generated intense controversy.
There are at least six schools of jurisprudence among Muslims. Four among
the Sunnis and two among the Shias. The Indian Muslim personal law is a curious
amalgam of principles from different schools, but most particularly the Hanafi branch
of Sunni legal belief. At least half of all Muslims are badly served by Muslim
personal laws. Cases like Imrana Rape case make a mockery of our legal system in
the name of religion. Not only this, the ridiculous Muslim personal law is a
convenient stick for Hindu communalists to beat Muslims with. Giving Muslims the
right to be governed by their own personal law gives them the right to claim that they
are some kind of a privileged minority.
Supreme Court has issued obites dictums in at least three cases for the need to
pass a uniform civil code. Md. Ahmad Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum 1985 where it
granted the woman the right to maintenance under section 125 of Cr Pc. In Sarla
Mudgal vs. Union of India in which it prevented the misuse of personal laws in
relation to marriage and in John Vollamattom case 1997 where it quashed certain
sections of Indian Succession Act.
It is often said that in relation to civil code the changes should come from
within the community. It is seen as an attack on the religious sentiments. But if a
chiefly Muslim country like Turkey can adopt modern personal laws, why can’t we?
Few people know that in the state of Goa there is a uniform civil code and is working
perfectly fine. In my opinion it must be done in one sweep. Not only Muslim
93
Secularism and the law
personal law but discriminatory practices like Hindu undivided family, Indian
Succession Act and special rights of other communities should go only in one stroke.
One nation – one law principle is essential for good governance and the right to
equality. If the time is not yet ripe, it probably never will. But do we have the
political courage to do it? That fundamental question remains unanswered.
The last area is the area of criminal law. There is no mention of ‘communal
crimes’ or ‘hate crimes’ in IPC or Cr Pc Sections pertaining to rioting are applied to
most of these crimes. Since independence we have witnessed several incidences of
communal riots. A set pattern emerges. State is held morally responsible, not
legally. The state machinery especially police is often accused of partisan behaviour.
It is difficult for the minority community to register FIRs. Doctors and Public
Prosecutors are also accused sometimes. After that an enquiry committee is set up. It
lingers on for decades. It has no real powers. Its recommendations are not
mandatory and in the end the whole process turns out to be mere eyewash. Srikrishna
commission probing Mumbai Riots of 1992-93 indicted 23 policemen. They were
later promoted. Recommendations of Nanavati Commission probing Sikh riots of
1984 did little to solace the aggrieved. The recent carnage in Gujarat has again raised
these issues.
McPherson Committee was formed in UK after their last racial riots to
recommend ways to overcome institutional racism. One of its major
recommendations was that complaint should be lodged at places other than police
stations and also electronically. A group of NGOs in the aftermath of Gujarat riots
have proposed a law on communal riots and have submitted a recommended draft to
United Progressive Alliance government. Main features are legal responsibility for
the state; ban on hate propagating speech/educational material; punishment to
offending policemen, doctors and lawyers; provide more teeth to enquiry
94
Secularism and the law
commission; communal crimes/hate crimes to be added in criminal justice system. In
the light of these recommendations, Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill is being
tabled by the government. Hopefully this will act as a deterrent to the communal
forces in the country.
To conclude, I would like to make some recommendations in the light of the
preceding discussions:
(i) Meaning of the terms “Secularism”, “matters of religion” and “minority” to
be clearly explained in Constitution.
(ii) Negative clause under Article 25 to prevent an organization which admits
to or excludes from its membership persons on grounds of religion, race or
caste or any of them to engage in any political/public activity.
(iii) Clear criterion pertaining to minority institutions. Preventing misuse of
protection of Article 30(1) for monetary benefits and with regard to
professional education.
(iv) Clear-cut guidelines for good management of religious institutions/
monuments and systems of audit.
(v) Promulgation of a uniform civil code.
(vi) A strong act regarding speedy trial and fair process with respect to
communal and hate crimes as well as rioting.
In the end I would like to say that our secularism, despite temporary setbacks,
has stood the test of time. Here we stand united, and the world looks to us with
amazement and appreciation. The Human Development Report 2004 states this fact
in unambiguous terms -
“the so called semi-illiterate or illiterate majority of India is more prudent in
showing respect to followers of other religions than in the case of many rich,
developed and prosperous nations of the world.”
These words are a tribute to our society and its institutions of polity and judiciary.
95
Secularism and the law
Secularism- indispensable for peace & prosperity
GOVINDA RAJU NS
For the development of the country both external security and internal peace
are most important, otherwise any amount of government efforts for development go
in vain. So in this context internal peace and communal harmony are prerequisites
for the overall development and progress. Keeping this in mind our forefathers while
framing the Constitution provided sufficient provisions fundamental rights for the
people to profess, practice and propagate their faith. Although we don’t find the
definition of secularism in the Constitution, but in 1976 by amending the
Constitution, the word secularism was included in the preamble.
In the absence of a definition of secularism, the Supreme Court’s reading of it
is noteworthy. Judicial interpretations, have declared secularism as the fundamental
law of the land and sought to delineate the boundaries of the sacred and secular. In
some cases the Court has come out strongly on the issue, declaring secularism as an
un-amendable feature of the Constitution.
On the one hand, religious and cultural diversities made secularism
indispensable for democracy and national integration. On the other hand was the
impending task of modernizing our traditional society and bringing in social reform
that required state intervention in religious affairs. What does secularism mean to
India? “Secularism” as an essential attribute of state means that the state remains
neutral on religious issues both in its thought and action. Secular state does not
appeal to religion but a secular state as the one which is neither religious, nor anti-
religious, not irreligious but NON-RELIGIOUS”. So India is a non-religious state.
The benefit of being secular is that it prevents the state from being
subordinated to a single religion. A truly democratic country should be secular.
Secularism is needed for maintaining pluralism, it presupposes the religious
tolerance. Secularism recognized the religion; state (secular) imposes the
96
Secularism and the law
responsibility of religion, duty of practicing religious tolerance and co-existence of
religions.
In our Constitution, the Articles 25-28 specifically talk about secularism but
secularism is also reflected in Art. 14, 15, 16, etc. So the whole set of fundamental
rights are linked to secularism. So, secularism is one of the pillars of the Indian state.
Impediments to Secularism
Communalism is treating the interests of other religions differently and also as
inimical to one’s own religion.
Politics has two sides: One democratic, which is based on issues of real life and
second is communal, based on religious community that is monolith – having same
interests. It is projected that interests of one community are common and are
different and hostile to the interests of another community. To carry these interests
forward, this kind of politics is harboured.
It is the intolerance in human beings for others supremacy and clear
mindedness in cases where the others opinion is given more weight. Due to various
reasons man starts developing a feeling of being better than people of other
community and in order to suppress them, he resorts to communal violence.
Due to anonymity of mob people tend to do whatever they want in a group. An
average person in society believes in what politician says, people in mob tend to look
their rationality and turn violent.
The members of a minority feel insecure about the continuance of their
community and they believe that they have to struggle for existence. Also the
misinterpretation of sacred verses and perverted readings etc. add up to such
conditions.
97
Secularism and the law
1. Strict possible steps by the Election Commission, against the political parties
which try to assume power through inflammatory speeches and communal
propaganda.
2. Strict punishment to police personnel found guilty of neglecting their duty, or
encouraging communal violence.
3. All other officers who intentionally infatuate controlling violence.
4. Make media more responsible, so that it brings true picture of the violence
5. School text books should be in-coloured/un-prejudiced
6. Promote communal harmony by organizing inter-religious meets, festivals,
jathras, broadcasting such events through media so that people become aware
of harmony.
It is one of the unfulfilled tasks on the part of Legislature to enact this law as
mentioned in the Chapter IV of Constitution. The Govt. should take consent of all
religions and may give options for the religions to adopt the Law and time period for
adoption.
These articles (25 & 28) emphasize the secular character of the state. Art. 25
guarantees 2 types of freedom of religion (i) freedom of conscience and (ii) right to
profess, practice and propagate a religion of one’s choice.
Art. 26 states that subject to public order, morality and health, every religious
discrimination or any section of it shall have following rights, (i) to establish and
maintain institutions for religious and charity purpose; (ii) to manage its own affairs
in matters of religion (iii) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and
(iv) to administer such property in accordance with law. Art. 27 provides that no
person shall be compelled to pay any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any
particular religion. The article emphasizes the secular character of the state. Art. 28
prohibits religious education in state aided institutions.
Much has been left to the judiciary in determining the essence of secularism,
while the Constitution has only articulated it as a goal and is silent on its connotation.
Interestingly, judicial use of the term predates its inclusion in the Constitution.
98
Secularism and the law
Supreme Court’s first recognition of secularism was in 1962, in the Sardar Taharudiin
Syedna Saheb vs. State of Bombay case. Art5. 25 & 26 embody the principle of
religious toleration. Besides they serve to emphasize the secular nature of the Indian
democracy. Again in Keshavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala in 1972, the 13 judge
constitutional bench, in no uncertain terms declared secularism to be the fundamental
law of the land and as one of the basic features of the Constitution. Their judgment
declared secularism to be an amendable feature of the Constitution.
In the landmark judgment of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India 1994, a nine
judge bench again reiterated that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the
polity. This case was the high point of the Supreme Court’s protection of secular
ideals. This judgment also stated that secularism in India is based on tolerance.
Further, in a recent judgment on the NCERT text book case, the Supreme
Court decreed that all the faiths are equal. The majority view was that the essence of
every religion is common, only the practice differs. This is against the faith of
tolerance because it is assimilative in its intent and does not give an individual the
autonomy of self. There are different beliefs, cultures, viewpoints and groups in our
country and these differences need to be respected so that they do not loose their
identity.
Interestingly it is the judiciary in India that tells us what constitutes religion. It
is of the view that the problem with secularism in India is the demarcation between
‘what are matters of religion and what are not’. Religion is not defined in the
Constitution and it is a term that is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. While
in principle the Court seeks to protect the religious beliefs of all, they are subject to
limitations imposed by the state on grounds of social welfare, public order, morality,
health and any other provision of the fundamental rights of the individuals. The
judiciary evolved the doctrine of essentiality of religious practices to be the basis of
99
Secularism and the law
protection of the freedom of conscience and profession, practice and propagation of
religion to manage religious affairs. While in the early cases, Sirus Math Jagannath
temple and Bombay trust cases of Justice B.K. Mukherjee, the Court assured all
religions protection of their belief. Practice and management of their religious
institution, in the later years, like in the Nathdwara temple cases, the Court
profounder that only the essential practices of a faith would be protected, while the
non-essential features such as carrying lethal weapons and human skulls (by Ananda
Margis) was believed by the Court to be non-essential.
The subject of personal law brings out yet another feature of secularism i.e. the
protection of minorities in a plural state. Secularism sans protection to minority
religions and cultural groups creates majoritarianism. To protect minority interests
special protection measures need to be undertaken to cover need for different
identities and cultures. Opposition to reform personal laws is based on the freedom
of religion and conscience, whereas the guarantee to citizens of equal protection from
the law and before the law supports a uniform civil code. This issue also raises
questions concerning the hierarchy of rights – can the rights be governed by personal
laws, or have they precedence over the right to equality and legal pluralism in a
diverse society.
In Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and others vs. Union of India, the Court
reiterated the need for a uniform civil code; Justice Kuldip Singh stated that the
uniform civil code was required for national integration. In the recent judgment of
July, 2003, John Vallomattom and Anr. S. vs. Union of India, Chief Justice V.N.
Khare observed that it was a matter of great regret that Art. 44 of the Constitution has
not been given effect. It was argued that the common civil code helps national
integration by removing contradictions based on ideologies. While in the Shah Bano
case the objective of Court was social reform and the Court took upon itself this task.
100
Secularism and the law
India aspiring to become a developed nation in near future, need to achieve
first the internal harmony in the society. Swami Vivekananda told ‘to achieve
religious harmony we need acceptance rather than tolerance, because tolerance has
limit but once if you accepted and let live other fellow faith persons, you have no
problem of tolerance’. Moreover, as mentioned in our fundamental duties, one
should try to develop scientific temper. Science will provide some solutions to some
of our basic understanding of human evolution. Shared characters, genes etc. apart
from our judiciary will play important role of securing secularism in the country. The
Court’s jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution had given it considerable authority.
In the absence of any rigid demarcation of the spheres of the secured and the secular
the Court has remarkable autonomy. A secular India is must for our future
generations to live in peace and to prosper.
101
Secularism and the law
About the Contributors
Sl No. NAME SERVICE ADDRESS
1 SHRI A. AKBAR IPS KUNNINPURATH, KOTTAPPURAM,
ALANGAD P.O,
ERNAKULAM- 683511
KERALA
2 SHRI K.
SRINIVASAN
IAS NANDIMANGALAM,
PADI (POST) CHENGAM TALUK
THIRUVANAMALAI - 606705
TAMIL NADU
3 SMT. SRIPRIYA
RENGARAJAN
IAS POOJA, PLOT NO.678, K.K.NAGAR
MADURAI – 625020,
TAMIL NADU
4 SHRI KUMAR RAVI IAS S/O SRI RAM PRASAD
BARTAN DUKAN, CHOWK PAR
NALANDA BIHARSHARIF - 803101
BIHAR
5 SHRI DAREZ
AHAMED
IAS C\O DR BASHEER
RAWTHER, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
ROAD MANJERI – 676121,
KERALA
6 SHRI V. M. V.
NAVAL KISHORE
IDAS 17-127/33 ANNAPOORNA NAGAR
UPPAL HYDERABAD - 500039
ANDHRA PRADESH
7 SHRI APPU JOSEPH
JOSE
IRS KIZHAKEKARA OLAMATTOM,
THODUPUZHA,
IDUKKI DIST,
THODUPUZHA - 685584
KERALA
8 SHRI TUKARAM
HARIBHAU
MUNDHE
IAS AT& POST TADSONNA,
TQ BEED – 431122,
MAHARASHTRA
9 SHRI DEEPAK
RAWAT
ICCES DEEP NIVAS KINGCRAIG
MUSSORIE – 248179,
UTTARAKHAND
10 SHRI AKASH DEEP IAS 809, POORAB KHEDA,
CIVIL LINES, UNNAO - 209801
UTTAR PRADESH
102
Secularism and the law
11 SHRI VISHAL
GOGNE
IPOS VISHAL GOGNE
V&PO DHANAURI
DISTRICT ROPAR,
PUNJAB
12 SHRI VISHAL
VASANT SOLANKI
IAS VASANT A SOLANKI
SILVER SPLENDOUR 1170/16A
REVENUE COLONY SHIVAJI NAGAR
PUNE – 411005,
MAHARASHTRA
13 DR. SAKET KUMAR IAS C/O SRI M.M.LAL
SECTOR 6A,QR NO 2140
BOKARO STEEL CITY - 827006
JHARKHAND
14 SHRI
GOVINDARAJU NS
IAS MADHUGIRI TALUK
NITTRAHALLY - 572132
TUMKUR DIST,
KARNATAKA
103

Published by National Foundation for Communal Harmony 9th Floor, ‘C’ Wing, Lok Nayak Bhawan Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003 © 2010, National Foundation for Communal Harmony (NFCH) ‘Any part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means without due acknowledgement to NFCH’.

ISBN – 81 – 887772-19-4

Secularism and the law

i

Foreword
The National Foundation for Communal harmony (NFCH) has been organizing essay writing competitions regularly among the officers of the All India Services and Group ‘A’ Central Services, who undergo training at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA). This monograph is an outcome of one such essay competition organized during the 78th Foundation Course of the Academy in the year 2006. The subject of the essay competition was “Secularism and the Law”. As the subject has become quite topical in the recent years, selected essays have been presented in the form of an e-monograph for wider dissemination. Since time immemorial people of different faiths, sects, communities and culture have co-existed in peace & harmony in the country and we are proud of our ‘unity in diversity’ and secular credentials. In spite of such deep-rooted tradition of pluralism, tolerance and syncretism, the land has also witnessed some communal disturbances orchestrated in the name of religion, caste, ethnicity or community, compelling thinkers to revisit the concept of secularism in contemporary context. We are grateful to the bright young officers, for covering various dimensions of the topic comprehensively in their essays, ranging from the meaning of the concept of ‘secularism’, its comparative analysis from the Indian and other Constitutions, debates on uniform civil code, rulings of the Supreme Court, role of political parties, etc. Views have been expressed freely with clarity, cogency and precision. These well argued, thought provoking and meticulously designed essays would evoke a wider debate and response on the subject. The views expressed in these essays are those of the contributors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.

(Lalit Kumar) Secretary NFCH
i

Secularism and the law

6. Contributors Foreword 1. Saket Kumar Shri Govindaraju NS About the Contributors Secularism. 12.Question of attitude Secularism . 10. Naval Kishore Shri Appu Joseph Jose Shri Tukaram Haribhau Mundhe Shri Deepak Rawat Shri Akash Deep Shri Vishal Gogne Shri Vishal Vasant Solanki Dr.A goal and a process Complex relation between Religion and Law Secularism and the Law . Sripriya Rengarajan Shri Kumar Ravi Shri Darez Ahamed Shri V. Akbar Shri K.Strong law required to contain communal crimes Secularism .Constitutional provisions and need to strengthen secular values Secularism . 5. 13. 14. Srinivasan Smt.Conceptual contradictions need for secular minds Secularism . V. Shri A.SECULARISM AND THE LAW CONTENTS Sl No.Theory & Practice Uneasy relation between Secularism and the Law Secularism and the Law . 2.Options ahead Implementation of Secularism related laws depends on collective conscience of the people Building a secular state in a religious society Secularism and the Law in a multireligious society Secularism and the Law . 4. 8. 11.indispensable for peace & prosperity Title Page i 1-6 7-14 15-25 26-35 36-46 47-51 7. 52-60 61-66 67-72 73-76 77-81 82-87 88-95 96-101 102-103 Secularism and the law i . M. 9.A process in nation building Secularism and the Law . 3.

AKBAR A discussion on ‘Secularism’ seems to be highly pertinent at this moment given the fact that our country is now witnessing fissiparous tendencies apparently based on religion. This model is also referred to as ‘non-discriminatory’ and is particularly relevant for multi-religious societies. It is interesting to note that there is no agreed and precise meaning of ‘secularism’ in our country. In the other model. the latter allows for state intervention on grounds of public order and social justice. it means the Secularism and the law 1 .Secularism . yet it is quite baffling and embarrassing that even after more than six decades of independence and despite an emphatic proclamation by the constitution that we are secular. Before proceeding further.Conceptual contradictions need for secular minds A. Although the menace of communalism is not a new phenomenon in the Indian society. there is a complete separation of religion and state to the extent that there is an ‘impassable wall’ between religion and secular spheres. the vision of secularism evolved as the negation of all things religious. The principle of ‘secularism’ as understood in the United States means that the state and the church co-exist in the same human society without having to do anything with each other. In the first one. still things are not so bright. it is necessary to have an idea of the nature and meaning of the term ‘secularism’. In contrast to the former model. all religions are to be treated equally by the state. the state is equi-distant from all religions. There are two possible models of secularism. In such a model. there is no state intervention of religious matters and vice versa. ‘secularism’ which is a concept evolved in relation to religion can also not have the same connotation for all”. That being the case. particularly in political functioning. In Europe. In India. in other words. As Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in his autobiography… “no word perhaps in any language is more likely to be interpreted in different ways by the people as the word ‘religion’.

e. i. which protects all religions equally and does not uphold any religion as the state religion. It is in this double sense – no discrimination against any one on grounds of faith and separation of religion from politics – that our constitution safeguards secularism. India is a multi-religious society and the survival of such a society is possible only it all religions are given equal treatment without any favour or discrimination. A ‘secular state’ in the Indian context means one. the constitution and the government policy. The some extent. The formal inclusion of the adjectival terms ‘secular’ is mainly the result of meeting out the exigencies of the prevailing circumstances. It can Secularism and the law 2 . The first is that people belonging to different faiths and sects are equal before the law. The Sanskrit phrase ‘Sarva Dharma Sambhava’ is the most appropriate Indian vision of secular state and society. it also reflects the ignorance and apathy of the ideologues that they added it merely to the preamble. equal respect for all religions. requirement of party politics and ideological window-dressing. It was subsequently incorporated in to the preamble of the constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The word ‘secular’ was not there in our constitution when it actually came in the being. Secularism as a modern political and constitutional principle involves two basic propositions. The second requirement is that there can be no mixing up of religion and politics. But it should not be forgotten that the word ‘Secular’ has not been defined or explained under the constitution either in 1950 or in 1976 when it was made part of the preamble. The partition of the country was apparently based on religion and this was an eyeopener for the makers of the constitution when they were engaged in the task of giving a concrete shape to the constitution of our country. and did not take care to bring about suitable modifications inside the constitution..opposite. It follows that there can be no discrimination against any one on the basis of religion or faith nor is there room for the hegemony of one religion or majoritarian religious sentiments and aspirations.

it can be said that India was already a secular state and there was no need of such addition. It does not. practice and propagate the religion of one’s choice. In our country. which states that no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds. but also ensures freedom for one who has no religion.be pointed out that the term used after the word ‘Socialist’ is redundant as a socialist democratic state has necessarily to be secular. The constitution requires that there shall not be any state religion and that the state shall treat all religions equally. Article 16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the state. it would not be inappropriate to have a glance at the relevant constitutional provisions pertaining to secularism. a mere perusal of the various articles of it would amply demonstrate that ‘Secularism’ is an integral part of the Indian constitution. The analysis of the above said constitutional provisions makes it amply clear that Indian secularism is unique and it treats all religions alike. Article 15. judiciary is the guardian of the constitution and it has been held by the Supreme Court that secularism is a basic structure of the constitution and it can not be altered by a constitutional amendment. prevent the state from Secularism and the law 3 . In view of the various articles appearing in part III of the constitution. however. At this juncture. irrespective of religion. the word ‘Secular’ was not there initially in the constitution. lays down that the state shall not discriminate any citizen on the ground of religion. It rather gave a false impression that previously India was not a secular state. The constitution not only guarantees a person’s freedom of religion and conscience. Article 26 provides freedom to manage religious affairs and Article 27 prohibits compulsion to pay taxes to benefit any religious denomination. and it scrupulously restrains the state from making any discrimination on grounds of religion. inter alia. Article 25 provides for freedom of conscience and the right to profess. Article 14 of the constitution provides for equality before law for all people. The impact of Secularism can also be seen in Article 28. Although.

If this is true secularism.financially assisting educational institutions sponsored by the ‘church’ or religious organizations. If we analyze the various legislations. a separate civil code exists. Although freedom of religion is granted to all people as a fundamental right under Article 25 of the constitution. bigamy is an offence and a person. Similarly. which are in vogue in our country. Further. concessions given to certain communities on the basis of religion undermine the theory of secularism and create perhaps. is guilty of the offence. who contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting. Is India truly secular? Well. grounds for a rapid increase of majority communalism. we would find that some of them are not in consonance with the concept of secularism. Article 44 directs the state to enact a uniform civil code applicable to all irrespective of their religions faith and beliefs. For instance. if we go through the basic feature of secularism as understood in the west. The state has also reserved to itself and has sometimes exercised the right to interfere in the religious practices of various communities in the interest of their peaceful coexistence and cultural development. under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. But this provision is in applicable to those people who can have more than one wife as per their religion. the enactment of the Muslim women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act. India ceases to be secular for it has different sets of laws for different communities. 1986 with a view to circumvent the apex court’s decision in the ‘Shah Bano case’ and to Secularism and the law 4 . The very fact that operation of a penal provision is not alike among all people and that it is dependent on one’s religious faith tantamount to making a mockery of the very concept of secularism. the directive principles contain a special provision-enunciating ban on cow-slaughter as a desirable policy. Moreover. though Article 44 requires the state to frame a uniform civil code. in the case of Muslims. For instance. it can be seen that state has nothing to do with religion and there will be no discrimination between citizens on the basis of their religion or form of worship and that everybody will be equal before law.

the religious values continue to dominate the day-to-day affairs and in the process generate tension because of plurality of religious views. This casts a shadow on our claim of being a truly secular state. un-ambiguous guidelines either to the individual or to the state. It is a matter of great concern that secularism is struggling for survival in our country now. even today the rights and liabilities of people relating to maintenance. The Indian concept of secularism is full of contradictions and therefore. is unable to provide a clear. inheritance etc. The divorce of politics from religion is the need of the hour and unless this task is expeditiously accomplished. As a consequence. Although Article 15 of the constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. There have been reports that some state governments were partisan and were instrumental in aggravating communal violence. differ according to their religion. The anti thesis of secularism is communalism. The mixing of religion with politics and the dangerous growth of communal parties pose a major threat of the secular framework of our country. Frequent occurrences of violence in the name of religion give fatal blows to the very existence of secularism.treat the divorced Muslim women differently from their counterparts in other religious faiths can not be termed as secular. which is gaining momentum in our society at an alarming pace. To deny rights to Muslim women which are available to the women of other faiths is a violation of the provisions of the constitution that the state shall not discriminate against any citizens as grounds of religion. it is imperative that serious attention is paid to revive secularism and curb communalism. The constitution of India does not clearly and explicitly and hence there is hardly any remedy if the state acts in an un secular way. Such shocking incidents would undoubtedly affect the secular credentials of our country. secularism is bound to have its last breath in our country. A secular state in India is not only necessary from the point Secularism and the law 5 . In such circumstances. India is a secular state and yet communalism continues to shape its policies.

Such loopholes need to be plugged without any Secularism and the law 6 . we need to have a second look at the provisions of the constitution concerning secularism. In a multi-religious. we need to produce secular minds. there is hardly any remedy available to us against the state jettisoning secular path or for using the organs of the state for religious and communal purposes. There is nothing in the constitution to stop formation and functioning of communal organizations and groups and their participation in elections. Over and above all these measures. administrators and citizens have very clear ideas about Secularism. At present. it is necessary that rulers.of view of the religious minorities by is in the interest of all the people in India including the majority community. procrastination. If we are to evolve a secular state. In order to permanently banish the recurrence of communal riots. With that end in view. We need to progress to a stage where politics is completely free of religion and religious freedom of an individual is allowed only to the extent that is does not interfere with the personal freedom of others and betterment of the society in general. leaders. it is necessary to advance the concept of secularism. multiracial and multi-cultural developing society like India. there is need for positive change in the attitude and outlook of the society towards Secularism.

championed secularization of society and positive interference of the state with a view to curbing antisocial acts of religion. Social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy who opposed the inhuman custom of Sati. in Indian nationalism. Gautama Buddha and Mahavira propagated tolerance and nonviolence and equal respect to all. Now the question is whether India is such a “secular” state. but also of progressive thoughts. Mahatma Gandhi considered religion a personal matter and he was for the formation of a secular state. The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution never hesitated to build India on secular foundations. His original definition the term secularism was – “a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions. They opposed and defeated the amendment of Mr. In fact. H. Our leaders opposed religious fundamentalism and moves for the partition of the country on religious basis. It was not only a cradle of many religions. The advocacy of religious tolerance and equal respect for all religions was. SRINIVASAN India has a long tradition of secularism. Secularism and the law 7 . the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life”.Constitutional provisions and need to strengthen secular values K.Secularism . Secularism in Indian National Movement The nationalist movement in India. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was not only a socialist. Charvakas and Lokayatas opposed religious practices. drew inspiration from the secular concepts. The definition of the word “secularism” in itself is not very clear. right from the latter part of the 19th century. It is This word is supposed to be coined by George Jacob Holyoake. in itself a progressive step till independence in India. but also a great champion of humanism and secularism.V. secularism was an important strand. generally understood that secularism implies religious tolerance.

(Sarva Dharma Samba ). all are of equal length. It indirectly refers to the Indian stand on the principle of equal treatment of all religions. has been to build “a secular state in a religious country. which came into force in 1950. Jawaharlal Nehru. affirms “the right to freely profess. Pandit Kunjru said that we invoke the name of God. sectarian spirit. “…THE PEOPLE OF INDIA. we are showing a narrow. the Constitution made no mention of the word “secular” until 1976 during Indira Gandhi’s brief Emergency rule as the Prime Minister.” Indeed. One group says secularism means government intervention on behalf of persecuted minorities. India’s founding fathers were deliberately ambiguous on religious rights – both giving the Muslim minority their own Islamic-based civil code but also promising the overwhelming Hindu majority that the government would work towards a uniform civil code. which is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. i.Kamath to invoke the name of god in the preamble of the Constitution. as described by its first prime minister. Because the Constitution gives something to everyone. as the modern world understands today.e. the terms democracy and secularism. The Indian Flag consists of Ashoka Chakra in its center. socialism. do not approve the authority of any religion with temporal power. However. On the other hand. the Indian constitution. having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVERIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to Secularism and the law 8 . A constitution is superior to all the laws of the country. practice and propagate religion. India’s challenge. Another group decry this as “pseudo secularism” and say true secularism means government remaining neutral. The constitution lays down the national goals of India. secularism and national integration. Every law enacted by the government has to be in conformity with the constitution.” On the other hand. but I am bold to say that while we do so. all sides claiming to march under the banner of secularism. The wheel has many spokes but. democracy.

It reads thus – “Freedom of conscience and free profession. Surprisingly in the Appendix II. which discusses the modification to the text of Constitution as applicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. (a) for the words “SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” the words “SOVERIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC” shall be substituted”. the term “Socialist secular” is omitted from the preamble. which refers “Right to freedom of religion”. It was only on December 18. What is problematic in this context is the absence of a proper definition of secularism. “The State in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion. 1948 by Prof. The 42nd amendment Act reads – “In the Preamble to the Constitution. K.secure to all its citizens…”. If one makes an attempt to look at the secular aura in our Constitution. Shah. So we have decided that we will create India as a secular state. we have to look at the related discussions in the Constituent Assembly. The only other place where the word secular appears in our Constitution is in Article 25 (2) (a) while discussing the “Right to freedom of religion”. So the word secular entered our Constitution only almost 25 years after it had come into effect. 1976 the word “SECULAR” was added in the preamble of our Constitution. creed or profession of faith.” It is now clear that this idea of making India a secular state was not there in the original draft.T. How can we interpret the term secularism? Do we interpret it as the complete detachment of state from religious activities or do we accept the original definition of Holyoake? What is the stand of the government regarding this? To find answers to these questions. An important amendment (Amendment 566) was moved in the meeting dated December 03. the only point to reach is Article 25. and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union. practice and propagation of religion – Secularism and the law 9 .

it is important to analyze these Articles.” This article prohibits any religious activities in educational institutes. This is a basic right guaranteed in the Constitution. all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess. This along with a few judgments of Supreme Court can give us a clear idea on this issue. In order to completely understand the interpretation of secularism in Indian context. Article 27 (Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion) and Article 28 (Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions) can be considered as the interpretations of the principle of secularism in the constitution. Nevertheless. Art. 28 reads – “Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions – (1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds. 26 deals with the freedom to manage religious affairs. practice and propagate religion”. 27 is also very important which reads – “Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion. Is this action by government not questionable under this Article? Art. Art. We know that government gives donations for all major religious activities. We have seen how Article 25 gives freedom for all to practice any religion they want. acquire properties (movable and immovable) and manage affairs regarding the religion. Secularism and the law 10 . – No person shall be compelled to pay any taxes. this is one important aspect of secularism in India.(1) Subject to public order.” The implication and implementation of this article is debatable. morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part. But this limits itself to state-maintained institutes. Accordingly any religious denomination is given right to establish religious institutions. the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).

The Constitution of India abolished untouchability and prohibited its practice in any form.Before looking into the Articles in the Constitution that are supposed to interpret the idea of secularism. humanism and reform. We know that there is a directive principle in the Constitution that calls upon the government to enact a uniform civil code. Secularism and the law 11 . The 42nd amendment to the Constitution introduced by Mrs. The fundamental duties incorporated in the Constitution through the same Amendment make it the responsibility of every citizen to strive for the promotion of the spirit of enquiry. In identifying the features. However. democratic state”. Indira Gandhi. By a water-thin majority of 7-6. scientific outlook. So our basic idea of being a secular state is that we do not have a state religion. secular. Kerala case which was decided by a full Constitutional bench of judges on April 24. This was (probably) the first time that the concept of secularism was interpreted by the Supreme Court. 1973. Here we get the first authorized interpretation of the word “secular” as mentioned in our Constitution. the Supreme Court held that the power to amend the Constitution under Article 368 couldn’t be exercised in such a manner as to destroy or emasculate the fundamental features of the Constitution. Kesavananda Bharati vs. the then Prime Minister. Every time secular India has demanded that the system of personal laws based on religious injunctions should be done away with. which are fundamental and thus non-amendable in the constitution was this statement – A secular State. a State in which there is no State religion (5(vii)). it will be worthwhile to look into one important judgment given by the Supreme Court of India viz. reiterated the secular character declaring India as a “socialist. a countervailing cry has gone up alleging that it is an assault on the identity of minority communities. Article 44 which enjoins upon the government to adopt a Uniform Civil Code that should be taken for what it was meant to be a cornerstone of state policy in a modern nation state. that is.

M. it implies that the state will have nothing to do with religion. which was inaugurated by Justice V. the abolition of the practice of untouchability and promotion of castelessness. While the constitutional Secularism and the law 12 . Further. part of the fundamental law and basic structure of the Indian political system to secure to its people socio-economic needs essential for man’s excellence with material. Secularism has been one of the essential elements in the basic structure of our Constitution which lays down that 1) the state has no religion. liberty and property of all the citizens of the country. it may appear that our Constitution has been based on secularism or dharma nirapekshita. The prevalent cultural indicators are supportive of secularism. our society is steeped in religion. the state will not discriminate between the citizens on the grounds of religion and language. In India.Special preferences in the name of religion do not exist. 2) all citizens have the fundamental right to follow and propagate their own religion. moral prosperity. Chief Justice of India A. Tarkunde said that the constitutional provisions might entitle one to claim that ours was largely a secular state. the then judge of the Bombay High Court and a radical humanist leader. but merely law could not create a truly secular state. Some other judgments read as “secularism is thus more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. Ahmedi opined in a case that the term secular has advisedly not been defined presumably because it is a very elastic term not capable of a precise definition but perhaps best left undefined……There are several features of the Constitution which are strongly suggestive of secularism.” A conference on secularism was held at Vijayawada on October 22nd 1968. Tarkunde. Mr.M. He said that the concept of secular state does not merely imply that the state will be impartial to all religions. Some other judges have delivered separate but concurring judgments on secularism as basic structure. Thus. and 3) it is the duty of the state to protect and secure the life. secularism does not mean mere separation of religion and state but. Secularism is. therefore.

On one hand. because of the spread of science and technology and communication.P. the light of this principle radiates in several provisions of the Constitution. it states that the national system of education will be based on a national curriculum framework. this House recommends to the Government to take immediate steps to:a) Promote a sense of castelessness through inter-caste and inter-religion marriages. as well as liberal and progressive outlook. formulated in 1986 and revised in 1992. which contains a common core along with other components that are flexible. The policy makes an unequivocal statement: “All educational programmes will be carried on in strict conformity with secular values. Not only is it postulated in the preamble. Chennuapati Vidya. The common core is to be designed to promote values. Mrs. which include India’s common cultural heritage and secularism.” In India. M. Secularism is an indispensable part of the basic structure of India’s Constitution. secularism receives challenges from many fronts. casteism and communalism appear to be losing their credence. a good deal had yet to be done before the ideal could be achieved. b) Prepare suitable text books to propagate secular ideas by laying emphasis on fundamental duties enshrined in the Constitution. On the other. Keeping in view the secular character of our Constitution and the fact that secularism is one of the basic tenets of our State Policy.provisions represented a significant advance towards the ideal of a secular state. from Vijayawada introduced a private member resolution in Lok Sabha (House of the People) on the Necessity to strengthen Secularism. As for the National Policy on Education (NPE). and c) Encourage secular outlook among the employees working in Government and Public Sector Undertakings. It was discussed in the Lok Sabha on April 23. casteism and communalism are getting a new lease of life Secularism and the law 13 . 1982.

We talk of ‘rights’ instead of ‘duty’ with an emphasis on “what is in it for me” instead of “what is it that I can do for you. India is the largest democratic and secularist country. The time has come to strengthen the secular values.” The need of the hour is creating secular society and not necessarily a secular state. with a view to reaping the harvest of votes and to achieving their partisan ends. the leaders fanned the communal and caste passions of the people.because of the shortsighted policies of power-hungry politicians and the narrow outlook of the administrators and the leaders. Secularism and the law 14 . Instead of proceeding on the path enunciated in the Constitution. institutions and practices in an uncompromising manner and to accelerate the pace of change in India. The politicization of caste and religion and pampering of communal leaders is causing great harm to the body politic of the nation. because secular state need not always imply secular society. The Indian Constitution in theory and practice has wholeheartedly adopted the alien concepts of religion and secularism. Therein lies the root of our problems.

In practice. observed that the state gives protection and an opportunity to all religions and cultures and thus brings about an atmosphere of tolerance and co-operation and equal treatment to all religious communities. and legal means of preventing them from falling apart and so destroying the plural society of which they are members.Secularism . Moreover.A goal and a process SRIPRIYA RENGARAJAN “The purpose of the law must not be to extinguish the groups which make the society but to devise political. Sarva Dharma Samabhava is the central idea of Indian secularism. Secularism is. the king had a distinct identity and functional realm of his own. however. dharma did not signify any established church. an alien concept for India envisaging separation of the church and the state – an apparently impossible proposition in the Indian situation. as for its genesis. the latter shall prevail. Kautilya. social. particularly. But. on a positive note. with his unending sense of realism. describes king as the fountain of justice (dharmapravartaka) and lays down that whenever the sacred law is in conflict with rational law or the ‘king’s law’. however unpalatable it is to concept puritans. all that ‘secular’ means is that the Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon any section of population. The post-Vedic period. abounds in religious polemics and dialectical warfare. There appears to have been no continuously organized religious persecution or crusade even though Secularism and the law 15 . Nehru. Secularism and Law through the ages The secular character of kinship was emphasized by the social contract theories of ancient India. There is no doubt that dharma and sasana were inextricably interwoven in ancient times.” India is the only country in the world where the issue of secularism has occupied a centre stage in intellectual discussions.

sometimes there was a measure of state patronage for a particular religion or sect owing to the personal law of the ruling prince or his clan. The Constitution of India owes its inspiration to the liberal ideals of our freedom movement. who happened to be Muslims did not. Paradoxically enough. partly as a result of the impact of the West. On the one hand. the French Revolution. the process of secularization gained considerable momentum under the British. the constitutional evolution and the experience already gained in the process of modernization and democratization and from the British traditions. the American Revolution and the Russian Revolution and the Secularism and the law 16 . legislative and judicial institutions. it seems. At the same time existing religious differences were so politicized and encouraged that they led to sharply divisive communal conflicts. The pure theocratic inclinations and the orthodox constitutional jurisprudence attributed to many of these rulers. partly due to the exigencies of imperial colonial rule and largely because of the rise of nationalism. During the British rule. the British power thwarted and retarded national integration in India because they found it easier to rule by dividing different sections of the people. The impact of the Islamic faith on the Indian society would have had a different history and reckoning had it not been admixed with subsequent TurkishAfghan. a plausible policy of official neutrality was formulated. the British ideas and institutions led to progressive unification and secularization of Indian administrative. which became the most potent promoters of secularism. sects and races. notwithstanding the preconceptions of the colonial power favouring the spread of Christianity. allow them freely and fully to integrate their subjects belonging to different religions. Turko-Mongol and Mughal invasions which put the assimilative synthesizing capacities of Indian culture to a severe test mainly because these invasions introduced an element of political coercion and domination. On the other.

financial or other secular activity associated with religious practice – Article 25 (2) 4. The Indian constitution embodies the quintessence of diverse facets of secularism. 2. Secularism is a goal as well as a process. The courts. As an ideology and a bundle of working norms. The state by itself shall not espouse or establish or practice any religion. These rights are furthermore subject to other fundamental rights in Part III.worldwide climate for the larger freedom in the wake of the World War II. 8. morality and health. especially the Supreme Court shall have the final say on adjudging state action as valid or otherwise under the above principles. The state shall have the power to regulate any economic. The state shall have the power through the law to provide for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. It is also a mistake to think that the constitutional provisions relating to secularism are neatly and separately packaged in the fascicules of provisions beginning with Article 25 and ending with Article 30 of the constitution. 9. 7. 6. Secularism in the Indian Constitution is Very simple. the right to freedom of religion and the cultural and educational rights are important and integral part of Indian secularism but Indian secularism extends far beyond the confines of the bundle of rights contained in the aforesaid provisions. Doubtless. Secularism and the law 17 . 5. Article 17 constitutionally outlaws the practice of untouchability. Every individual person will have under Article 25 an equal right to freedom of conscience and religion. These rights are however subject to the power of the state through law to impose restrictions on the ground of public order. it asserts that: 1. it is conditioned by the past legacies and the prevailing realities. 3. Public revenues will not be used to promote any religion. Secularism in our country is an ally of nationalism and national integration. It is a mistake to think that the Indian Republic became more secular when the Preamble of the constitution was amended and the word secular inserted by the Forty-Second Amendment Act of 1976.

the full court inscribed secularism as an essential feature of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.In Keshavananda Bharti. were one in rejoicing at Supreme Court verdict on Shah Bano and acted in wholesome concert in denouncing its Parliamentary reversal. so despite Article 13. Manifestly. Further. certainly they are not unhappy with Hanif Qureshi vs. the nine features of secularism had marshaled behind them a quarter century of national constitutional consensus. a decision which held that sacrifice of a cow is not an obligatory act enjoined by Muslim religion nor with the result upholding both Orissa and Madhya Pradesh legislations forbidding proselytization by Christian missionaries which involved force or fraud and they were not unduly upset by Mary Roy’s judgment striking down Christian laws of inheritance on grounds of gender justice. By this time. Clearly. what the re-definers of secularism were directing their energies on what they perceived as unequal exercise of power of the state providing for social welfare and reform of religious practices. No outrage was expressed when prohibition of bigamy was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1966. Nor was public dissatisfaction voiced on prohibition on Anand Margi’s Tandavnritya accompanied by sharp weapons and human skulls. And this is. at one glorious historical moment. a fundamental duty of all citizens under Article 51 A to preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture. Raj Narain reinforced this view. in Indira Gandhi vs. 30 and 290-A. State of Bihar. Clearly. by constitutional amendment. which declares Secularism and the law 18 . secularism had a translucent and compelling meaning. as well as their brethren pseudosecularists. the redefiners. Both these momentous decisions signify that even Parliament may not modify. the redefiners of secularism have not asked for abolition of Article 17 or Article 25(2) (a) or (b) or Article 26. in 1957 Justice Khanna. Equally they are not saying that the Supreme Court should not have the power to interpret the scope of rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26. To these features has been now added. these nine features.

in the positive sense. At the same time.that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. safety and sovereignty of the State. there are religious endowment trusts. personal attitudes. public health. presupposes mutual understanding. is the cornerstone of egalitarian and forward-looking society. Secularism Vs Individual Freedom Freedom to individuals and religious groups can be granted by the State as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others and is not detrimental to the maintenance of law and order. Indian secularism is the product of our cultural heritage. Moreover. waqf boards etc. it may be stated that our aspirations for a socialist and secular state have only been wishful thinking or just plain optimism. Secularism. The point is that the Indian state is not supportive of any particular religion or religious community. This mutual understanding is possible if we are aware of the basic principles of our religion as well as religion of others. Secularism has been accepted today as the guiding principle of state policy and action. Resultantly. the State has the right to impose necessary restrictions on this freedom of individuals for its security. morals. in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights. All religions are given equal protection in the constitution. Secularism and Legal Distortions Religious tolerance. which is the essence of Indian secularism. historical circumstances and domestic compulsions. established under the law. the post Shah Bano discourse is viewed as tainted by violation of directive principles enjoining the state to endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. They consider the inability and the reluctance of the Indian state to subject laws other then Hindu personal law to the constitution as appeasement to minority fundamentalism. However. which the constitution purports to establish. sovereignty and the well being of the Secularism and the law 19 .

India can hardly be categorized as secular state. would be invalid and the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence of bigamy u/s 494 of IPC. the state refrains from making interference with the personal laws of religious minorities. it is highly pertinent to discuss the two important milestone cases of Sarla Mudgal and Lily Thomas. The rights of these citizens are decided in such a state irrespective of their religious beliefs. The conflict could be resolved only through legislative intervention and the result of such an exercise would result in the enactment of a uniform civil code. Besides giving this religious freedom. In the earlier case. Similarly. In the earlier case the decision of the Supreme Court impinged on the issue of conversion when it was held that the second marriage of the Hindu husband after conversion to Islam. the Supreme Court tried to make the government aware about realization of the directive and the pattern of Secularism and the law 20 . employment and personal laws. The dilution of the Sarla Mudgal case in the subsequent case of Lily Thomas brings out a critical question as to whether the court is competent to draw attention of the State or otherwise issue any direction to the State to make any constitutional amendments to achieve this objective.majority of its citizens. while making laws for its citizens. Now if we take this concept as secularism. This is because she is constitutionally bound to give special protection and privileges to religious minorities with regard to their education. a secular State refrains from making discrimination against any individual or group on religious grounds. without having his first marriage dissolved under law. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for having a uniform civil code because of the conflict faced by the court due to conflict of personal laws. Some important changes have been made in the Hindu religious laws but minority personal laws have been left untouched by the lawmakers. In this context.

A law that stood as an impediment to render justice in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution was needed to be struck down. the absence of a uniform civil code led to discrimination of the Christians for more than fifty years. inheritance-succession. As discussed earlier the codification of Hindu law and bringing of certain other religious communities like the Jains. Union of India. multi-racial. the social Secularism and the law 21 . adoption- maintenance are closely tied up with religious practices and any attempt against this pattern will evoke susceptibilities. The best cause in this matter would be reforming of the personal laws through the process of rationalization before bringing about the code. Buddhists and Sikhs within the definition of Hindu was achieved by a single stroke of pen and practice of monogamy was implemented in all these religions instantly. the personal laws regulating relationships in the realm of marriage-divorce. Morocco. The abolition of polygamy and restraining the unilateral power of the Muslim husband to divorce his wife can be the trendsetters in this direction. multi-lingual and multi-caste. However the crucial question is how to go about this critical exercise. The basic premise of the promised common civil code is that there is no necessary connection between religious and personal laws in a civilized society. This indeed is a profound statement. Pakistan and Tunisia and the Islamic Republics of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Traditionally. This may not hurt muslim sentiments as this type of reform had already taken place in Islamic countries like Syria. This simply means that in a civilized society which is invariably multi religious.debate put forward in the latter case is that the uniform civil code though desirable. In the case of John Vallathom Vs. minority-guardianship. may be counter productive. Certain reforms like equal property rights to women under Mitakshara law in all the States and abolishing conversion as a ground for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act could be introduced as envisaged under other minority personal laws.

In the process they get deeply enmeshed in deciphering religious texts and interpreting them as happened in the Shah Bano case. Is there anything in the Indian Constitution that permits such State sponsored support of religion and religious laws. divorce. Is such excessive entanglement with religion by the State and its judiciary constitutionally permissible? Relegating matters of family law into the realm of private law as opposed to public law and linking it up with religion ensures the hands off policy of state to the women’s issues and consigns them to the mercy of mullas and pandits. In sum. it does not. maintenance and inheritance.relations are required to be regulated on a basis that cuts across all such considerations as of religion. Moreover envisaged common civil code under Article 44 need not be taken as anti-religion. even when they blatantly violate other Fundamental Rights? Essential Core Test: The current judicial analysis of the scope of the right to freedom of religion. the law Secularism and the law 22 . the law is held to be bad. While deciding whether a particular law violates freedom of religion. Sixty years after independence women continue to be governed by religious laws in matters of marriage. race. Else. the State under article 44 should have no alibi to move in the direction of securing a uniform civil code. The envisioned code would indeed be invaluable input for augmenting human resource development at no expense of State resources. in view of the clear and categorical commandment of Article 13 of the constitution. the principles so prudently prescribed by the founding fathers of our constitution shall cease to be fundamental in the governance of the country. its meaning. content and limitations is entirely wrong. If it does. caste. sex etc. foreclosing all association of religious sentiments with the institution of marriage. judges have got hopelessly entangled in finding out whether the law interferes with the essential core or practice of the religion.

Indian secularism is religion affirming and not religion negating. For example. (Art. The Secularism and the law 23 . This test for determination of the constitutional validity of a law alleged to violate freedom of religion is hopelessly incorrect and leads to dangerous conclusions. thus making religion a convenient tool for the oppression of women. The attitude of the Indian State to personal laws reflects its inability to separate itself from the religious affairs. 44). The answer was in the negative and the children’s rights were upheld. a law is enacted abolishing polygamy or unilateral talaq among Muslims or conferring equal rights to men and women on matters of inheritance. 20 and Art. Islam and Buddhism are against the secular provisions of the Constitution. To date this principle was followed in National Anthem case where the judge proceeded to find out whether there is compelling state interest to expel the children for not singing the National Anthem on grounds of public order. The Constitution permits practicing and propagating religion.passes the test and is held valid. Can it be argued that a law abolishing them is unconstitutional because they form essential core of religion? Therefore the true test would be whether there is compelling state interest in making the law and if the state’s interest is compelling then the regulation stands or else it fails. Furthermore unlike in India. But the right to propagate one’s religion does not give right to convert any person to one’s own religion. The practices of conversions from Hinduism to Christianity. health or decency. the constitutions of many countries in the world that provide freedom to religion do not guarantee the right to propagate as a fundamental right. The Constitution of Ireland and Japan says that the freedom of religion is guaranteed to all and so is the case of China but it is the hitch that nowhere religious propaganda is a fundamental right. The Swiss Constitution simply declares through Article 49 “freedom of creed and conscience is inviolable”. The necessary corollary to the absence of state patronage to any religion is the freedom of religion to all.

To use minority defensively to resist the requirements imposed at times. various court judgments have done much to clarify the gray area lying between minority rights on the one hand and the larger social good on the other. in other words. The State does not extend patronage to any religion. It would be thus clear that Constitution made clear demarcation between religious part personal to the individual and secular part thereof. 1993 was held to be negation of law and therefore invalid and the court held that the greatest religious tensions are not those between any one religion and another. The only issue relating to the basic feature was whether secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. The decision arrived at by the judges in the S. State is neither pro-any particular religion nor anti-any particular religion. The intention of the constitutional guarantee on minority rights. as we understand it is to promote and to protect the distinctiveness of religious and linguistic minorities in the country. Over the years.spirit of this right available in our country is in consonance with the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It stands aloof. There was no dissent by any judges in this regard and the proposition laid down by the court can be hardly regarded as Obiter Dicta but the law of the land. The question on reservation also becomes another hotly debated issue. it maintains neutrality in matters of religion and provides equal protection to all religions subject to regulation and actively act on secular part.R. Should minority groups be excluded from reservations merely on the basis of their religion? Such question needs to be answered clearly after further discussion until a national consensus is reached. Bommai’s case and Ismail Faruqui’s case reemphasized the concept of secularism being the basic feature of the Constitution. be it running the educational institutions Secularism and the law 24 . which was answered in the affirmative. Acquisition of certain land under Ayodhaya Act. they rather are the tensions between the fundamentalist and pluralist in each and every religious tradition.

it is religious communalism that undermines minority rights.or other institutions in the long run. undermines the very legitimacy of minority rights themselves. plead with Gandhi salesman and Marx merchants to avoid coalition with caste and religion oriented groups? Can’t we begin the battle for a secular political culture and public life? Can’t we mass-vaccinate. In conclusion. often with attacks from the outside by religious communalists from the majority community. in a higher dimension than the author meant. forbid political parties with communal labels from the hustling. From a nationalist perspective we must be ashamed that the Indian tryst with the secular destiny of wiping every tear from every eye is making head way steadily backwards in law and much more in life. Secularism and the law 25 . through a big movement and people’s mobilization. but also with mis-adventures from the inside by extremists from the minority itself. I conclude with a quote from VICTOR HUGO: “I am for Religion against Religions”. Why not ban at least the religious symbols in the elections. every Indian against anti-secular disease? Blush. if you can.

e. Indian laws.Secularism . Atharva Veda and Rig Veda and Akbar’s Din-e-Ilahi. sex. which incorporated the word explicitly in the Preamble. and the country had a bitter experience of partition because of religious animosity just before its political birth.has always been there in our country and has its roots in the Yajur Veda. The concept of secularism is encapsulated in the broader concept of right to equality i. tolerance for all religions . The vision of secularism 'sarwa dharma sambhava'. no citizen shall be discriminated by the state on the grounds of caste. race or colour.. The whole philosophy of Indian Constitution is based on the three tenets of Equality. which include union and state laws. it is important to consider what secularism in India means. This concept in India is very different from Secularism and the law 26 .Complex relation between Religion and Law KUMAR RAVI The concept of secularism is not new to India. religion. i. Many questions have been raised: Are the Indian laws really secular in all aspects? How has the state endeavored to secure the religious freedom of all citizens? How have the laws functioned in the last 50 odd years? How the rights of religious minorities have been protected? Has the concept of secularism been politicized? Do we really have any concrete definition of secularism? And many more such intriguing questions which has made the relation between secularism and law much more complex. Fraternity and Justice. The right to freedom of religion is a natural corollary to this concept. the word ‘secularism’ was not used in the Indian Constitution until the 42nd Amendment in 1976. This does not mean that the concept of secularism was not evident in the 'Constitution or Indian laws. Before looking at the relation between secularism and law. have been enacted in this broader definition of secularism. However. the functioning of secularism has not only been a complex issue but also very sensitive political agenda. Since secularism in India does not completely separate religion and state. which lays down the basic principles of secularism in India.e.

After the 42nd Amendment. The Indian Constitution does not envisage an irreligious or non-religious state. the Constitution contains many provisions to establish the secular character of the Indian polity.. in the fact that whereas in the case of western states the discrimination by state is absolutely banned. The precise sense in which the word secular is used is clarified by the corresponding term 'pantha nirpeksha' (denominationally neutral) in the Hindi version of the document. however. state shall not involve in any religious activity. the state is empowered to legislate different laws applicable to different communities. This is. which is not connected with and not devoted to religion. India came to be characterized as a 'Sovereign.. By virtue of this. This further means that the state can accord legal recognition to its people not only as citizens but also as members of different communities i. multi-cultural and multi-lingual identity. Secular and Democratic Republic'. not true in India. sex. The Constituent Assembly also discussed the prospects of banning religious legislation but ultimately the state was left free to enact such kind of legislation as part of unique secular polity of India. the concept of secularism in India has been defined in accordance with multi-religious. Article 16 guarantees equality of Secularism and the law 27 . therefore. as Hindus. opposed to. Thus. anything which is distinct. 15).e. or not connected with religion'. a secular state is one. having no concern with religious or spiritual matters.what is practiced in the West. The difference lies. It only tells that all religions shall be treated equally and there shall be no discrimination among the citizens 'only' on the basis of their religion in any form or manner (Art. Besides Preamble. It means separation of religion and state in the West i. According to Encyclopedia Britannica it means: 'Nonspiritual. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion. or place of birth. the constitution of India permits discrimination on condition that the religious ground is accompanied by another reasonable ground. caste. Socialist. Muslims. etc.e. Thus. and the ancient religious tradition of the country.

included in the chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy. which includes the right "to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes" (Article 26). The UCC will not and shall not result in interference of one's religious beliefs Secularism and the law 28 . morality and health". succession and like matters are of secular nature and. "Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion" (Article 27). Clause 2(b) of Article 25 provides for state intervention within the framework of the said article to promote 'social welfare and reform'. It is. law can regulate them. Articles 25 to 30 deal specifically with the freedom of religion which are as follows: "Freedom of conscience and free profession. with the clarification that "No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds" (Article 28). therefore. and the "Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions" (Article 30). "Freedom to manage religious affairs". however. all the freedoms and rights conferred by Articles 25-30 are "subject to public order. Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilized society. Marriage. practice and propagation of religion" (Article 25). However. and Article 17 abolishes the practice of untouchability. which has no legal enforceability. Article 44 of the constitution is an important stone in the Indian secular fabric. "Protection of interests of minorities" (Article 29). "Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain educational institutions".opportunity in matters of public employment irrespective of one's religious identity. Not only that they are to be exercised in a manner that is progressive in spirit. It requires the state to 'endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code' throughout India. throwing open the Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. The spine of controversy revolving around UCC has been secularism and the freedom of religion enumerated in the Constitution of India. for example.

a uniform civil code was seen as a goal to be implemented and was included in the directive principles. Personal laws of minorities were maintained and thus. succession and inheritance.and legal pluralism in a diverse society. marriage. there were demands to protect religious freedom. the whole gamut of family. based on a notion of homogenized citizenship. i. To protect minority interests. whereas the guarantee to citizens of equal protection from the law and before the law supports a uniform civil code. Secularism sans protection to minority religious and cultural groups creates majoritarianism. there were wide differences amongst the members on the issue of personal laws. property. divorce and adoption rights were left within the fold of religious legislation. Opposition to reform of personal laws is based on the freedom of religion and conscience. as arguments in favour and against are both based on provisions laid in the Constitution.relating. As early as 1954. This issue also raises questions concerning the hierarchy of rights . Unable to arrive at an agreement. especially minority interests and on the other. in the State of Bombay vs ‘Narasu Secularism and the law 29 . The Constitution is ambiguous on the issue of personal laws. The issue of Uniform Civil Code opens discussion on the nature and working of Personal Laws in India. to have a uniform civil code for all. mainly to maintenance. This means that under the UCC a Hindu will not be compelled to perform a nikah or a Muslim not to be forced to carry out sindur-daan. On the one hand.can the right to be governed by personal laws (a component part of the right to freedom of conscience) have precedence over the right to equality . the protection of minorities in a plural setting. special protection measures need to be undertaken to cover the need for different identities and cultures and this is at odds with strict secular principles. Judicial pronouncements are important in determining the essence of the implications in our Constitution.e. In the Constituent Assembly debates. The subject of personal law is related to a very important feature of secularism.

it is the state that is charged with the duty to do so. adopted legislation that abrogated the right of the Muslim woman divorcee to maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code by passing the Muslim Women's Protection Bill. scriptures and religious texts were not subject to judicial review. Religious denominations had autonomy and personal laws were recognized as extra constitutional laws. The judiciary has been very vocal in giving its opinion on the need of uniform civil code in the country. are not void even if they conflict with fundamental rights. Shah Bano was entitled to three months maintenance. The Supreme Court heard the matter years later and upheld her right to maintenance. In the recent judgment of July 2003. the chief justice V N Khare observed that it was a matter of great regret that Article 44 of Secularism and the law 30 . However. In 1978. The Shah Bano case concerns an old Muslim woman who went to court against the way her husband had divorced her. It held that no community is likely to bell the cat by making concessions on this issue. While doing so. who had abandoned her for another woman after over 40 years of marriage. the Shah Bano judgment of 1985 overturned this view and the Supreme Court took up the role of bringing in reform. giving in to pressure.inverted the efforts of the court. it was held that personal laws do not fall within the ambit of laws in force and therefore. Justice Kuldip Singh stated in a case that the uniform civil code was required for national integration. It ruled that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code overrides Muslim Personal Law (shariat) in matters of divorce.Appa Mali’ case. It was stated that minorities should give up their commitment to the two-nation theory and accept reforms in a similar manner as the Hindus and thus promote national unity. the court also referred to the need to enact a uniform civil code to promote social justice. The judicial perception was that personal laws did not fall within its purview. The political aftermath of this judgment protest by patriarchal sections of the Muslim community . According to Muslim law. The Rajiv Gandhi government. 65-year old Shah Bano filed a petition demanding alimony from her husband.

to pave the way for an extensive control of religion and religious affairs by the state. The issue of religious personal laws reflects yet another aspect of secularism. it is limited secularism. The right to Freedom of conscience and free profession. It was argued that the common civil code will help ideologies. secularism means equal respect and freedom of all religions. it is a form of majoritarianism. In principle. which has generated enough controversy in the past. i.. the state has overridden the toleration of religious. The court contended that the killing of cows could not be regarded as essential practice of Muslims. Also. morality and health. non-discrimination. It has been pointed out that in the name of national culture and a homogenized notion of citizenship. The Supreme Court decreed in a case that Muslims of India couldn’t be given the freedom to kill cows by way of 'Qurbani' as part of Id VI Adha. the court has intervened in the affairs of Anand Margis by restricting their religious right to practice Tandav on the grounds of maintenance of public order. even the decision of Secularism and the law national integration by removing contradictions based on 31 . and the separation of the sacred and secular but without special protection to minorities. ethnic and cultural differences.an unacknowledged recognition of Hindu belief in the sanctity of the cow.the Constitution has not been given effect. Thus. which sought to promote animal husbandry. Similarly. under Article 48 of the Constitution.e. This has resulted in the transformation of the laws regarding religious freedom into an over assimilationist mould. practice and propagation of religion under Article 25 is subject to public order. In fact. The court in one case allowed the believers of Jehovah faith the right not to sing the national anthem on grounds of genuine conscientious religious objection as there was no provision of the law that obliged anyone to sing the national anthem. Indian legal system has to make a compromise between the conflicting interests of different religious groups. the court has a reason to ban cow slaughter .

The difficulty of restricting the state. and Himachal Pradesh in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition. the court determines it. The legal issues related to secularism went to courts very frequently. and the maximum interference that can be allowed is supervision only. what should be the extent of intervention. It held: "The words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly. is questionable and so. social reforms necessitate state intervention. The endorsement of the decision of Union of India to dismiss four BJP-ruled governments after demolition of Babri Mosque was the high point of the Supreme Court's protection of secular ideals. confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices. In a major judgment the Supreme Court three-judge bench held that Bal Thackeray's speech in the election campaign in 1990 asking Hindu voters to vote for Ramesh Prabhu. Also. Madhya Pradesh. In another case. the Supreme Court held that Hindutva should be understood as a way of life or a state of mind and was not to be equated with or seen as religious Hindu fundamentalism. It was further added that the use of religion and caste to mobilized votes in the elections by any recognized political party would amount to corrupt practice Secularism and the law 32 . This was a bright spot in free and fair conduct of elections and in restricting the role of religion in election speeches. the legitimacy of a secular state to control religious institutions.what is religion and what is not lies no longer with the religious group/individual. unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India. Rajasthan. a Hindu. depicting the way of life of the Indian people". separating religion from the secular and the inconsistency of the judiciary has undermined secularism. The court here justified the dismissal of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led state governments of Uttar Pradesh. amounted to corrupt practice. even if the denominations agree. While it is argued that the secular state should be kept out of interfering with religious denominations. and making derogatory remarks against Muslims.

goes well beyond the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Acts to render conversions. particularly of or by the dalits. a ninejudge bench again reiterated that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the polity. virtually impossible. in 1994. Secularism and the law 33 . is freedom for the other. because doing so "would impinge on the 'freedom of conscience'" guaranteed to all the citizens of the country alike. the missionaries in the areas of education and health were seen linked to the objective of conversion. They became the basis of new legislation on the issue of freedom of religion in Orissa (1967) and Madhya Pradesh (1968).and was unconstitutional. in equal measure. which means that a person is free to make his/her choice of religion/sect and hence conversion is per se legal. However. Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu has been a major area of controversy in last few years. Under the cloak of social service and charitable activities. a person can change his religion/sect only on his own wish without coming under influence of allurement. force or threat. This is so because of the stringent reporting obligations imposed upon the converts and the converted. Thus it is evident that law has encroached a bit far into the secular principle of freedom of religion guaranteed to the citizens. the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Forcible Conversion of Religion Act (2002). The issue of conversions of poor and illiterate people in remote and tribal areas especially in Orissa. therefore. In the landmark judgment of S R Bommai vs Union of India. the discretionary powers conferred upon law enforcement officers. The latest attempt in this direction. The constitution allows freedom of choice of religion to every person in India. and there can. When challenged in court it was ruled that "what is freedom for one. The state governments have reacted in different ways to counter this problem under the pressure of majority religious groups. here the court strongly held the opinion that secularism undeniably sought to separate the religions from the politics. be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert another person to one's own religion". More importantly.

The issue of uniform civil code is deeply associated with maturity of secular idea. POTO and POTA were although enacted without any religious colour in the beginning but their functioning has not been communally unbiased. heritance etc. We as a nation must adhere to the idea of secularism in the present context only i. It appears that all hard work done in the past has gone waste and a deep chasm has been created between the two largest communities posing a big danger to the secular framework. The legal enforcement agencies themselves connive with the miscreants to shake the foundations of Indian democracy. Every party has its own tailor-made definition of secularism and. giving equal treatment by the state to all religions. when in power. In democracy. follows suitable appeasement policy Secularism and the law 34 .e. Such instances indicate that despite fifty odd years of working of the constitution for bringing secularism in a natural way. It is alleged that these laws were targeted against certain communities. which made specific community skeptical towards such laws. Uniform code on maintenance. multi-lingual and multi-religious society. Several questions crop up in the mind: What is the future of secularism in India? Will fundamentalism go down or go up? How will law protect minority rights? What is the future of UCC? Do we need another model of secularism? The fundamental limitation in our quest of answers to the above questions is very clear: we have no other option. is secular in nature and hence requires immediate consensus through debate and active participation by all political parties. the political parties play a key role in smooth functioning of system. Sometime the governments fail to protect the ideals of secularism enshrined in the constitution. The relation between religion and law is complex. the country has lost its way somewhere and religious discrimination by state still remains a bitter truth. We have to respect the differences without compromising on national integration.The preventive detention laws like TADA. We are a multi-cultural. We have to consolidate opinion on secular issues.

It is high time that they rise above petty political considerations. The media and judiciary have critical role to play without any bias. Despite some dark spots we have been able to keep our country on secular path and with more education and awareness we will be able to fulfill the dream of our forefathers. Secularism and the law 35 .without giving any real benefits to people.

We have the basis of an independent ethic. deeper second order justification is also integral to the definition of secularism. with out reference to values justifying separation. including those of peace and political obedience. It is defined extremely narrowly by some as the separation of religion from the policy and practice of the state. The first two distinguish political from comprehensive secularism but the third group finds such a distinction untenable. which consisted in trying to define an independent political ethic. The ordinary Latin word for century or age. We look for certain features of human condition. Others believe that secularism is a normative purposive concept because of which the values advanced by separation in part constitutes its meaning. For a third group. There were in fact two ways in which this could be done. The secularism of today is built on this original distinction. a set of grounds for obedience. or of the origin. “etsi Deus non dasetur”… even if God didn’t exist these norms would be binding on us. took on a special meaning as applied to profane time. There was. the time of ordinary historical succession. This time was interwoven with higher times. Government was more in the saeculum by contrast with the church. however. The aim was to establish a certain ethic of peaceful coexistence and political order. which allow us to deduce certain exception less norms. The first one can be described as the common ground strategy.Options ahead DAREZ AHMED It is not entirely clear what is meant by secularism. The origin point of modern western secularism was the wars of religion. This allows us to abstract one religious beliefs altogether. a second strategy. or of God. which while still theistic were based on those doctrines which were common even to all theists. the time of ideas. Secularism and the law 36 .Secularism and the Law . Secular is a word that finds its original meaning in a Christian context ‘Saeculum’.

nor seeks either to promote or interfere with religion. Religion and the individual (freedom of religion) 2. It cannot impose religious tax. The purpose of law is to secure justice. The state and the individual (citizenship) 3. The state and religion (separation of state and religion) INDIVIDUAL RELIGION STATE SEPARATION FREEDOM OF RELIGION: In the relationship between religion and the individual. So on close examination we can see that the conception of a secular state involves three distinct but interrelated sets of relationships concerning the state. The term law consists of principles/rules. religion. Conceptually analyzing the terms secularism and law. There is a limited area in which secular state can legitimately regulate the manifestation of Secularism and the law 37 . The law presupposes a state. is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion. the third factor (state) is ideally excluded. The state cannot dictate or compel any individual to profess a particular religion. deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion. may be called law.Law may be defined as the body of principles recognized and applied by state in the administration of justice. Law is means whereas justice is the end. The law consists of rules recognized and acted on the courts of justice. it is implied that these terms presupposes existence of a state. To ascertain the nature of law one should go to the courts. which are recognized and applied by state. The three sets of relations are: 1. and the individual. Those rules. The secular state is a state that guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion.

Art. 25(2) thus authorizes the state to regulate any secular activity associated with religion. Art. 25(2) grants to the state broad. sati may have religious sanctions but the state still has constitutional power to ban them. 25 (1). The basic guarantee of this right of individual freedom is in Art. Art. 25(1). sweeping powers to interfere in religious matters. 26. to legislate social reforms. safety or morals. The secular state views the individual as a citizen.religion in the interest of public health. Practices like devadasi. Religion becomes entirely irrelevant in defining the terms of citizenship. The Indian constitution provides for the individual as well as collective freedom of religion. 28(3) which forbids compulsory religious instruction or worship in state aided institutions strengthens Art. State of Bombay. practice and propagate religion subject to state control in the interest of public order. In a secular state freedom of association for religious purpose is safeguarded. But Supreme Court has made it clear that state can have no power over the conscience of individual – this right is absolute. its rights and duties are not Secularism and the law 38 . 27 which prohibits religious taxation. This freedom extends to all persons including aliens underlined by Supreme Court in Ratilal Panchand vs. The Indian Penal Code (sections 295-8) makes it a crime to injure or defile a place of worship or to disturb a religious assembly etc. This reflects peculiar needs of the Indian society. Collective freedom of religion is spelled out in Art. The extensive modification of Hindu personal law has been by legislation based on this provision. Individual freedom of religion is further strengthened by Art. Citizenship is a relationship between state and the individual and here again exclusion of the third factor is essential. and not as a member of a particular religious group. morality and health. even though these actions might be sanctioned by offender’s own religion. The Indian Constitution makes freedom of conscience as well as right to freely profess.

State of U. inter alia. The sum total of these individual-state relationships constitutes the meaning of citizenship. both religion and the state have freedom to develop without interfering with one another. of religion extends to political as well as other rights.affected by individual’s religious beliefs. held that the constitutional mandate to the state not to discriminate on the ground. in one limited aspect. 15(1) provides that the state shall not discriminate on grounds only of religion. The separation of state and religion is the principle that preserves the integrity of the other two relationships. each with its own objectives and methods.P. freedom of religion and citizenship. Under the principle of separation. “The state shall observe neutrality in regard to all religions”. After guaranteeing in Art. Supreme Court in Nainsuleh Das vs. subordinate to as well as separate from the state. race. In a secular state all religions are. The democratic state derives its authority from a secular source (the consent of the governed) and is not subordinate to ecclesiastic power. The unstated principle embodied in Indian Constitution is that found in 1931 Karachi resolution of the Indian National Congress. 15(1). Art. the constitution goes on in Art. 326 declares that elections shall be on the basis of adult suffrage. 14 the right to equality before law and the equal protection of the laws. place of birth or any of them. caste. The existence of different personal laws contradicts the principle of non-discrimination by state contained in Art. The underlying assumption of separation of state and religion implies religion and the state function in two basically different areas of human activity. In 1858 the most significant step was taken in instituting Secularism and the law 39 . CRITICAL EVALUATION OF SECULARISM AND LAW IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA British power in India had a reasonably firm policy of not involving the state in the matters of religion. sex.

Clearly the prevailing views about the reform of Hindu religion saw it as entirely fitting that the representative and administrative wings of state should take Secularism and the law 40 .equality before law by enacting uniform codes of civil and criminal law. This underlines the basic assumption in nationalist thinking about the role of state legislation in religion – legal intervention in the cause of religious reform was not undesirable per se. In bringing about this purification of Hindu religion. This meant a shift in agency of reform – from the legal authority of the colonial state to the moral authority of the national community. The reason why personal law was not brought with in scope of uniform civil code was reluctance of the colonial state to intervene in matters close to the very heart of religious doctrine and practice. an enormous increase in the involvement of the state administration in the management of the affairs of Hindu temples. One of the dramatic results of this cumulation of reformist desire within the nationalist middle class was the sudden spate of new legislations on religions and social matters immediately after independence. It was possible to justify some of these laws on purely secular grounds. rise of nationalism led to the refusal on the part of Indian elite to let the colonial state enter into areas that were regarded as crucial to the cultural identity of the nation. but it was undesirable when the state was colonial. In second half of the 19th century. Even as the new constitution was being discussed. Madras Temple Entry Authorization Act 1947 were enacted. which created an entire department of government devoted to the administration of Hindu religious endowments. After independence apart from reformist legislation of this kind. the most significant enabling legislation was the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. the legislative wing of the state was seen as the appropriate instrument. enactment of laws like Madras Devadasis (Prevention of Dedication) Act 1947.

etc. legalized divorce and prohibited polygamy. The urge to undertake reform of Hindu Personal Law made it difficult for the state not to transgress into the area of religious reform itself. The third principle is neutrality which is best described as the requirement that the state not give preference to the religions over non religions and which leads in continuation with liberty and equality principles. which requires that the state do not give preference to one religion over other. The Hindu Succession Bill. The desire was in fact to initiate a process of rational interpretation of religious doctrine and to find a representative and credible institutional process for the reform of Secularism and the law 41 . that the state do not involve itself with religious affairs or organizations. The liberty principle can only be limited by a secular state by need to protect some other universal basic right. New code legalized intercaste marriage. which was series of laws called the Hindu Marriage Bill.up the responsibility of managing Hindu temples as it were the “public interest” of general body of Hindus. inheritance to daughter and permitted adoption. In one and the same move it sought to rationalize the domain of religious discourse and to secularize the public domain of personal law. and not by appeal to a particular interpretation of religious doctrine. which requires that state permit the practice of any religion. to what is known in US constitutional law as the Wall of Separation doctrine namely. within the limit set by certain other basic rights. Here the violation of the principle of separation of state and religion was justified by the desire to secularize. Second is the principle of equality. This reformist agenda was carried out most comprehensively during the making of the constitution and in the enactment in 1955 of what is known as the Hindu Code Bill. ANOMALIES OF SECULAR STATE What are the characteristics of a secular state? First is the principle of liberty.

Kripalani argued “If we are a democratic state I submit we must make laws not for one community alone…. This is precisely the ground on Secularism and the law 42 . The culmination of these campaigns for a uniform set of personal laws for all Muslims of India was reached with passing of the so-called Shariat Act by 1937. Thus even while resisting the idea of Uniform Civil Code the Muslim leadership has not shunned state intervention. Art. But the minorities are unwilling to grant to a legislature elected by universal suffrage the power to legislate the reform of their religions.g. the first principle – that of freedom of religion – could not be invoked only for minority communities when it has been set aside in the case of majority community. That the use of state legislation to achieve this purpose comes into conflict with the principle of freedom of religion is anomaly of secular state in India. there do not exist any other institutions. Within the minority communities there were organized attempts to put an end to local customary practices among various parts of India. e.B.” If it was accepted that the state could intervene in affairs of one religious community then why not of others? Clearly. which have the representative legitimacy to supervise such a process of reform.religious practice. The fact that the use of state legislation to bring about reforms in only the religion of the majority was creating a serious anomaly in the very notion of equal citizenship. As J. This anomaly has provided one of the most potent ammunitions to the charge of appeasement of minorities. The equality principle recognized by constitution was questioned in early 1950s. This is the impasse on equality principle. The third principle of separation of the state and religion has also been stretched. On the other hand. 290(A) makes specific provision of money to be paid every year to Travancore Devasom Fund by governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The conclusion is inescapable that the wall of separation doctrine of US Constitutional Law can hardly be applied to the present situation.

it does not mean we reject the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. The Shah Bano case has bearing on two issues of India as a polity made up of plural religions and cultural communities. Secondly. a) Should there be a uniform civil code or should the customary personal laws prevail? b) Art.which the argument is made that Indian secularism has to have a different meaning from western secularism. for that would be a violation of the basic principles of democracy and contrary to the best interests of religion and government. CONTEXTUAL SECULARISM “When India is said to be a secular state. The first view underlines need for a uniform civil code by many sections that do not share similar views and interests. Though faith in the supreme principle is basic to Indian tradition. the Indian state will not identify itself with or be controlled by any particular religion. No person should suffer any form of disability or discrimination because of his religion but all alike should be free to share to the fullest degree in the common life. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the state assumes divine prerogatives. Finally there are supporters of possibility of multiple and flexible interpretations. We hold that no one religion should be accorded special privileges in national life or international relations. In India there are many views about the desirability of a uniform civil code. 13(1) of the Indian Constitution says that all laws in force so far as they are in consistent with fundamental rights shall be void: the fundamental right include the level of equal protection of the laws for all citizens. This is the basic principle involved in the separation of church and Secularism and the law 43 . there are the pragmatists who shy away from imposing a general principle.

privileges and guarantees to these communities. Those who define their identities in terms of traditional practices or modern institutions are not automatically debarred from public sphere. Radhakrishnan. This is an elegant exposition of meaning of secularism by S. Furthermore. Surely it cannot protect the good of small religious communities unless they come into the political arena – there would be no one to be protected and nothing to guarantee if the good was antecedently expelled from political sphere. Any intermingling of religion in whatever form with politics that violates the basis of equal participation in the democratic process is to be abjured. Nor does it exclude religious communities from political arena. Under certain conditions it grants immunity. Secularism and the law 44 . No religious community can hope to bring its internal or external fancies into the political arena. What does a right based secularism look like? It acknowledges difference – difference between religious communities and between religious and non-religious communities – it is unmistakably distinguishable from hyper-substantive secularism. it is not the same breed as ultra procedural secularism. Contextual secularism is the view that under certain conditions religious and political institutions must be separated on the basis of non-sectarian principles. Indeed it readily brings them in. a minimally overlapping good exists. But the good of all communities must also be safeguarded against the whims of their own members as well as the fancies of others. particularly to smaller ones. namely the ordinary but dignified life for all that cannot be undermined in the name of any ultimate ideal. Because it abstracts not from every substantive content but only from those that are identifiably controversial or posing to be universal. Separation does not always mean exclusion. It is consonant with Gandhi’s faith in the supreme and the reality of the unseen spirit. This is so because the idea of separation qua principled distance is built into a commitment to participatory democracy. principled distance is also one of its forms.state”.

In other words. discrimination. Under such conditions. Before a heterogeneous society such as ours. Right-based secularism does not foreclose the possibility of working out a genuinely common good. But adhere to of rights have not given up hope that whenever favourable circumstances arise they will pick up the threads from where they snapped. shun action in haste that snap whatever tenuous bonds exist between groups and individuals and in full knowledge that common good is currently non-existent remain committed to its existence in future. a right-based secularism requires that political institutions keep a principled distance from religious institutions and practices. currently. In this sense. need to be expelled from public arena. By far the best option is to forever and only have the politics of common good. individuals and groups are shut out from participatory democracy and are unable to get courts to enforce their claim.When this is threatened. Rights enter the political arena precisely when different individuals and groups have abandoned deliberation once the common good. Here. differences cannot be overcome. is to have a politics of common good and deploy a fall back strategy. a society may plunge into what Hobbes famously called the war of all against all – in other words a Bosnian suicide. an implicit commitment to conduct a dialogue in future exists within the discourse of rights. The next best when conditions persist. The fourth to altogether abandon participation and rights. subordination and exploitation thrive. Next to make do exclusively with the politics of right. Most of the societies are Secularism and the law 45 . They abjure the use of force against others. Finally. The discourse of rights occupies the space where people have neither given up the hope of living together not yet arrived at agreement once crucial substantive issues that could bind them into a reasonable and vibrant unified existence. all ultimate ideals including those infused with religious flavour. the politics of right. five options exist at any time.

Secularism and the law 46 .stuck at level-4. our faith in the constitution. by critical interpretation of its article. India is fortunate to have a constitution that envisions and supports a society that has raised itself to level-2. What does secularism in India mean today? A strong defense of minority rights. The least we can do is to stay at level-3. continuing in the meanwhile to refurbish. to be supplemented on the one hand by deploying the resources of religious tolerance to isolate bigotry and encourage internal reforms and on the other hand by consolidating whatever space of the common good already exists.

However.Implementation of Secularism related Laws depends on collective conscience of the people V. and established by local customs. work. this secular state was established despite there being no laws to ordain so. It may also be understood as non-patronizing attitude of the state to any one religion. NAVAL KISHORE Secularism may be defined as the neutrality of the state in matters relating to religion or creed. the pertinent question here is. But. Law defines the do’s and don’ts for the people of a country in various spheres like business. In a secular state. it can be said that India was a secular country in the past when her citizens were not only free to follow any religion but also respected the choice of others in following their own religions. It has been so from times immemorial. practice and propagate any religion.V. India has also been the birthplace of religions like Buddhism and Jainism. secularism defines the way the people of a country carry on their individual affairs as also their behaviour towards others.M. Law may be understood as a combination of those rules and principles of conduct passed by the legislative authority. The word ‘secular’ was incorporated into the constitution vide an amendment. India has always kept her doors open to people of any religion and assimilated them into its mainstream. In case of modern state. whether a law can really make a country secular? India is a multi-cultural. The Preamble of our constitution proclaims India to be a secular state. multi-religious and multi-caste society. there is no state religion and every citizen is free to preach. law also states whether the country is a secular country or a theocratic one. Thus. derived from court decisions. Secularism and the law 47 . Law may be defined as a set of principles that are laid down for the purpose of ordering the life of the people in a country. Thus. religion etc.

the non-inclusion of the word did not make the country a theocratic state. The constitution itself, and later legislations, made provisions for the treatment of all religions on an equal platform. Secularism in India is based on the rich heritage and culture steeped in its various religions. The secular fabric of the country is very well reflected in the phrase ‘Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam’ which means that the whole world is one family. India has always been an inclusive society, which has welcomed people of all religions and faiths with open arms, never discriminating among religions and never considering any religion or faith to be a threat. But this secular fabric has not meant that there is no communalism in India. In spite of a number of laws treating people of all religions at par, India has had a long history of communal riots, the worst of them being at the time of partition of the country when blood flowed as rivers. In a land where tolerance is byword for life, when did this hatred for fellow beings arise? The answer to this question lies in the British rule of the country, particularly post-1857. Prior to 1857, the British rulers restrained themselves from interfering in the social structure of the country. Post-

1857, they realized the importance of dividing the people of the country in order to weaken them. This gave rise to the (in) famous ‘divide and rule’ policy, which they used, on religious lines thus distancing Hindus and Muslims. The persistence of this policy of the Britishers is reflected in the painful partition of the country and the displacement of a large number of people from their hearths and homes. This has continued even after the independence of the country in spite of the government being neutral as far as religion is concerned and the constitution ensuring that there is no discrimination on the basis of religion as far as employment, education etc. are concerned. This is apparently on account of minimal social interaction between various religious communities leading to a distorted view of other communities and its
Secularism and the law

48

practitioners. Such a social interaction is especially important to heal the scars and pain of the partition. The delicate secular fabric could not withstand the body blow of the partition. This situation was sought to be remedied through the provisions of the constitution. The pain of the partition revisited the country in the form of communal violence riots from time to time, as if not to let people forget their wounds. The action or inaction of the political leaders and the administrative system at times also added to the communal frenzy. Some major events which changed the way world viewed India were based on communal frenzy viz. Babri Masjid demolition, the Gujarat riots, Delhi (Sikh) riots. Babri Masjid located at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh was demolished on December 6, 1992 by kar sevaks under the guidance of some of our leaders who are facing trial in the case. The demolition of the Babri Masjid made the fabled respect for all religions that Indians have a thing of the past. The fact, that a religious shrine of any religion could be demolished, raises questions about the secularity of the people of the country as also the conviction of the state towards secularism. The Gujarat violence of 2002 is a matter of great shame for the country. The fact, that people were massacred only on account of their belonging to a particular religion, is unacceptable in any secular nation. The fact, that the administration reacted late, also raises questions regarding the State’s belief in secularism. A similar incident, which happened about two decades prior to the Gujarat violence, was the riots of Delhi in 1984. Sikhs were brutally slaughtered on the streets of Delhi just because the person who assassinated the then Prime Minister of India, Smt. Indira Gandhi happened to be a Sikh. It is ironic that this killing

happened to exact revenge for the death of the person who was instrumental in incorporating the word ‘secular’ in the Indian constitution.

Secularism and the law

49

This shows that law has only an enabling impact on making a country secular. Whether a country is secular or not is dependent on the way of life of the people, which is a result of their values, upbringing, culture etc. and it cannot just be imposed by law. Secularism is more about humanism, i.e. treating fellow beings as human beings irrespective of their religion. It is not about following different faiths; it is about letting others follow their faiths. Secularism can be aptly embodied in the phrase: ‘Do unto others that you want others to do unto you’. If the people of a country are secular, the legal system of the land, which is nothing but the collective conscience of the people, would be for the best interests of all people, irrespective of their caste, creed or religion. People who belong to the same society, which is secular in its thinking and outlook, would then implement these laws. Such people would then implement the laws in their spirit rather that in letter. The existing laws would give the functionaries the requisite authority to give an impetus to secularism. Thus, we can see that secularism and law are not unlike chicken and egg. The laws, if defined as the values and way of life, give rise to secularism as respect of other religions firmly entrenched in values. These laws would give rise to a large population of enlightened secular people. These secular people would then

implement the formal law of the land, which is secular, i.e. legislation. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that promulgating laws cannot impose secularism. Both secularism and the laws for this cause are dependent on the people and their values. Though it is not possible to turn every person into a secularist, what is required is that the collective conscience of the people resists any attempt to polarize people in the name of religion. I conclude by saying that the values of the people, i.e. informal law promotes secularism which in turn gives rise to formal laws to uphold secularism. This formal law gives teeth to the state functionaries to implement the laws and further secularism through other steps which increases people’s confidence
Secularism and the law

50

Secularism and the law 51 . secularism and law require each other for the peaceful coexistence of the people of various faiths and the consequent development of the country.in the secular state. Thus.

we need the buttresses of law to hold the structure of secularism together. Therefore. and (3) separation of state and religion. therefore. Nevertheless. If Indian society is stridently religious. deals with individuals as citizens irrespective of their religion.E. something we have imbibed from the western political theory and practice. We shall use it as a reference point while exploring the theory and praxis of Indian secularism. Smith. One does not have to be a sociologist to know that the religion pervades every aspect of life in India. This separation of religion and politics is not a natural Indian response to the challenges of governance. it follows that a secular order has three components: (1) individual and corporate freedom of religion. (2) citizenship that has no religious association. why should we have a secular polity? Several arguments may be put forth in defense of secularism: (i) Political institutions and religious institutions are both extremely powerful.Building a secular state in a religious society APPU JOSEPH JOSE Jawaharlal Nehru in a conversation with the French intellectual Andre Ualraux said that the toughest part of his job as Prime Minister was to build a secular state in a religious society. nor seeks either to promote or interfere with religion. It is a learned response. Secularism is the doctrine that the spheres of politics / state and religion must be separate. Secularism is a concept that defies easy summarization. mixing the two would. is not institutionally connected to a particular religion. India’s commitment to secularism implies that we seek to exclude religion from the sphere of the state. There are contending ideas about what secularism is and should be. Smith’s definition is useful and has the advantage of clarity and wide acceptability.” From Smith’s definition. Yet. hence. “a secular state is one that guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion. undermine Secularism and the law 52 . one of the finest scholars of Indian secularism. According to D. The observation was extremely prescient.

So any society that values individual autonomy has to be secular. Hence. The thinking of the Constituent Assembly on the issue is well brought out by a statement made by Shri K. (ii) In a religiously plural society. What came out of the deliberations was a compromise that leaned towards the latter group. Munshi in the Assembly. (iv) Religion and politics work on fundamentally different premises. equality and democracy – ideals that all modern societies hold dear – demand a secular order.M.. political decisions will favour religious majorities and democracy will deteriorate into majoritarianism. viz. we have a living tradition of religious tolerance . religion be kept away. It is not wise to mix the two. which affect all citizens. (v) Finally. state should be an arena where one’s religious identity has no significance.the result of the broad outlook of Hinduism that all religions lead to the same God Secularism and the law 53 . “We are a people with deeply religious moorings. people of all faiths must have equal say in matters of state.individual liberty. the co-existence of different religious communities demand that in matters that concern everyone. in a society of many religions. In the Constituent Assembly debate. faith and reason. In brief. there was a tussle on the issue of secularism between those who wanted a strict separation between state and religion (no links theory) and those who wanted India’s centuries old religious traditions to be reflected in its polity. pragmatic considerations (such as co-existence of diverse religious communities) as well as commitment to ideals such as individual autonomy. The latter group proposed an ‘equal respect theory’ of secularism which respected all religions and granted religious liberty to all. (iii) If religion and politics are not separated. At the sane time.

several state governments have full-fledged department for temple administration.’ Thus. they fail to establish a clear cut separation between the spheres of state and religion. morality and health. nor could a rigid line be drawn between the state and the church as in the U. It provides that ‘subject to public order. Individual freedom of religion is assured by Article 25 (1).S. In fact. clause (2) of Article 25 appears to have allowed the state to interfere in the sphere of religion subject to public order. state manages temples and other religious institutions. practice and propagate the religion of one’s choice. morality and health and all the provisions of this part. It provides that ‘subject to public order. every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right – (a) to establish and maintain institutions of religious and charitable purposes. Clause (2) provides that. (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion. Smith.… In view of this situation.’ However.E. financial. By virtue of Article 25 (2) (b). all persons are equally entitled to freedom of religion and the right to profess. (c) to own Secularism and the law 54 . political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. Making use of Article 25 (2) (a). (b) providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. our state could not possibly have a state religion.” An examination of the provisions of the constitution relating to secularism shows that while they fulfill the three criteria for a secular state laid down by D. Article 26 provides collective freedom of religion. ‘nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the state from making any law – (a) regulating or restricting any economic. State has enacted temple entry laws and affected changes in the personal laws of communities. clause (2) of Article 25 imposes limitations on the right guaranteed by clause (1) and reflects the peculiar needs of Indian society.

16 (1) and Article 326. otherwise the state is entitled to regulate and restrict such practices. which provides that election shall be on the basis of universal adult suffrage. which provides that the state shall not have an official religion. The position it has taken is that a practice must be an essential attribute of religion to merit protection.’ However. Article 27 is an important article for separating state and religion.E.and acquire movable and immovable property. and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law..’ The second criterion laid down by D. The question that which practices can be regarded as part of religion so as to merit protection under Article 26 as matters of religion has often been decided by the Supreme Court. ensure this. this Article also affords considerable scope for state intervention in matters of religion. Smith for a secular state.’ Clause (2) provides that ‘state shall not. separation of religion and state is imperfectly realized in India. Non-discriminatory taxes for the benefit of all religions would be Secularism and the law 55 . Articles 15 (1). has been provided for in the Indian Constitution. The third aspect of Smith’s concept of secular state. It provides that “no person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion or religious denomination. Article 30 is another Article that seeks to protect corporate freedom of religion. Supreme Court in secular India has become the arbiter of what constitutes the essentials of a religion.. Clause (1) of this Article.” But this article only forbids taxation for the benefit of any particular religion. viz. ironically. shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. while giving grants in aid to educational institutions discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority whether based on religion or language. Thus. viz. In India. provides that ‘All minorities whether based on religion or language. there is no explicit provision in the constitution. citizenship that is free of ties with religion.

constitutional. “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of….a pragmatic secularism whose object is not so much the realization of ultimate ideals but to create a livable polity. As Rajiv Bhargava points out. Even if there is no religious tax. D. Although Article 28 places some limits to religious instruction in state schools. The Constitution makers knew the value of secularism. The imperfect buttress of law has not managed to hold together the edifice of secularism. is the outcome of a compromise between modernists and traditionalists.E. Secularism and the law 56 .” Our constitution clearly reveals the limits of law in the face of intransigent tradition. Indian Constitution does not contain a straightforward separation between state and religion as provided by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. state can extend grants in aid to schools run by religious bodies. as we have seen. Secularism as it emerges from our constitution is unique. Indian secularism. What this analysis shows is that Indian constitution provides for a wall of separation between state and religion that is extremely perforated. This would be in order. Smith points out that the state has emerged as the church so far as Hindu religion is concerned. It has been steadily crumbling. But like all compromises. The imperfect (porous or perforated) wall of separation between state and religion has resulted in the state interfering too much in the sphere of religion. legislature can appropriate funds for the promotion of religion out of the revenue of the state. As per Article 30. it has not found favour with either camp. Indian secularism is ‘contextual secularism’ . The relevant part of the First Amendment reads. it provides for religious instruction in state funded schools in certain circumstances. but they could not make a wholehearted commitment to it.

It held that Hindutva was to be understood as a way of life or state of mind and not to be equated with Hindu fundamentalism. appeal to Hindu sentiments and promise of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ were tolerated by the Supreme Court. the guardian of the constitution. the court held was the way of life of Indian people and a synonym for Indianization. Hindutva. Supreme Court ruled that the defendants promise during election campaign to establish the first Hindu state in Maharashtra did not amount to appealing for votes in the name of religion. 1996). it seems. In Manohar Joshi’s case (Manohar Joshi Vs Nitin Bhanu Pate 1996).R. its recent judgments are deeply disturbing. Secularism and the law 57 . however. becoming a willing accomplice in the majoritarian project? On the other hand. Supreme Court has. whose commitment to secularism is weak. the emphasis on minority rights. The Supreme Court has unfortunately played second fiddle to the majoritarian deviation of secularism. 2003). 1995. ‘appeasement of minorities’ and such like. In case such as S. Saroj Naik (SC. the Ram Janma Bhoomi case. an essential aspect of our version of secularism has come under increasing attack. The Supreme Court seems to share this view as evidenced by its repeated strictures to implement the uniform civil code. John Vallamattom and others Vs Union of India. brought the argument that symbols of Hindu India stands for Indian culture and history as a whole. Supreme Court has affirmed secularism as a basic feature of the constitution. an election case. the imperfect wall of separation has allowed them to change the character of the state in favour of the majority religious community. In Suryakant Venkat Rao Mahadhik Vs Smt.With political parties.Bommai Vs Union of India (1994). In Ismail Faruqui Vs Union of India (1994). (Sarla Mudgal and others Vs Union of India. The court accepted the claim that secularism in India exists because of Hindu tolerance. Is the Supreme Court. increasingly coming to power. the court endorsed a version of secularism that has its rationale in Hindu scriptures. Critics describe it as ‘pseudo secularism’.

Secularism in no longer the commonsense of India. 155. Communal riots are breaking out frequently and its perpetrators go scot-free. We have a whole gamut of laws such as sections 153. There are also the laws against murder. He argues that a secular constitution which denies any role for religion in public affairs is at odds with popular commonsense in a deeply religious society. is an ideal of highly westernized elite and sits uncomfortably in Indian society. T. Secularism has truly become a beleaguered doctrine in India. Two of the most influential intellectual attacks on secularism were launched by sociologists. Indian secularism is based allegedly on ‘sarva dharma sambhav’ and ‘religious tolerance’. secularism is increasingly no guarantee for peaceful co-existence of religious communities in today’s India. These constitute our secular foundations.Secularism is meant to allow people of different faiths as well as non-believers not merely to co-exist. Madan argues that there is no civilizational niche for secularism in India. secularists have deeply offended the Secularism and the law 58 . This should make us wonder if the legal buttresses that we have created to hold together the edifice of secularism are any good. Secularism. He suggests that institutions of secularism are linked to the dualistic conception of Christianity. 153 (A). but to live together as well. it facilitates the development of secular ideas about the division of church and state. therefore. not ‘Hindu tolerance’. Secular ethnic can be strengthened only if we respect the rights of citizens and stick to the due process of law. mayhem and arson. Perhaps the truest indication of the erosion of secularism is that the doctrine has come under an intellectual onslaught. Ashis Nandy argues that by forcing religion out of the public arena. What we need is true secularism. 153 (B).N. The need of the hour is to insist that the law applies equally to everybody and that even the high and mighty should be answerable to crimes against citizens. However. Madan and Ashis Nandy. Since Christian doctrine recognizes the distinction between spiritual and mundane. 295 of the IPC to prevent incitement of communal hatred.

Nandy wants the resources of tolerance inherent in traditional religion to be revived. Secularism and the law 59 . It is the transformation of religion from faith to ideology that is the cause of religious discord and violence. Suffice it to say that 55 years after the introduction of the constitution. science and reason must regulate social life and religion must become at best a private consolation. An engagement with or rebuttal of these two well-known arguments is not in order at this place. there is a wide gap between constitutional norms of religious neutrality and civic equality and the religion inspired hierarchical values by which people order their lives. If we need to move from an uneasy secularism to secularism of conviction. What India needs is nothing short of cultural revolution inspired by the values of enlightenment. They in turn have turned religion from faith to ideology. Pandit Nehru’s call to develop a ‘scientific temper’ must be seen in this context. There must be something fundamentally wrong with the secular order that we have created. It is a demand for God to vacate those areas of life where she/he does not belong. secular polity will remain vulnerable. has not won universal acceptance. secularism.and I have tried to argue that it indeed is – we should go the whole way and try to create a truly modern and secular society as well. As of now. one of its cardinal principles. Trying to build secularism through law is a project that is bound to fail. the state actually promoted these ideas. That is to say. Secularization is not the eclipsing of God. So long as Indian society remains intransigently religious. If a secular polity is desirable .religious people. But we abandoned the project soon enough. not eliminating the province of God. Only in its latter version can religion find a place in public arena. Secularization is a matter of delimiting. In the initial years of independence. Indian society itself must get secularized.

’ Economic and political weekly. 7. New Delhi. New Delhi. ‘Limits of Tolerance: Prospects of Secularism after Gujarat. Sanghamitra Padhy. op. 11.Smith. The analysis of Constitutional provisions is largely based on. 342-348. ‘A critique of modernist secularism’ in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed. p. Madan. November 16. Smith. 1998. Secularism and the law 60 . 9. 1946-1950. 2004. D.cit. Science and Hindu Nationalism. 3. OUP.489-491. 1997. 199-220. 2002.). Prophets facing Backwards: Post Modernism. 2004. Shefali Jha.N. op.E.cit. Economic and political weekly. The final section owes lot to Meera Nanda. Secularism and its Critics. Ashis Nandy. 10.’op.). Rajiv Bhargava. ‘What is Secularism For’.2002. ‘Secularism on its Place’ on Sudipta Kaviraj (ed. New Delhi. 6. A Review of Indian Supreme Court Judgments’. Rajiv Bhargava. Secularism and its Critics. Quoted by Shefali Jha. pp. 329-341.cit pp. 1998. Rajiv Bhargava. op. ‘What is Secularism For’. in Rajiv Bhargava (ed).’ Economic and Political Weekly. ‘Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates’. The demand for a hard-nosed’ or intolerant secularism’ is made by Dipankar Gupta. Oxford University Press. On Supreme Court judgments and secularism see. 12. 8.) Politics in India. ‘India as a Secular State’. 5. Politics in India. 1946-1950. July 27. p. 536. pp. 516-536. New Delhi. November 20. 4. 1997. ‘Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates.. pp. New Delhi.. cit. 2. p.E. ‘Secularism and Justice.Notes / References : 1. OUP.. Permanent Black. Oxford University Press. T. D.178. ‘What is secularism for?’ in Rajiv Bhargava (ed. ‘India as a secular state’.

it has not acquired uniform character throughout the world. Secularism takes different meaning in different countries. secularism implies the concept of liberty and equality in religious matters. thus. Neither the state nor society will come in the way of individual.Secularism and the Law in a multi-religious society TUKARAM HARIBHAU MUNDHE At the twilight of Dark Age and dawn of the modern one. religion is kept at backburner. but when it comes to public sphere. 3. give equal opportunity to everybody irrespective of religion. Similarly. contemplates the separation of public and private life. depending on the socio-cultural background and its milieu. which constitute the core of secularism. Secularism envisages that state should not have its own religion. it has certain central features. to look at the life from materialistic attitude. Secularism has different connotations. Secularism in a way. The religious considerations did not come into play while leading a life. It means certain things to the United States.e. Secularism. 2. It means different things to different people and countries. the state provides equal treatment to every individual. Though the concept of secularism originated in fifteenth-sixteenth century. subscribes to the theory of ‘wall of separation’ between religious practices and public activities of individual. 1. This is called ‘wall of separation’ Secularism and the law 61 . An individual can pursue religious practices in private life. different things to France and still different to India. This concept of looking at the life. State should treat every individual equally i. with certain modifications. It focused on the present life instead of contemplating the life after death. later on was termed as secularism. No religion is superior or inferior in the eyes of law. State should not treat individuals on the basis of religion. Yet. It implied. It contemplates that every individual concedes the liberty to choose religious practice in his discretion. In the United States. emerges the concept of materialistic world.

between the individuals and private life and public sphere of action. Religious principles, in France are not recognized. There is little tolerance of religious

principles at public places. For instance, in public schools and institutions religious symbols cannot be displayed as it affects public life. On the same basis, the sikh students are not allowed to wear kirpan in public schools. However, Indian concept of secularism is of different variety. Indian society being multi-religious and multicultural could not accept the concept of neutrality nor that of indifferent attitude towards religion. India, therefore, has accepted the concept the secularism which suits its conditions. India, being a developing society, needs to undertake social reforms. The social reforms in India necessarily mean socio-religious reforms. Hence, the neutral attitude of state towards religious matters would not be fruitful. Therefore, state does not interfere in religious matters; it can reform the secular aspect of it. State can regulate secular and material spheres of religious activities. For instance, bringing in secular and positive changes in religious practices, law regarding marriages and the property rights fall within the ambit of the state. Thus, the concept of Indian

secularism is one of positive neutrality towards religious matters. India is a multicultural country, wherein the diverse religions, castes, creeds, etc. are prevalent. Yet, India has maintained its identity as one nation, but none of the cultural facet is subservient to other. The ‘unity in diversity’ is its manifestation. Since ancient times, India has upheld the concept of ‘tolerance’ and equal respect for all religions. Mutual respect for one another is its cardinal principle. The spirit of tolerance later on came to be known as ‘secularism’. In a way, Asoka’s “Dhamma” or Akbar’s “Din-i-Ilahi” are nothing but manifestation of secularism. The framers of the constitution i.e. the makers of modern India were secularist to the core. This ideology has been reflected in the constitution. Indian constitution is a secular document. The constituent assembly debates amply reflect the secular
Secularism and the law

62

ideology of the constitution. Though the phrase ‘secularism’ was not specifically mentioned in the constitution earlier but the spirit of the constitution was thoroughly ‘secular’. The wall of separation has been followed in the making of the constitution. The endeavour of constitution makers was noteworthy, particularly making constitutional provisions in the backdrop of religious carnage and holocaust. Despite the unfortunate partition of the country on religious grounds, Indian constitution is thoroughly secular. The right to equality as enshrined in the chapter of Fundamental Rights envisages the ideal of secular society and state. Equality before law, equal protection of law, equal opportunities and absence of discrimination based on the principles of religion, race, caste, sex, etc. makes the Indian constitution thoroughly secular. These principles constitute the very base of the philosophy of the

constitution. The Indian constitution even goes to the extent of making right to profess, practice and propagate religion as a fundamental right. Every individual in India has right to follow any religion, practice it and the state will not come in his/her way. Even right to propagate one’s own religion is a fundamental right. However, the fundamental ‘right to religion’ is not absolute right. It has certain restraints in public interest, morality, public order and decency. One’s right to religion cannot breach the public order and morality otherwise it will lead to total chaos. The right of minorities to establish the educational and cultural institutions has been incorporated as a fundamental right. This provides the platform for cultural minorities to protect their respective cultures. The secular aspect of Indian constitution goes beyond fundamental rights. It, in particular, pervades political rights. Everybody in India is enfranchised equally, without whatsoever considerations for religion. When a person attains eighteen years of age is provided with right to vote. The delimitation of constituencies is territorial and not communal. The secular aspect of any constitution or law can be enforced vigorously only if the society is secular to the core. The
Secularism and the law

63

Indian society is religious to the core, though not anti-secular. The religiosity of Indian society can be depicted by the religious practices prevalent in the society. Therefore, the constitution makers contemplated the provisions to make Indian society a secular and in the form of ‘Uniform Civil Code’ as enshrined in the directive principles of the state policy. Article 44 of Indian constitution contemplates a uniform civil code for the Indian society. A lot of controversy and heated debates have taken place, both in

public and private spheres on the desirability of a ‘uniform civil code’. The issue, which has created much controversy is whether the ‘Uniform Civil Code’ would be accepted as the common code of the country as a whole or will it be Hinduism, Islam, Christianity or any other or combination of all. The personal laws of different religions have led to heated debates. Every religion practices its own personal laws, which many a times, if not in confrontation, are in contrast with other personal laws. In a way, it leads to different personal practices among different religions. Whenever a question of uniform civil code arises, the issue of marriage comes up. The Muslim personal law permits bigamy, whereas the Hindu personal law does not. Bigamy and polygamy had been prevalent norm among Muslims. It goes against the concept of Human Rights as well as Rights of Women. There is a need of reform in this matter. However, the hard liners in the Muslim community are

opposed to it on the ground that it amounts to interference in the personal matters of Muslims, which is banned by the secular nature of the Indian constitution and it interferes in Shariat. However, it must be remembered that the secular nature of Indian constitution does not prevent state from bringing about reforms in ‘secular aspects’ of religion. On the same grounds, Hindu code bill has been implemented and numerous changes brought about in different spheres of Hindu life. For instance the prohibition of dowry, ban on bigotry, etc. Nevertheless, the reforms in Muslim personal law may gain momentum once the Muslim community is more enlightened
Secularism and the law

64

It is the duty enjoined upon the government of the country to formulate uniform civil code as enshrined in Directive Principles of the state policy. Along with the issue of marriage. There is a need of information and education. A great opportunity was lost to reform Muslim personal law in regard to right to property of women. civil society and enlightened citizens embark on the mission. it is not the case with Muslims. Of late. While there are well-established laws for divorce among Hindus and Christians. women rights and free and fair justice.on the issue. Yet another issue regarding the personal laws is the right to inheritance of property. Political change must be brought about by the social forces rather than political class. The laws regarding the ‘divorce’ are different for different religions. there has been some debate in this regard within the Muslim community itself. Unless social organizations. The ‘triple talaq’ practiced by the Muslims goes against human rights. As per the laws passed by the Indian parliament. the political class may not undertake such ‘hard’ reforms. no political class will push for such issues. Hindu women have right to inherit property of parents. Educational reforms will help to a great extent in reforming Muslim community per se. Though not sufficient. it can be considered as a starting point of the reform process in the Muslim community. There is a need for spread of education in Muslims. All these issues have become stumbling blocks in the formulation of uniform civil code. The controversy is regarding the rights of women in case of inheritance. Secularism and the law 65 . The present chaos is due to the lack of information and education. The governments of country have not been able to stand upto the expectations in this respect Indian society has also not lived upto the expectations as society as a whole should push for such reforms. Do women possess right to inherit parental property among Muslims? What is the issue in case of Hindu women? Shah Bano case is pertinent in this regard. Unless social forces rise to the occasion. the controversy regarding ‘divorce’ also looms large.

sacredness. It should not be a patch of religious principles brought in from different religious scriptures. logical. uniform civil code must not be imposed. There is a need for wider and greater debate on the issue at various levels and among various religious communities. judiciary has pronounced certain judgments. It has questioned the rationale of the executive and legislature for not performing its constitutional duties to implement ‘uniform civil code’ as per Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. Neither can decisions be taken in haste nor can they be taken without wider public debate. it should be reasonable. However. social and religious issues cannot be separated because religious principles also determine social values like the concept of Karma. which augur good for contemplating ‘uniform civil code’. The issue of secularism is also intricately interwoven with the socio- religious reforms. In Indian society. Therefore. rational and above all only secular principles that must be framed as the principles of uniform civil code. sin. The issue of uniform civil code requires the wider considerations.Even though the role of legislature and executive has not been worthy in this respect. etc. These principles must be acceptable to religious communities and across all sections of society. Indian judiciary. The role of judiciary as one of the three wings of the government is to legislate as well. but it should be evolved. social reforms invariably take the form of socioreligious reforms. Secularism and the law 66 . Rather. particularly the supreme court of India is garnering public opinion in favour of uniform civil code by giving verdicts in its favour and advocating its necessity. It is either through the interpretation of laws or by filling up the vacuum in the legislation or it can be through generating public opinion in favour of certain legislation.

Holyoake stated that the secularist is Secularism and the law 67 . it may perhaps best be understood as a positive ideal of a modern society. it was in 1851 that George Jacob Holyoake. secularism means that the state is not going to make any discrimination whatsoever on the ground of religion or community against any person professing any particular form of religious faith. In very broad terms. As a concept. Law is also an instrument of socio-economic change. the ideal of secularism facilitates the transition from tradition to modernity. However. and Roscoe Pond rightly regards it as a branch of social engineering. mercantilism and utilitarianism.A process in nation building DEEPAK RAWAT Despite various ambiguities enveloping the meaning of secularism. In a society. ignorance and unemployment purely on secular lines. law has a very special role to play in fostering secularism. Law. In the context of India.Secularism and the Law . in his book. positivism. which has a heterogeneous society including divergent outlooks and differing convictions. ‘Principles of Secularism’. The central purpose of law is to satisfy the legitimate desires and ambitions of millions of its citizens in satisfying these desires and ambitions. Secularism had its origin in the West and developed as a philosophy in reaction to a strong hold of religion on the state and the necessity of setting up a more elastic set of moral values for the immediate needs of the developing mercantilist society in the west. it was then equated with rationality. introduced secularism as a new ‘ism’ to the world. law takes a lead and proceeds to find out solution to the problem of poverty. on the other hand is one of the various means to move towards a secular society. Machiavel (1469-1527) wanted the state and religion to be separated and the state to be absolutely independent of the church.

which pertain to humans. Many Indian and Western Marxists continue to think that religion is dope and the progress of human society can be made if religion is completely expunged from the human mind. and this makes secularism extremely difficult to define in the Indian context. The state is not supposed to have an official religion and should exercise neutrality in matters pertaining to religion. All that can be done is to create appropriate legal institutions.intended to be a reasoned. secularism developed as a way of life based on the premise that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or purposely excluded. Religion. According to him. Though secularism pervades it. as the immediate duty of life. In the American context. this was because of the peculiarity of the Indian 68 . Colonial rule and the ensuing brutalities unleashed by the partition of the nation have left India as a highly communalized society. we can say that secularism emerged in the West as a concept antagonistic to religion and as a by-product of materialism and industrialism. the Indian constitution. and still more difficult to outline as a programme of action. In short. according to him. It is good to do good Science was the available providence of humans. neither defined secularism nor used the expression secular. differed from Christianity in so far as it accepts only the teachings. initially. The term secularism was chosen to express the extension of free thought to ethics. secularism has three central tenets: (i) (ii) (iii) The improvement of life by material means. He attempted to define secularism as that which seeks the development of the moral and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point. Secularism. and are consonant with reason and experience. in India is said to be constitutive of society. Secularism and the law Perhaps.

but it cannot really afford to be completely neutral in matters of religion because state is also supposed to remove Secularism and the law This is where the 69 . However. importance of law in promoting secularism really increases. and for showing equal respect for all faiths and providing equal opportunities for their followers. Thus. making religion a private matter for the individual. throws citizenship open to all. State may not have an official religion. Nehru defined secularism in the dual sense of keeping the state. prohibits discrimination by any agency on the basis of religion. However. The negative Western notion presupposes the existence of a church. forbids the state from laying taxes to promote any particular religion. The Western concept connotes a separation between state and church. Secularism for him meant the spirit of religious tolerance. his idea of a secular state was different from that of Nehru. looked upon secularism as a functional concept. Mahatma Gandhi also viewed politics from the non-communal point of view. guarantees status of equality and opportunity and promises to promote the dignity of the individual. and provided for it a flexible framework that would facilitate its evolution or adaptation to the changes taking place in a developing nation. It provides to all religious denominations freedom of religion. In India there is no specific church. politics and education separate from religion. The constitution makers. The constitution establishes no state religion. creates no category of preferred citizens. therefore. which he postulated on the basis of universal ethics of Hinduism.situation. while the Indian concept of secularism means the acceptance of all religions (Sarva dharma sambhava). various secular provisions are inbuilt in the constitution. The constitution makers could not arrive at a consensus regarding secularism. certain one-time provisions in the constitution could hardly deal with Indian society and its complexity. It opens to all communities all public offices.

others argue that making laws for only one community is discriminatory. Secularism does not believe in absolutes. In all the religions of India. However. on discriminator social legislation to meet the demands of social justice. Conservative Hindus pleaded to apply it to the whole of India. The worse thing is that. Law must remain distinct from religion. however. It realizes that in dealing with socioeconomic problems. Thus.obscurantism and promote modernity. Secularism implying neutrality of the state in religious matters does not. the state uses law. They are unwilling to accept new ideas. even the persons in high positions of government are under this influence. The motive for this was to defeat the bill itself. being a prominent form of social control has an important role in secularization. Law. In achieving these objectives. but the pressure notwithstanding the Bill was passed. The Hindu community has now accepted the position that matters of law included in the Hindu code are secular matters with which religion is not concerned. This theory of establishing a harmonious relationship is always prescribed in Sanskrit as samanvaya. as the Muslim community had not been adequately informed and educated in this regard. competing and conflicting principles have to be reconciled. The reformers argued that it was impractical to apply the code to the Muslims. the principle was established that personal law is a secular institution and has to be based on secular and rational considerations. there are obscurantist elements which create obstacles in the way of human progress. conservative and traditional people raised the cry that Hindu religion was in danger. rule out legislation for common national goals. or risk the destruction of society itself. but it must also cherish religion. When the Hindu Code Bill (1951) was before the parliament. The philosophy of samanvaya proceeds on the assumption that there may be an element of social truth in different competing concepts. This is also implied in the Directive Principle (Article 44) Secularism and the law 70 .

In this case the Supreme Court ordered the granting of maintenance to a Muslim woman divorced by her husband. our political parties. It is important to have a legal opinion on this.relating to Uniform Civil Code Diversity of personal laws in India. pandered to communal sentiments and reversed the Supreme Court judgment through a constitutional amendment. and it will be an important step towards secularizing our institutions. is against the spirit of the constitution. The issue cropped up once more in the recent Imrana Qadir case in a village of Muzzafarnagar. However. However. A uniform civil code is a must for establishing a secular-social order. Personal laws have to be extracted from the clutches of religion. Our educational institutions do not radiate secularism. the Supreme Court order that such matters ought to be discussed by scholars of the respective fields and Secularism and the law 71 . including national political parties. in 1986. However. The government of the day. The case became controversial as it was opposed by orthodox Muslims on the grounds that it interfered with Muslim personal law. We already have a Uniform Criminal Code. so why not a uniform civil code. The Supreme Court has even declared (1994) secularism to be the basic feature of the constitution. what is noteworthy is that opposition brought to the streets lakhs of people. and by opening the gates of the disputed Ayodhya Mandir-Mosque structure. (SR Banumai Case). that guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law. There are always pulls and pressures by the governments in power to project their brand of history – writing and vision of the past. do not allow secularism to take precedence over their political interests. The famous Shah Bano case (1985) illustrates how our political parties sacrificed national interests favouring their own electoral gains. The Supreme Court has time and again stated and ordered the legislature to make provisions for implementing a Uniform Civil Code. while the supporters of Shah Bano could muster only a few.

There is need of a clear unambiguous law on the issue. it is necessary to find proper institutions through which economic motivation of the individual could be channelized into other interest group motivation. For secularism to thrive in India. which requires extremely clear laws are religious conversions. rule of law and legal theory. derives its inspiration from secularism. Another area. but it would be ineffective if not implemented timely and properly.not by politicians is good. cannot be used as mere justification of political power as it happens today. modernization and nation building. A person’s religion is a personal and a very delicate issue and needs much detailed attention. it is clear that it must stand in need of social and moral justification in the same way as political power itself. Secularism through legislation implies an element of force. There may be legislation for secularization of social institutions. India has already witnessed a number of communal riots. and hopes to achieve socio-economic justice. by means of progressive and dynamic legislation. however. Therefore. remember that though law is a powerful weapon in the hands of a democracy. and the public conscience has to be awakened by the progressive intellectuals of society. The case of Dara Singh and Graham Stains is still fresh in our minds. Jamshedpur and Bhagalpur to name a few. Regarding education. legislation may not be the most effective means for secularization. Secularism and the law 72 . It must receive the full cooperation of our public conscience. If law is seen as one of the methods of social control in the hands of political power. We must. Secularism is also a process of national awakening. Meerut. Law in turn. Therefore. by itself it will not achieve its objective. reservation quotas related to minority seats in minority run educational institutions often create a lot of bad blood. it helps to herald the arrival of a welfare state.

George Jacob Holyoake was first one to coin this concept of ‘secularism’. let us first explore the meaning attached to this word in different parts of world and in different contexts. if conflicting with certain religious rules. indeed many secularists have counted themselves as religious. secularism can be thought as the practice of working to promote any of these three forms of secularism. It is also important to remember that secularism doesn’t necessarily equate to “atheism”. From sociological point of view. In philosophy. But it should not be assumed that an advocate of secularism in one sense would also be a secularist in any other sense. it is indeed true. Yes. it is viewed as a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion. by imposing priority of the universal human rights). Before we look at secularism in Indian context. aapas mein bair rakhana”. regardless of the creed (and.Theory & Practice AKASH DEEP The essence of secularism in Indian context can be understood by the lines written by famous poet “Iqbal” “Majhab nahin sikhata. that religion doesn’t aim to divide people on their beliefs. but unfortunately it has been used as a platform to divide people and to extract mileage out of it by some vested interests. Secularism and the law 73 . of non-discrimination among religions (providing they don’t deny primacy of civil laws) and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens. secularism is understood as that life which can be best lived by applying ethics and world best understood by process of reasoning without reference to a god or gods or other supernatural concepts.Secularism and the Law . In government. Thus. it is a range of situations where a society less automatically assumes religious beliefs to be either widely shared or a basis for conflict in various forms that in recent generations of the same society.

brotherhood and good for all mankind. As far as second meaning of secularism is concerned.In practice. we were unable to eradicate hatred for others’ religion. Even though the country was divided. the situation. which had emerged in recent years is potently dangerous. and economic standards have substantially improved. In India. which has withstood the assaults of communal forces and retained the true character of India. Fundamentalism nurtures communalism. which often conflict with one another. which are tolerance. Historically. The third concept of secularism has been accepted fully by India. which in turn opposes the idea of secularism. that religion and state are different matters and they should not be allowed to mix with each other. On one hand it believes in living by ethics and reasoning but on the other hand it is believed that religion is a personal matter of an individual and it should be left to him/her to pursue the path of his/her choice. things do not operate in a clear-cut way. But it is a matter of anxiety that the country seems to be divided or rather polarized between ‘secularism’ and ‘fundamentalism’. which resulted in fundamentalism of today. but intolerance especially in matters pertaining to religion has also increased. Secularism and the law 74 . Even though. the theoretical premise of secularism that life should be lived by ethics and applying reasoning and god should be avoided is partially accepted. It was the concept of two-nation theory devised on the grounds of different religions followed by people. At this point. I would pause and would try to discuss the root cause of fundamentalism (impact communalism more appropriately in Indian context). It is this strength. the partition of India in August 1947 was based on religious lines only. leading to different positions. There can be complicated mix of all these three positions. our literacy rate has gone up.

but subject to morality. sex. Again in Directive Principles for State Policy. but by adding a clause that it should be done by persuasion and not by compulsion. Part III of the Indian Constitution. race.Our constitution makers were aware of the prevailing socio-political situation in the country at that time and very wisely gave India a secular image by various constitutional provisions. To implement it effectively various articles were made. It prohibits the state from levying and collecting any taxes to promote any religion. “Right to freedom of religion” is dealt in Article 25 to 28 about religion and state in length. Republic. caste. It also gives freedom to any individual to practice. India by default became a Hindu nation. creed or place of birth would enjoy same rights and opportunities. which is the soul of our Constitution. public order and national interest. The Preamble. it is advised to state to introduce Uniform Civil Code for all sections of society. Thus we see that India by constitution has a truly secular image. beliefs and religions. Socialist. Our constitution doesn’t proclaim any religion as religion of the state even though partition of 1947 was based on religion and a new state Pakistan was born which declared Islam as its state religion. also proclaims our country as s Sovereign. Any discrimination by the state only on the basis of “Religion” (also other factors) is not allowed. “Right to Equality” is a fundamental right. which talks about Fundamental rights of citizens of India is an important measure for above cause. Throughout the centuries people from various parts of the world came and became part of the Indian tradition and culture. but it was resisted and we decided not to be a Hindu nation but a nation where everyone irrespective of his/her religion. Many argued. It was a step in the right direction as Indian civilization is known for its ability to assimilate other cultures. Thus secularism as one of India’s basic characters was introduced in our constitution. profess and religion of his/her choice. But at the same time Article 29 and 30 give Secularism and the law 75 . Secular Democratic.

Secularism and the law 76 . tolerance and compassion. it is not the law but the people who should be changed by sensitization and awareness to retain the character of Indian civilization and culture of universal brotherhood. So-called fundamentalists and secularists derive different meanings out of these provisions. The fundamentalist says that in order to give true secular character. It is these special rights and the concept of Uniform Civil Code. Clear and precise meaning of these provisions must be redefined keeping in mind the three universal definitions of secularism.special rights to minorities based on language or religion to protect their interests and culture. It seems that “secularism” and “fundamentalism” are used to suit one’s convenience and are used and understood differently by different people. Uniform Civil Code must be applied and accuse secularists to appease one minority religious group and neglecting the majority religious group. The “secularists” accuse other groups as fundamentalists as communalists trying to create hatred and suspicion in the society in the name of religion. which has been the cause of controversy. Finally. there are enough provisions in the law of the land (Constitution) to safeguard the secular character of the nation. The secularists accuse the government of neglecting the interest of the majority religious groups and appeasing minority religious groups. Whatever be the case.

Unlike the Western model. India. The interesting feature here is that the ordinary Secularism and the law 77 . especially religious. which is considered a successful model of secular laws and practices. as we understand it. the indigenous Americans in USA enjoy certain benefits on the “reservations” earmarked for them. protection and sometimes – special provisions in favour of minorities (whether religious. But before focusing attention on these two questions. in India the state does not shirk away from involvement in religious affairs of communities/religious groups. offers a unique case study in terms of how the term secularism is understood in theory and also the way it is practiced. one may examine the meaning of secularism. These are vexing questions. whether secularism. if not in theory (especially in the context of attempts by the State to “enforce” secular practices). ethnic or otherwise). which has given a severe churning to issues of identity. The traditional western concept of secularism envisages a complete separation of the church and state where the state subscribes to no religion and disunites it self from any religious activity on a public/official platform. Firstly. An integral component of such policy is the provision of adequate safeguards. is a logical offshoot of modern law and that they are the two sides of the same coin or whether there is in fact an anti-thesis between the two concepts in practice. For instance. Such identities are now perceived by many to be under ‘threat’ due to the attempts made by many states to enforce an international ‘secular’ legal structure. particularly in the present scenario of global terrorism. where the state is expected to be completely religious and is even anti-religious as in communist countries).Uneasy relation between Secularism and the Law VISHAL GOGNE The analysis of the relationship between secularism and law is essentially a search for answers to two troublesome questions.

practice and propagate religion. As a result. to be a secular republic notwithstanding that the term Secularism and the law 78 . But equally importantly. therefore. involve itself in temple administration. Article 25 of the Indian constitution enumerates the fundamental right of every person to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess. combined with Articles 15 and 16 which prohibit discrimination on religious grounds (among other grounds) and also Article 14 (right to equality) form the bedrock of the Indian secular mandate. Article 26 grants the freedom to manage affairs to every religious denomination. script or culture and also the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. India offers a sui generis model where the government may give grants for religious celebrations. India was intended. state subsidy for one community’s religious pilgrimages is matched by similar subsidy for other religious groups.citizen does not resent state involvement. Article 27 prohibits any taxation on the basis of religion and Article 28 provides for freedom as to attendance at religious instruction in certain educational institutions. The only qualification as mentioned earlier is that the state action must balance the legitimate expectations of different communities. financial. organize religious pilgrimages. and all this without any resentment from the populace. The only rider is that the state now appears to be even headed. and host functions for/in presence of religious leaders. The above-mentioned Articles. In this context. by its founding fathers. political or other secular activity associated with religious practice. Thus. The Indian State is. it provides that the state may regulate any economic. The rights of minorities are protected under Articles 29 and 30 which provide for conservation of any distinct language. especially support for religious endeavours. not expected to be completely neutral in religious affairs.

however. The tempting corollary therefore seems to be that if all laws are essentially and increasingly rational and fair. However. In recent decades as the world has moved from imperialism to democracy. if this supposed harmony were a reality then the path to a Uniform Civil Code in India would have been an expressway and not a road made of pot holes. representative and equitable. It is then a easy conclusion that law and secularism are the two sides of the same coin and there exists no conflict between the two. they must also be secular. This conclusion would. especially in the Indian context. this issue highlights the challenges faced by the state in harmonizing the opposing demands of law/fairness and religious/personal law interests. we may now examine the relationship between ‘secularism’ and ‘the law’. For. It Secularism and the law 79 . diversions and blockages. and as the number of dictatorships have considerably diminished. be fraught with the danger of massive generalization.“secularism” was added to the Preamble of the constitution only in 1976 by the 42nd amendment. The first logical question is whether secular practices/laws are a logical corollary of the modern legal system. In a scenario where internal reform in most communities is more of an agenda than a reality. The assumption is that democratic practices promote objective law making. for they would involve no discrimination or bias. state intervention through legislation is perceived as interference and not reform. modern laws are assumed to be more fair. The second development has been the incorporation of the “reasonableness” principle in law making. Having discussed the features of secularism and also the legal basis for secularism in India. this issue is best analyzed illustrating the plethora of available case studies. speed breakers. The constitution mandates a uniform civil code in spirit if not in letter. The “secular” debate being in the spotlight the world over.

Closer home. therefore. This brings us to the second question. in installing the “Ten Commandments” inside the court premises. which despite being an Islamic state is considered among the more successful secular polities of the world. those who supported reservation in Aligarh Muslim University would categorize it as safeguard for a minority and safeguards/protection being a critical element of minority rights in Secularism and the law 80 . that is. This decision was later overruled by the United States Supreme Court but it highlighted the sensitive relationship between personal laws and the general secular laws. The France Government recently banned the use of conspicuous religious symbols by students in the state run schools. Another illustration of the uneasy relation between secular percepts and legal codes is the recent action of the Alabama Supreme Court Judge. the Ayodhya dispute. Another instance in this context in the ongoing debate among the Iraqi lawmakers as to whether Islam should be one source of law or in fact an overriding influence over all other sources. and the Shah Bano case point to the difficulties in legislating on religious/personal law matters. The extent of polarity among the contending groups is a reflection of the challenges facing law makers. This in turn raised fears of targeting the minorities in France. notwithstanding the recent rise of religious parties. The multitude of examples seems to answer the question especially in situations where the state has attempted to enforce what it considers a secular practice/safeguard. The stated reason was to enforce a secular standard but the widely understood motive was the desire to discourage use of headscarves by Muslim girl students. whether there actually exists great conflict between law and secularism in practice. For instance. the recent Aligarh Muslim University controversy.becomes evident. generating great resentment among minorities. The other extreme is occupied by Turkey. that the law and secularism do not necessarily share a consequential relationship. Roy Moore.

The above discussion leads to the inescapable conclusion that law and secularism do not necessarily share a comfortable and symbiotic relationship. very few would support legislation as a measure of resolving the Ayodhya dispute and it would be construed as state encroachment on a domain. This would facilitate secular reform and practices among different groups. However.secular set up. The state can then truly operate as a harmonizer and not be seen as an interferer. which are within the ambit of personal codes. Similarly. it is more imperative that democratic functioning is encouraged among religious and community leaders. whether by way of judicial pronouncement or legislation in secularizing practices. Secularism and the law 81 . which is perceived as strictly being within the control of religious leaders of the communities concerned. The path to harmony lies in democracy. The opponents of reservation in AMU would also justify their stand by claiming that reservation on religious grounds breeds communalism. The attainment of secularism through state action is not a feasible option because the law can at best provide for some substantive rights and a few safeguards. for in a democratic set up the laws are more reflective of diverse needs. The Shah Bano case too brings forth the limitations of the law.

determine the character of our polity and indicate future direction of our society. what exactly is ‘Secularism and Law’. agnosticism about different planes of reality. all controversies. So it would be necessary to see Secularism and the law 82 . scientific attitude. a saint and spiritual Guru of Mahatma Gandhi was once asked. Finally.Secularism and the Law . aloofness from spiritual faculty of human brain. disputes over legal interpretations would be redundant. secularism was seen as a philosophy. “What do you prefer – Dharma Nirapekshta’ or Sarvadharma-Samabhava?” (Neutrality towards religion or equal tolerance of all religions) He replied. science took an ascending position over the religion. With secularization of western society. Historic relations between the church and state gave rise to this concept. ‘Secularism’ is essentially a western notion as Nationalism.” Once such an attitude comes. both carved out their own spheres as famously put in this preaching “Reader therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things are Gods”. It implied neutrality towards religion. which emphasized reason. Both the institutions tried to dominate life of common people. It separated the spheres of the state and the religion. George Holyoake introduced this term upholding reason as its basic tenet. In 1851. which led to conflict between the two. Indian nation has seen a continuous conflict over the last six decades about various questions: What exactly is Secularism? What is the scope of law? Is religion only a personal affair or is it above the state? What’s the difference between law and Dharma? Is Secularism an Indian notion? What’s exactly Hinduism and Hindustan? All such questions deeply impact our nationhood. reality of this world and material existence. In the era of Renaissance. I uphold “Sarva dharma samabhava.Question of attitude VISHAL VASANT SOLANKI Vinoba Bhave. ideological struggles.

It is this total openness that is consequence of total faith and firmness!” Gandhiji was annis mirabelis of secularism in India. It only means not to allow one particular religion to dominate over others. synthesizing ability. Jainism clearly accepts different dimensions of truth. The most devout shaiva and the most zealous Vaishnava would each recognize that the other is seeking truth and salvation in his own way…. loyalty towards this Hindu civilization constitutes secularism. Thus. As social reformer Mahatma Phule puts it. Irrespective of whatever religion he may belong to. condition which preserves the existence. Savarkar defines a Hindu as follows: Secularism and the law 83 . This broader viewpoint has naturally given Indians an all compassing. Through philosophy of Anekantavada.” Ideal like ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ would flow only through such attitude. Being the most religious man. distinguishes between Religion & Dharma. As Arnold Toynbee puts it. Thus his religiosity was never an obstacle to be secular.Indian viewpoint was on a different plane altogether. to have equal respect for all religions and to uphold harmony amongst all. which all religions teach. it wasn’t difficult for him to appreciate ultimate truth. There are different viewpoints over what exactly constitutes secularism. Thus for them. “This broad minded approach to reality is the unique characteristic of India. his basic Dharma – nature of duty in life remains the same. true secularism doesn’t mean absence of religion or neutrality towards religion. it doesn’t disturb peaceful coexistence if right conception of truth is adopted. “Even if there are as many religions as human beings on earth. There is dominant class of Hindutva nationalists in India who consistently feel that India is primarily a Hindu entity and its culture. A human being has his own Manav Dharma. India sharply Dharma is defined as “that which upholds” – it is that universal order. language. traditions are all testimony of its Hindu identity.

Every religion has its personal law. Leftists and communists hold such view. there are modern laws. which contain basic principles of natural justice. etc. separate private life and public life. Another version of secularism completely rejects the idea of religion. inheritance. Christian etc. which are Secularism and the law 84 . which we can call Law. Social norms and standards of behaviour are bound to be culture-specific and change according to time and place. an attitude towards it. It is a synthesis of culture. term ‘Hindu’ itself doesn’t connote any religion but probably. Modern legislations are flexible in nature and are constantly reviewed to suit the requirements of dynamic society. It can be as dangerous to a secular polity as communalism. Hence they became anachronistic. Such personal laws were formulated in historic times but were never revised to suit to changing times. Such view has not found much acceptance in overwhelmingly spiritual country like India. Laws like Shariyat in Islam. equality of sexes. which permitted polygamy cannot address the current needs. giving them special status and concessions which are not available to majority. orthodox personal laws. On the other hand. which deals with civil matters like marriage. Now we turn to what exactly constitutes Law. There also exists something called ‘Pseudo-Secularism’. Basically. It gives no place for spirituality in human life. This ‘Hindu’ can also be a Muslim.“ ” Thus one whose ultimate loyalty is placed at India and for whom this entity is fatherland and sacred land is a Hindu. Some sections assume that secularism means to appease minorities. There is no universally applicable code of conduct or rules. civilization that flourished here for five thousand years. Thus we have rigid. a way of life.

Our constitution makers really did a tremendous job to lay the foundations of a secular India. 25. “freedom to manage religious affairs” and “the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions”. This tradition of reforms was continued even in post-independence India when Hindu Code Bill gave equal status to women. Laws like prohibition of sati. Art. 26 and 30 which deals with the “freedom of conscience and free profession. There was a historic evolution of laws in British India. practice and propagation of religion”. 330(1) and 332(1) order no communal electorates. 17 abolishes untouchability.” Provisions of Art. Ban on cow slaughter under Secularism and the law 85 . Nature of polity is determined according to the preference it gives to either of them. and Art.antithetical to modern secular laws. etc. which subsequently minimized the role of religion in public life. Art. 15(1) and (4) which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion. minimum age of consent act. 290(A) and 28(1) (2) (3) which emphasize that “no religious instruction be imparted through the institutions run or aided by the state. 325. widow remarriage act. It was one of the greatest challenges before Indian polity to keep itself secular in the aftermath of partition. Negative freedom of religion includes Art. Putting freedom of religion as one of the fundamental rights really strengthened our secular credentials. Art. 44 directs State to bring common civil code which strengthen the secular foundations of society. Art. It was a tough test to convincingly establish equality of all religions. 16 assures equality of opportunity for people belonging to all religions in matters of public employment. Ideal scope of religion and nature of secularism is rightly defined in our constitution. slowly removed unjust religious laws and replaced them by modern rational enactments. The positive religious freedom includes 3 Articles viz. negative and neutral. There are three angles to it – positive. 27. 29(2) caters to “protection of the interests of minorities”. Neutral provisions include Art.

when all these are rich symbols of our ancient cultural heritage. politicians underscore serious threat they pose to national security and integrity. no sane person will oppose the best heritage we derive from it – whether it is Sanskirt language or Muslim architecture or Christian passion for service to the downtrodden. but there are serious issues and areas where we have failed miserably. Vande Mataram on ground of religion. 30 which gives minorities fundamental right to establish their educational institutes. In Kerala. The demarcating line between the two is very unclear and hence creates many conflicting situations. has it stopped in tribal. forbids state from confiscating them. a new district was created only on a single criterion of having Muslim majority. This clearly violates the true spirit of secularism. Hindu Code Bill was enacted after much agitation and opposition.Art. Only to cherish vote bank. The constitutional provisions upheld the spirit of secularism fairly well in the last sixty years. Such provision is absent in case of majority educational institutions. With the rise of religious extremism in Secularism and the law 86 . All the border districts of West Bengal. Tripura have dramatically changed demographic ratio. Art. 47 recognizes sentiments of majority Indians. dalit areas? Some sections oppose Saraswati Pujan. Thus we have a balanced basic framework of secularism in our constitution. But our political establishment faultered us. Another example is Bangladeshi illegal refugees. State Government machinery has seriously failed to protect minorities in times of communal riots as happened in Godhra or in Kashmir where Pundits have fled from their native lands. This confusion between religion and culture has been a great source of controversy in our country. Does that follow spirit of secularism? Even though constitution forbids forcible conversion. Assam. But if we broadmindedly look at 5000-year-old tradition of this civilization. Then why we fear to touch and modify unjust personal laws in other religions? Shahbano case was a litmus test of our convinced stand that religious laws should not discriminate against women.

13 provides that all laws in force prior to Constitution. status of women. It is an immensely difficult task to combine this billion plus diversified populace in one national bond. Indian constitution also lacks provisions. why not for the whole India? Failure of State to increase literacy and awareness amongst minorities has come in the way of general acceptance of common civil code. Art. 49 of Swiss Constitution clearly state it. If it is applied in the State of Goa so successfully from 1860.country. Still. we have done it successfully We cannot wait till general notwithstanding ugly memories of partition. inheritance exclusively depends upon the current phase of society and has nothing to do with religious prescriptions. are still in force? consensus emerges because it will never happen. discrimination against women. Then how some laws. Finally. A system like marriage. harmony and goodwill amongst all ethnic communities. Most striking failure to enforce law for upholding secularism has been in case of uniform civil code. which brings peace. With current law provisions. Even after so many “obiter dictas” passed by courts insisting on its implementation. which impart extremist. we can say that true law always upholds true spirituality. state is failing in its duty to check those organizations like RSS Shakhas or Islamic Madarasas. unjust procedure of divorce. Art. Secularism and the law 87 . which make it obligatory on individual to perform his national duty even though it may be against his religious beliefs. which allow polygamy. 14 which upholds equality of women) shall become void. Lack of political will and vested interests are responsible for this. which violate fundamental rights (like Art. fundamentalist notions. Poet Iqbal has rightly said. Hence conscription is avoided on religious grounds. we still couldn’t enforce it. we can say India is one of the most truly secular countries in the world.

But at the outset “secular” word was not incorporated in the preamble.Strong law required to contain communal crimes SAKET KUMAR The relation of a person and his maker-at best. The preamble of our constitution proclaims that we are a ‘secular’ republic. It regulates individual and group action. As modern civil society we can’t allow that to happen. which has generated maximum conflict and tremendous bloodshed.Secularism . Secularism was also one of the fundamental underlying principles of our freedom struggle. It was only natural that at the time of framing our Constitution our forefathers provided us the right to religion as a fundamental right.T. The relation between Secularism and Indian Law can be examined under 3 heads: Constitutional Law Civil and Personal Law Criminal Law Each area has generated its share of controversies and fundamental questions of law. provides a level playing field to all religions and ensures harmony and peaceful coexistence. Enlightened rulers like Ashoka and Akbar have practiced secularism in letter and spirit. cultures and ethnicities came together but still retained their identities. The omission was deliberate. It will be pertinent to examine them one by one. But history has witnessed that religion is the single issue. This modern view in which the state remains non-partisan and encourages freedom of conscience and practices secularism. Hence law steps in. One of the members Mr. From time immemorial we have been a tolerant society. is a relationship in private domain. Shah made two attempts to introduce Secularism and the law 88 . It is a ‘tossed salad’ in which various religions. India has traditionally been a multicultural society. K.

But mere proclamation does not mean anything unless there are adequate provisions in the text of the constitution. Supreme Court (SC) had to clarify that right to propagate religion does not include right to forcible conversions.P. It means we respect all faiths and religions. Interestingly in the draft phase it does not include the right to propagate one’s religion and it also included a negative provision – “no communal organization.” It is debatable that whether dropping this clause from the final draft is responsible for some of the maladies that we are facing today specially in political sphere. practice and propagate religion. social and educational needs of the community. 25 lays down that all persons – not only citizens – are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess. since 1976 it is a proclaimed fact that India is a secular republic. State of M. This aspect of “secularism” as understood in India was empathically asserted by the great philosopher statesman Dr. Constitution makers might perhaps have felt that it was not necessary to use the word “secular” or “secularism” particularly as it might give the impression of establishing a state structure in consistent with the cultural ethos of Indian people. which is justified under the right to propagate religion. Art. However. Radhakrishnan when he said – “I want to state authoritatively that secularism does not mean irreligion. within 25 years we found it essential to reiterate our secular credentials via an amendment (42nd amendment.the word “secularism” but it was opposed by Dr. 1978) Secularism and the law 89 . cultural. (Stainclaw vs. Ambedkar. Our state does not identify itself with any particular religion. Issue of conversion has also been a sensitive issue. which by its constitution or by exercise of its discretionary powers vested in any of its officers or organs admits to or excludes from its membership persons on ground of religion. 1976) probably as a response to the growing communal strains. race and caste or any of them should be permitted to engage in any activities other than those essential for bonafide religious. Therefore.

morality and health. To disengage secular from the religion is certainly not an easy task but other considerations also creep in. In Shah Bano case while Supreme Court allowed secularism to triumph. Supreme Court prohibited the processions of Anand Margis with garland of human skulls in their necks.The right to religious freedom is however subject to public order. But this again raises fundamental questions of law. This question is not only relevant for Article 26 but also for getting a minority status under Article 30(1). Secondly. State of Bihar etc. Courts have to decide on these critical aspects. what practices can be regarded as part of religion so as to merit protection of Article 26. What exactly religion means and what is the meaning of the expression “matters of religion”. morality and health. which set aside this decision. succumbed to vote bank politics and enacted a law. But it upheld the objection of children belonging to the faith of Jehowh’s witness against singing the national anthem. organize and administer property. This right is also subject to public order. These principles have been reiterated by Supreme Court in cases like Anand Margis case. 25 then seeks to balance the legitimate claims of religion with realities of State craft. These questions arose in Auroville case in Supreme Court and Arya Samaj case in Delhi High Court. Another important issue is what should be the criterion by which a religious group can be identified as a new religion distinct and separate from an existing religion or only as a religious denomination within the existing religion. to manage their own affairs in matters of religion. to own. Art. Hanif Quareshi vs. Article 26 flowing from Article 25 bestows a fundamental right on all religious denominations and sections thereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes. But the administration of property has to be according to law. the govt. Mohd. In the latter it is was ruled that Arya Samaj could not be said to be a minority based on religion and therefore not Secularism and the law 90 .

Thirdly. what is the right? Does it allow a minority to establish and administer an educational institution to teach its religion and culture or lucrative subjects like medicine. what makes an institution a Secularism and the law 91 . First. This decision was widely discussed by jurists. Hence these are tricky issues where clear-cut criterion is difficult to identify. State of Gujarat 1974). under Article 27 there would be no objection if the taxes were used for promotion of all religions. who is a minority? What is the frame of reference – country. So it has not generated much controversy. the state shall not discriminate against minority. Article 29 and 30 confer important rights to minorities in respect of their language. Here an important conclusion is that the wall of separation between state and religion is not absolute. Article 28 imparts secular flavour to state sponsored education by prohibiting religious instructions in any institution wholly maintained by state funds. But in India. Clause 1(A) added by 44th amendment in effect provides that if the property of any such institution is acquired. whether religious or linguistic. managed institutions. Article 30(1) says that all minorities. There. state or district? Secondly. script or culture. Article 30 lets several important points to be raised in respect to this right. Clause (2) provides that in the matter of giving aid. the compensation paid would be proper and adequate. Xaviers College Society vs. But Article 30 is strictly in nature of minority right. the doctrine of separation between Church and State is wholly accepted. engineering or management also. shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This right however is equally available to all sections of society – minority or majority (Ahmedabad St. Under the 1st amendment in the US the Congress can’t make appropriations in aid of religious bodies at all. Article 27 says that no person shall be compelled to pay any taxes for expenses on promotion of any particular religion.entitled to the right under Article 30(1).

Former have preferential right to admit students of their own community/language. However. Supreme Court has also declared secularism as one of the ‘basic features’ of our constitution (S. own methods of selection for admission and the right to fill 100% of their seats according to their wishes. Supreme Court has further clarified that a minority professional college can admit in their management quota. a student of their own community/language in preference to another community even though that student is more meritorious. Supreme Court has balanced national interest with minority rights. from time to time. To summarize.minority institution – management by minority community or majority of students from minority community? And last but not the least. by a liberal interpretation strengthened the secular credentials of our society. State of Punjab). No such right exists for the latter. it can be said that adequate safeguards have been provided in our constitution and a plethora of rights have been conferred on religious minorities. Bommai case). Article 44 of Directive Principles of State policy makes the promulgation of a uniform civil code throughout the country a constitutional goal. It has also. why this right has been denied to majority community. Supreme Court in Islamic Academy case interpreted Article 30 liberally and ruled that minority and non-minority institutions do not have an equal footing. Whether they can have their own fee structure. Coming to civil and personal law. In relation to professional minority institutions some more questions can be raised. Whether minority and non-minority educational institutions stand on the same footing and have same rights. Groups like Arya Samaj and Ramakrishna Mission have to claim independent minority status to enjoy benefits of Article 30 (DAV College vs. Secularism and the law The merit of making it non-justiciable in the communally 92 . while admitting students of their community/language the inter-se merit of these students can’t be ignored. So in case of professional education.R.

Not only Muslim Secularism and the law 93 . There are at least six schools of jurisprudence among Muslims. Not only this. The Indian Muslim personal law is a curious amalgam of principles from different schools. At least half of all Muslims are badly served by Muslim personal laws.changed environment of the independence period is understandable but even after 60 years of independence this goal is surprisingly distant. Four among the Sunnis and two among the Shias. But if a chiefly Muslim country like Turkey can adopt modern personal laws. Shah Bano Begum 1985 where it granted the woman the right to maintenance under section 125 of Cr Pc. Tax benefits accorded to Hindu undivided family are restricted to Hindu community. It is often said that in relation to civil code the changes should come from within the community. In my opinion it must be done in one sweep. In Sarla Mudgal vs. Md. Ahmad Khan vs. Union of India in which it prevented the misuse of personal laws in relation to marriage and in John Vollamattom case 1997 where it quashed certain sections of Indian Succession Act. Still today a Muslim woman can be divorced by triple talaq and the right to maintenance are grossly inadequate. Adoption laws and succession laws vary from community to community and have generated intense controversy. why can’t we? Few people know that in the state of Goa there is a uniform civil code and is working perfectly fine. but most particularly the Hanafi branch of Sunni legal belief. the ridiculous Muslim personal law is a convenient stick for Hindu communalists to beat Muslims with. Cases like Imrana Rape case make a mockery of our legal system in the name of religion. Giving Muslims the right to be governed by their own personal law gives them the right to claim that they are some kind of a privileged minority. It is seen as an attack on the religious sentiments. Supreme Court has issued obites dictums in at least three cases for the need to pass a uniform civil code.

Main features are legal responsibility for the state. But do we have the political courage to do it? That fundamental question remains unanswered. punishment to offending policemen. Since independence we have witnessed several incidences of communal riots. Its recommendations are not mandatory and in the end the whole process turns out to be mere eyewash. After that an enquiry committee is set up. State is held morally responsible. A set pattern emerges. doctors and lawyers. The state machinery especially police is often accused of partisan behaviour. They were later promoted. The last area is the area of criminal law. If the time is not yet ripe. Srikrishna commission probing Mumbai Riots of 1992-93 indicted 23 policemen. Indian Succession Act and special rights of other communities should go only in one stroke. It has no real powers. Doctors and Public Prosecutors are also accused sometimes. ban on hate propagating speech/educational material. it probably never will. Recommendations of Nanavati Commission probing Sikh riots of 1984 did little to solace the aggrieved. McPherson Committee was formed in UK after their last racial riots to recommend ways to overcome institutional racism. One of its major recommendations was that complaint should be lodged at places other than police stations and also electronically.personal law but discriminatory practices like Hindu undivided family. The recent carnage in Gujarat has again raised these issues. It lingers on for decades. provide more teeth to enquiry Secularism and the law 94 . not legally. One nation – one law principle is essential for good governance and the right to equality. It is difficult for the minority community to register FIRs. A group of NGOs in the aftermath of Gujarat riots have proposed a law on communal riots and have submitted a recommended draft to United Progressive Alliance government. There is no mention of ‘communal crimes’ or ‘hate crimes’ in IPC or Cr Pc Sections pertaining to rioting are applied to most of these crimes.

race or caste or any of them to engage in any political/public activity. Promulgation of a uniform civil code. A strong act regarding speedy trial and fair process with respect to communal and hate crimes as well as rioting. Here we stand united. Communal Violence (Suppression) Bill is being tabled by the government.” These words are a tribute to our society and its institutions of polity and judiciary. has stood the test of time. Clear criterion pertaining to minority institutions. Preventing misuse of protection of Article 30(1) for monetary benefits and with regard to professional education. developed and prosperous nations of the world. Secularism and the law 95 . “matters of religion” and “minority” to be clearly explained in Constitution. Negative clause under Article 25 to prevent an organization which admits to or excludes from its membership persons on grounds of religion.commission. despite temporary setbacks. In the light of these recommendations. The Human Development Report 2004 states this fact in unambiguous terms - “the so called semi-illiterate or illiterate majority of India is more prudent in showing respect to followers of other religions than in the case of many rich. (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) In the end I would like to say that our secularism. Clear-cut guidelines for good management of religious institutions/ monuments and systems of audit. To conclude. and the world looks to us with amazement and appreciation. communal crimes/hate crimes to be added in criminal justice system. I would like to make some recommendations in the light of the preceding discussions: (i) (ii) Meaning of the terms “Secularism”. Hopefully this will act as a deterrent to the communal forces in the country.

Secularism recognized the religion. The benefit of being secular is that it prevents the state from being subordinated to a single religion. state (secular) imposes the 96 Secularism and the law . What does secularism mean to India? “Secularism” as an essential attribute of state means that the state remains neutral on religious issues both in its thought and action.indispensable for peace & prosperity GOVINDA RAJU NS For the development of the country both external security and internal peace are most important. Although we don’t find the definition of secularism in the Constitution. In the absence of a definition of secularism. So India is a non-religious state. have declared secularism as the fundamental law of the land and sought to delineate the boundaries of the sacred and secular. Judicial interpretations. On the other hand was the impending task of modernizing our traditional society and bringing in social reform that required state intervention in religious affairs. but in 1976 by amending the Constitution. declaring secularism as an un-amendable feature of the Constitution. the word secularism was included in the preamble.Secularism . A truly democratic country should be secular. Secular state does not appeal to religion but a secular state as the one which is neither religious. the Supreme Court’s reading of it is noteworthy. nor antireligious. So in this context internal peace and communal harmony are prerequisites for the overall development and progress. Keeping this in mind our forefathers while framing the Constitution provided sufficient provisions fundamental rights for the people to profess. religious and cultural diversities made secularism indispensable for democracy and national integration. it presupposes the religious tolerance. In some cases the Court has come out strongly on the issue. otherwise any amount of government efforts for development go in vain. not irreligious but NON-RELIGIOUS”. practice and propagate their faith. Secularism is needed for maintaining pluralism. On the one hand.

In our Constitution. The members of a minority feel insecure about the continuance of their community and they believe that they have to struggle for existence. It is projected that interests of one community are common and are different and hostile to the interests of another community. So.responsibility of religion. Due to various reasons man starts developing a feeling of being better than people of other community and in order to suppress them. this kind of politics is harboured. Politics has two sides: One democratic. Secularism and the law 97 . To carry these interests forward. 15. It is the intolerance in human beings for others supremacy and clear mindedness in cases where the others opinion is given more weight. etc. 14. which is based on issues of real life and second is communal. An average person in society believes in what politician says. add up to such conditions. duty of practicing religious tolerance and co-existence of religions. Also the misinterpretation of sacred verses and perverted readings etc. Due to anonymity of mob people tend to do whatever they want in a group. the Articles 25-28 specifically talk about secularism but secularism is also reflected in Art. 16. So the whole set of fundamental rights are linked to secularism. people in mob tend to look their rationality and turn violent. secularism is one of the pillars of the Indian state. Impediments to Secularism Communalism is treating the interests of other religions differently and also as inimical to one’s own religion. based on religious community that is monolith – having same interests. he resorts to communal violence.

25 guarantees 2 types of freedom of religion (i) freedom of conscience and (ii) right to profess. Art. 27 provides that no person shall be compelled to pay any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religion. The Govt. Much has been left to the judiciary in determining the essence of secularism. festivals. so that it brings true picture of the violence 5. 28 prohibits religious education in state aided institutions. 4. while the Constitution has only articulated it as a goal and is silent on its connotation. (i) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charity purpose. jathras. every religious discrimination or any section of it shall have following rights. 2. 3. School text books should be in-coloured/un-prejudiced 6. should take consent of all religions and may give options for the religions to adopt the Law and time period for adoption. The article emphasizes the secular character of the state. Secularism and the law 98 . Art. Strict possible steps by the Election Commission. judicial use of the term predates its inclusion in the Constitution. or encouraging communal violence. Interestingly. practice and propagate a religion of one’s choice. morality and health. and (iv) to administer such property in accordance with law. It is one of the unfulfilled tasks on the part of Legislature to enact this law as mentioned in the Chapter IV of Constitution. Strict punishment to police personnel found guilty of neglecting their duty.1. All other officers who intentionally infatuate controlling violence. broadcasting such events through media so that people become aware of harmony. (ii) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion (iii) to own and acquire movable and immovable property. Art. 26 states that subject to public order. Art. Promote communal harmony by organizing inter-religious meets. Make media more responsible. against the political parties which try to assume power through inflammatory speeches and communal propaganda. These articles (25 & 28) emphasize the secular character of the state.

in no uncertain terms declared secularism to be the fundamental law of the land and as one of the basic features of the Constitution. 25 & 26 embody the principle of religious toleration. the Supreme Court decreed that all the faiths are equal. It is of the view that the problem with secularism in India is the demarcation between ‘what are matters of religion and what are not’. health and any other provision of the fundamental rights of the individuals. Again in Keshavananda Bharati vs. Art5. The majority view was that the essence of every religion is common. Besides they serve to emphasize the secular nature of the Indian democracy. This judgment also stated that secularism in India is based on tolerance. The judiciary evolved the doctrine of essentiality of religious practices to be the basis of Secularism and the law 99 . Their judgment declared secularism to be an amendable feature of the Constitution. cultures. morality. in a recent judgment on the NCERT text book case. This case was the high point of the Supreme Court’s protection of secular ideals. In the landmark judgment of S. There are different beliefs. they are subject to limitations imposed by the state on grounds of social welfare. public order. Religion is not defined in the Constitution and it is a term that is hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. viewpoints and groups in our country and these differences need to be respected so that they do not loose their identity. the 13 judge constitutional bench. in the Sardar Taharudiin Syedna Saheb vs. Further. Interestingly it is the judiciary in India that tells us what constitutes religion. only the practice differs.R. Bommai vs.Supreme Court’s first recognition of secularism was in 1962. This is against the faith of tolerance because it is assimilative in its intent and does not give an individual the autonomy of self. State of Kerala in 1972. While in principle the Court seeks to protect the religious beliefs of all. Union of India 1994. a nine judge bench again reiterated that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the polity. State of Bombay case.

whereas the guarantee to citizens of equal protection from the law and before the law supports a uniform civil code. Opposition to reform personal laws is based on the freedom of religion and conscience. the Court assured all religions protection of their belief. While in the early cases. The subject of personal law brings out yet another feature of secularism i.K. the protection of minorities in a plural state.protection of the freedom of conscience and profession.e. like in the Nathdwara temple cases. while the non-essential features such as carrying lethal weapons and human skulls (by Ananda Margis) was believed by the Court to be non-essential. John Vallomattom and Anr. Justice Kuldip Singh stated that the uniform civil code was required for national integration. practice and propagation of religion to manage religious affairs. the Court profounder that only the essential practices of a faith would be protected. Practice and management of their religious institution. Chief Justice V. While in the Shah Bano case the objective of Court was social reform and the Court took upon itself this task. President. In the recent judgment of July. Kalyani and others vs. vs.N. in the later years. or have they precedence over the right to equality and legal pluralism in a diverse society. In Sarla Mudgal. 2003. This issue also raises questions concerning the hierarchy of rights – can the rights be governed by personal laws. It was argued that the common civil code helps national integration by removing contradictions based on ideologies. 44 of the Constitution has not been given effect. To protect minority interests special protection measures need to be undertaken to cover need for different identities and cultures. Sirus Math Jagannath temple and Bombay trust cases of Justice B. S. Union of India. Union of India. Secularism sans protection to minority religions and cultural groups creates majoritarianism. Mukherjee. Khare observed that it was a matter of great regret that Art. Secularism and the law 100 . the Court reiterated the need for a uniform civil code.

A secular India is must for our future Secularism and the law 101 . as mentioned in our fundamental duties. apart from our judiciary will play important role of securing secularism in the country. generations to live in peace and to prosper. Swami Vivekananda told ‘to achieve religious harmony we need acceptance rather than tolerance. need to achieve first the internal harmony in the society.India aspiring to become a developed nation in near future. you have no problem of tolerance’. genes etc. Shared characters. Science will provide some solutions to some of our basic understanding of human evolution. In the absence of any rigid demarcation of the spheres of the secured and the secular the Court has remarkable autonomy. one should try to develop scientific temper. Moreover. The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution had given it considerable authority. because tolerance has limit but once if you accepted and let live other fellow faith persons.

683511 KERALA NANDIMANGALAM. ERNAKULAM . AKBAR IPS 2 SHRI K. KERALA 17-127/33 ANNAPOORNA NAGAR UPPAL HYDERABAD .O. UTTARAKHAND 809. POORAB KHEDA.678. ALANGAD P. TAMIL NADU S/O SRI RAM PRASAD BARTAN DUKAN. SRINIVASAN IAS 3 SMT. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ROAD MANJERI – 676121. THODUPUZHA. IDUKKI DIST.K. TQ BEED – 431122. K. CHOWK PAR NALANDA BIHARSHARIF .NAGAR MADURAI – 625020. KOTTAPPURAM.209801 UTTAR PRADESH 4 SHRI KUMAR RAVI IAS 5 SHRI DAREZ AHAMED IAS 6 SHRI V. MAHARASHTRA DEEP NIVAS KINGCRAIG MUSSORIE – 248179. PADI (POST) CHENGAM TALUK THIRUVANAMALAI .803101 BIHAR C\O DR BASHEER RAWTHER. V. NAME SERVICE ADDRESS 1 SHRI A. NAVAL KISHORE IDAS 7 SHRI APPU JOSEPH JOSE IRS 8 SHRI TUKARAM HARIBHAU MUNDHE SHRI DEEPAK RAWAT IAS 9 ICCES 10 SHRI AKASH DEEP IAS Secularism and the law 102 . SRIPRIYA RENGARAJAN IAS KUNNINPURATH. PLOT NO. THODUPUZHA .500039 ANDHRA PRADESH KIZHAKEKARA OLAMATTOM. UNNAO .606705 TAMIL NADU POOJA.About the Contributors Sl No. CIVIL LINES. M.685584 KERALA AT& POST TADSONNA.

QR NO 2140 BOKARO STEEL CITY . MAHARASHTRA C/O SRI M.11 SHRI VISHAL GOGNE IPOS 12 SHRI VISHAL VASANT SOLANKI IAS 13 DR.572132 TUMKUR DIST.LAL SECTOR 6A. KARNATAKA Secularism and the law 103 . SAKET KUMAR IAS 14 SHRI GOVINDARAJU NS IAS VISHAL GOGNE V&PO DHANAURI DISTRICT ROPAR. PUNJAB VASANT A SOLANKI SILVER SPLENDOUR 1170/16A REVENUE COLONY SHIVAJI NAGAR PUNE – 411005.M.827006 JHARKHAND MADHUGIRI TALUK NITTRAHALLY .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful