Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi ignited an interesting debate on a question that has long been simmering beneath the surface of Indian politics: Is India truly secular? His remarks, especially the claim that “secularism” is an imported concept from colonial British rulers, have triggered a wider discussion. This debate is not just theoretical; it touches the heart of India’s identity and its historical evolution as a nation. Governor Ravi’s remarks hint at a larger, unresolved debate: the historical roots and contemporary misuse of secularism. By questioning whether India truly needed the term “secularism” in its Constitution, Ravi is challenging a long-standing narrative built around post-independence politics. The absence of the word “secularism” from India’s original Constitution is a key point in Ravi’s argument. Despite India’s partition based on religious lines, Dr. BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, did not include the term in the preamble. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, also seemed to give secularism less importance than other ideals in the early years of the republic. Ambedkar’s vision may have been influenced by the idea that India’s deep-rooted “Sanatan Dharma” culture was inherently inclusive. Over centuries, India embraced diverse invaders—Mughals, British, and others—and allowed them to govern. In this light, secularism was seen as something already embedded in the Indian way of life rather than a legal principle that needed to be explicitly stated.
The term “secularism” was only inserted into the Constitution during the Emergency in 1976 by then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This act raises a fundamental question: Was India not secular before 1976? If not, how do we explain the many communal riots both before and after this period? Gandhi’s decision was politically motivated, a strategic move to strengthen her political power during one of India’s darkest periods for democracy. The insertion of “secularism” into the preamble was meant to appeal to a specific voter base, creating the impression that India was only truly secular under Congress rule. Historically, Congress has been at the helm during many of India’s worst communal riots, both at the state and central levels. On the other hand, BJP-led governments have often been criticized for their handling of isolated communal incidents, but a comparison of riots reveals that Congress presided over far more unrest during its tenure. One glaring example is the Congress party’s preference for appointing Muslim leaders to the position of Education Minister, as seen in the case of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Critics argue that this choice allowed Congress to distort Indian history to fit a particular narrative that favoured minorities over the Hindu majority. Similarly, the creation of the Waqf Board to protect the properties of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan after Partition is another act that raises questions about the Congress party’s secular credentials. At the same time, Hindus who fled Pakistan left behind their properties, with no equivalent governmental body to protect their rights. How is this consistent with a secular state?
Critics of the BJP often highlight the 2002 Godhra incident in Gujarat, where Muslims were targeted in communal violence. However, they tend to overlook other horrific episodes, such as the massacre of Kashmiri Pandits, who were barbarically killed and forced to flee their homes, or the brutal anti-Sikh riots that followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Narendra Modi, who was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time, faced accusations of complicity in the Godhra violence but was ultimately exonerated by the Supreme Court. Despite this, the incident has been repeatedly used to label the BJP as anti-secular, while Congress’ long history of either engineering or presiding over communal riots is often ignored. Ironically, the Congress-led opposition, now under the banner of the Indian National Democratic Inclusive Alliance (INDIA), positions itself as the defender of secularism, despite a checkered record that suggests otherwise. Their rule saw systematic engineering of communal tensions, a narrative of division based on hatred for the majority Hindu faith, and a skewed portrayal of India’s historical heroes like Subhas Chandra Bose. The Congress has consistently glorified the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, burying the legacies of other freedom fighters who also played key roles in India’s independence. Governor Ravi’s comments on secularism deserve a broader debate. Was India truly secular before 1976, or was secularism a politically convenient tool used by the Congress to maintain power? What does secularism mean in the Indian context? Should it imply equal respect for all religions, or does it signify the privileging of minorities at the cost of the majority’s cultural heritage? Comparing incidents like the ethnic conflict in Manipur with secularism is misleading. Isolated incidents should not be used as proof that secularism is under threat. The real threat lies in the political manipulation of the term itself. After all, the Congress party, which imposed the Emergency, stifling democracy and undermining institutions, is hardly in a position to lecture on secularism. India’s secular identity, hence is far more complex than the simplistic narratives often peddled by political parties. Governor Ravi’s remarks serve as a reminder that “secularism” is not just a word to be thrown around, but an idea that demands serious reflection and honest debate. The time has come to ask whether India needs a new understanding of secularism—one that respects its diverse religious history while protecting the unity of the nation.
