Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates
What were India's founding fathers' views on secularism during the drafting of the constitution?
India adopted its constitution on January 26, 1950 ending a process that started in 1946. The Constituent Assembly was setup in 1946 as part of the negotiations between the Indian Independence Delegation and the British. It had 299 members and was chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Over 3 years, it introduced and debated various articles that would be included in the constitution. These debates have been recorded, preserved and archived for posterity.
The Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) act as a flashlight, revealing what went through the minds of contemporary leaders. They reflect the concerns of a fledgling nation striving for survival, having just endured a bloody partition and a massive migration. For better or worse, many issues in present day politics were also matters of active debate in 1947. I think it is a useful exercise to look back and see what the most prominent minds thought of these issues during independence.
While going through the CAD, I found many interesting speeches on secularism. I have compiled some of them, both for and against secularism along with my own thoughts and comments.
Religious Minorities
Article 23 of the Draft Constitution (Article 29 in the present one) recognised linguistic and religious minorities. On the topic of religious minorities, Damodar Swarup Seth said
While in sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of article 23,obviously minorities based on religion and community have been recognised, my amendment recognises only minorities based on language. I feel, Sir, that in a secular state minorities based on religion or community should not be recognised. If they are given recognition… we cannot claim that ours is a secular state. Recognition of minorities based on religion or community is the very negation of secularism. Besides Sir, if these minorities are recognised and granted the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their own, it will not only block the way of national unity, so essential for a country of different faiths, as India is, but will also promote communalism, and narrow anti national outlook as was the case hitherto, with disastrous results. I therefore submit that only minorities based on language should be recognised and be granted the right to establish and administer educational institutions…
Damodar Seth was remarkably prescient in his observations. Madrassas are a perfect embodiment of Seth’s fears. A quick glance at the news reveals that Madrasas are prone to radicalizing youth in various countries. Madrassas lack a uniform education board putting their students at a disadvantage when they join mainstream education after their equivalent of 10th or 12th grade. This directly stands in the way of integration.
Is India a Secular State?
K.T. Shah, a socialist leader wanted to insert the words ‘secular, federal and socialist’ in article 1, having it read as ‘India shall be a secular, federal and socialist union of states’. The justification provided was
Next, as regards the Secular character of the State, we have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular State. If that is true, if that holds good, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension…
The secularity of the state must be stressed in view not only of the unhappy experiences we had last year and in the years before and the excesses to which, in the name of religion, communalism or sectarianism can go, but I intend also to emphasis by this description the character and nature of the state which we are constituting today, which would ensure to all its peoples, all its citizens that in all matters relating to the governance of the country and dealings between man and man and dealings between citizen and Government the consideration that will actuate will be the objective realities of the situation, the material factors that condition our being, our living and our acting.
Emphasizing the secularity of the state doesn’t lead to less excesses in the name of religion. In his book, Europe, India and the Limits of Secularism, Jakob de Roover points out that the proselytizing nature of Abrahamic religions as a major source of religious conflict. Identifying the state as secular adds to the problem as it ignores the root cause of conflict.
Uniform Civil Code
The first discussions on a Uniform Civil Code were held and Mohammed Ismail Khan had this to say.
Now the right to follow personal law is part of the way of life of those people who are following such laws; it is part of their religion and part of their culture. If anything is done affecting the personal laws, it will be tantamount to interference with the way of life of those people who have been observing these laws for generations and ages. This secular State which we are trying to create should not do anything to interfere with the way of life and religion of the people.
This leads to a complete negation of the secularity of the State. If laws relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, birth and death are different for each community, the State remains secular in name only.
Mahboob Ali Baig was supportive of this and in his speech, stated that
Sir, people seem to have very strange ideas about secular State. People seem to think that under a secular State, there must be a common law observed by its citizens in all matters, including matters of their daily life, their language, their culture, their personal laws. That is not the correct way to look at this secular State. In a secular State, citizens belonging to different communities must have the freedom to practice their own religion, observe their own life and their personal laws should be applied to them. Therefore, I hope the framers of this article have not in their minds the personal law of the people to cover the words “Civil code”. With this observation, I move that that it may be made clear by this proviso, lest an interpretation may be given to it that these words “Civil code” include personal law of any community.
If each community is free to practice their own religion and through that, their own personal laws, where do we draw the boundaries for individual liberty?
K.M. Munshi in his response stated
There is one important consideration which we have to bear in mind that the sooner we forget this isolationist outlook on life, it will be better for the country. Religion must be restricted to spheres which legitimately appertain to religion, and the rest of life must be regulated, unified and modified in such a manner that we may evolve, as early as possible a strong and consolidated nation. Our first problem and the most important problem is to produce national unity in this country. We think we have got national unity. But there are many factors–and important factors–which still offer serious dangers to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified… From that point of view alone, I submit, the opposition is not, if I may say so, very well advised. I hope our friends will not feel that this is an attempt to exercise tyranny over a minority; it is much more tyrannous to the majority.
This attitude of mind perpetuated under the British rule, that personal law is part of religion, has been fostered by the British and by British courts. We must, therefore, outgrow it. If I may just remind the honourable Member who spoke last of a particular incident from Fereshta which comes to my mind, Allauddin Khilji made several changes which offended against the Shariat… If Allauddin could not, much less can a modern government accept the proposition that religious rights cover personal law or several other matters which we have been unfortunately trained to consider as part of our religion.
K.M. Munshi’s speech deserves to be read in its entirety. I find the above extract to be particularly relevant to current times. Another member of the Constituent Assembly, Alladi Krishnaswami Iyer agreed with K.M. Munshi and made a compelling argument for a Uniform Civil Code.
The second objection was that religion was in danger, that communities cannot live in amity if there is to be a uniform civil code. The article actually aims at amity. It does not destroy amity. The idea is that differential systems of inheritance and other matters are some of the factors which contribute to the differences among the different peoples of India. What it aims at is to try to arrive at a common measure of agreement in regard to these matters. It is not as if one legal system is not influencing or being influenced by another legal system … Our ancients did not think of a unified nation to be welded together into a democratic whole. There is no use clinging always to the past. We are departing from the past in regard to an important particular, namely, we want the whole of India to be welded and united together as a single nation. Are we helping those factors which help the welding together into a single nation, or is this country to be kept up always as a series of competing communities? That is the question at issue.
… You must know that the Muslim law covers the field of contracts, the field of criminal law, the field of divorce law, the field of marriage and every part of law as contained in the Muslim law. When the British occupied this country, they said, we are going to introduce one criminal law in this country which will be applicable to all citizens, be they Englishmen, be they Hindus, be they Muslims. Did the Muslim stake exception, and did they revolt against the British for introducing a single system of criminal law? Similarly we have the law of contracts governing transactions between Muslims and Hindus, between Muslims and Muslims. They are governed not by the law of the Koran but by the Anglo-Indian jurisprudence, yet no exception was taken to that. Again, there are various principles in the law of transfer which have been borrowed from the English jurisprudence.
Therefore, when there is impact between two civilizations or between two cultures, each culture must be influenced and influence the other culture. If there is a determined opposition, or if there is strong opposition by any section of the community, it would be unwise on the part of the legislators of this country to attempt to ignore it. Today, even without article 35, there is nothing to prevent the future Parliament of India from passing such laws. Therefore, the idea is to have a uniform civil code.
Fortunately, Dr. Ambedkar agreed with Munshi and Iyer.
Taking oath in the name of God
Brajeshwar Prasad strongly objected to having to take oath in the name of God, especially because India was supposed to be a secular state.
I am quite clear in my own mind that secularism is the negation of all religion. Whatever statesmen and politicians may say on the ground of expediency, I am quite clear in my own mind that the concept of religion and the concept of secularism are poles asunder. There is no meeting ground between these two.
In most of the Western world, the concept of secularism is at odds with religion. Seeing so much violence waged in the name of religion is bound to have that effect. But this must be thought through. Does it hold in India? Before the British colonised India, how much blood was shed in the name of religion? Can the native faiths of India even be called religion? What characterises a religion and did we have that concept before the West colonised us?
These are difficult questions but as a country, we need to find answers to ensure a peaceful coexistence.
The first Prime Minister’s view
On 12th August 1949, Jawaharlal Nehru had this to say
Another word is thrown up a good deal, this secular State business. May we beg with all humility those gentlemen who use this word often to consult some dictionary before they use it? It is brought in at every conceivable step and at every conceivable stage. I just do not understand it. It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But, it is brought in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular State we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done, so on and so forth. We have only done something which every country does except a very few misguided and backward countries in the world. Let us not refer to that word in the sense that we have done something very mighty.
This statement puts secularism on a pedestal without considering the historical circumstances under which it evolved. Secularism developed in Europe during a time when rulers were considered to have a divine right to rule which followed from Christian theology. The doctrine of separation of church and state emerged to ensure that no single Christian denomination would gain the ruler's support solely because it aligned with the ruler's personal faith. India should have developed its own pluralist model that is in line with its inherent diversity.
There are many more such gems in the Constituent Assembly Debates that I hope to bring forward in future posts. The Constituent Assembly had a wide ranging debate on secularism. It cropped up during particularly contested articles with members debating its meaning furiously. Many of the current problems can have their roots traced to these debates and the decisions taken therein.