Bharat may have achieved political independence in 1947, but the psychological, intellectual, and cultural decolonisation of Bharat remains incomplete. Even after gaining independence, our thoughts and intellectual framework remained under the control of the colonizers—and later, in the hands of the Left-liberals. One of the most debated consequences of colonial legacy is the uncritical adoption of Western political concepts into our governance and social discourse. Among them, the term ‘Secularism’ stands out—not just as a borrowed idea, but as a tool that has been misapplied, misused, and manipulated in ways that often conflict with the civilizational ethos of Bharat.
To understand the impact of secularism in Bharat, one must first examine its origin. The term ‘Secularism’ was coined in 1851 by British thinker George Jacob Holyoake, who defined it as a doctrine that seeks to promote a societal order free from religious influence—particularly the institutional power of the Church over the State. This idea emerged from centuries of conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and European monarchies, notably during the Reformation and Enlightenment periods. British scholar Andrew Copson, in his research paper titled “Secularism: A very short introduction” wrote kind of the same. He wrote, “The British social reformer George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906) coined the word ‘secularism’ to describe his this-worldly approach to personal morals, to philosophy, and to society and politics. A modern definition, provided by scholar Jean Baubérot, sees secularism made up of three parts: separation of religious institutions from the institutions of the state and no domination of the political sphere by religious institutions; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion for all; and no state discrimination against anyone on grounds of their religion or non-religious worldview.” (Ref: ‘Secularism: A very short introduction’, Andrew Copson, Oxford University Press, 2019)
In contrast, Indian civilization never had a history of centralized theocracy. Kings often patronized multiple religions, and spiritual pluralism was the norm rather than the exception. Dharma—not a rigid code, but a flexible, context-sensitive ethos—governed society, integrating ethical, spiritual, and social life.
Interestingly, when the Indian Constitution was originally adopted in 1950, the word ‘Secular’ did not appear in the Preamble. This was not an oversight but a conscious decision by the framers who believed that India’s spiritual pluralism did not require the imposition of a Western idea. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly Debates, said: “The State in India will observe an attitude of neutrality towards all religions.” (Ref: Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, Nov 15, 1948) It was only during the Emergency in 1976, under the 42nd Amendment, that the word ‘Secular’ was inserted into the Preamble. This move, taken without serious national debate, effectively altered the philosophical direction of the Republic.
Unlike the West, where secularism emerged as a separation between Church and State, in Bharat it has degenerated into State interference in Hindu religious institutions while selectively privileging minority communities. The State controls Hindu temples, appropriates their revenues, and interferes in their customs and rituals—practices unthinkable when it comes to mosques, churches, or minority-run institutions. Meanwhile, the same State maintains a hands-off policy with regard to certain minority institutions, granting them privileges under Articles 29, 30, and 26 of the Constitution. The Sachar Committee Report (2006), while essential in highlighting the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims, was criticized for excluding data on the status of economically backward Hindus and other non-Muslim minorities. This selective application of secularism has given rise to a ‘pseudo-secular’ order, where appeasement of vote banks under the guise of secularism has become politically expedient.
The real question is this: are those who claim to be secular in Bharat truly secular? If they are, then why do they consistently oppose the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)? The same individuals who identify as secular resist the UCC because they believe that all religions are not equal. Yet, paradoxically, they oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on the grounds that everyone should be treated equally. This selective reasoning exposes the hypocrisy of Bharat’s so-called secularists, who shift their principles based on political convenience rather than genuine commitment to equality or justice.
A true secular state must uphold neutrality and equidistance from all religions — neither privileging nor penalizing any. For Indian secularism to regain its legitimacy, two things must happen: First, Article 44 of the Indian Constitution urges the state to implement a UCC to replace personal laws based on religion. While politically contentious, a UCC can bring parity and reduce accusations of partiality. Secondly, all religious institutions — Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh — must be subject to the same level of scrutiny, accountability, and autonomy. If Hindu temples are state-managed, so should mosques and churches be, or vice versa.
Decolonization is not merely about rejecting British or renaming cities. It is about restoring India’s civilizational self-confidence. For Bharat, that means revisiting the inherited frameworks — legal, political, educational — that were shaped by Western, often Christian worldviews. The Dharma-centric model offers an indigenous alternative. The dharmic traditions of Bharat (Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) have historically coexisted without the need for a secular State. Dharma allowed for coexistence, tolerance, and debate—qualities that are foundational to the Indian psyche. The foundation of secularism in Bharat is deeply rooted in the pluralistic spirit of Sanatana Dharma, which has long embraced diversity in thought, belief, and spiritual practice. This inclusive outlook can be traced back to ancient times, as reflected in the Vedic, Upanishadic, and other classical texts of Indian philosophy. A powerful expression of this ethos is found in the Rig Veda, one of the oldest sacred texts, which declares: “Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti” — “Truth is one, but the wise call it by many names.” This profound verse captures the essence of India’s spiritual pluralism, emphasizing that truth can be realized in various ways and that no single path or interpretation holds exclusive authority over others. That is why, in his historic address at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Chicago on 11th September 1893, Swami Vivekananda proudly declared: “We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.”
Swatantryaveer Savarkar, in his writings, argued for a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ not in a theocratic sense, but as a cultural-civilizational framework. Sri Aurobindo, in The Foundations of Indian Culture, envisioned a society where spiritual heritage and modern science could coexist without conflict. This dharmic alternative does not suppress minorities but transcends identity politics. It offers a model of unity based on shared civilization, not imposed uniformity or token tolerance.
Secularism, as imposed upon Bharat, is not a neutral principle—it is a colonial vestige, dressed in modern attire, used often to delegitimize the dharmic worldview. True Swaraj (self-rule) must begin with intellectual decolonization, where Bharat no longer sees herself through foreign lenses, but through the clear light of her own civilizational wisdom.
Comments