Why secularism was a constitutional need — not political convenience

• Adv. Avani Bansal

On the completion of the Indian National Congress’ 140th Foundation Day, it is important to revisit a foundational question that is often distorted in today’s political debate: why secularism became central to India’s nation-building, and why the Congress carried this idea so firmly and consistently.

The Congress did not begin as a mass party, nor as a religious or cultural movement. Founded in 1885, it was designed as a civic and political platform. There was no religious qualification for membership. Its meetings were conducted in English and Hindustani. Its demands were constitutional and political — about rights, representation, and self-rule — not about religion.

From the very beginning, Congress was different from many political movements of the 19th century that drew strength from religion or ethnic identity. At its first session in Bombay, Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, and Sikhs sat together. No religious symbols were used. The idea that politics should not be based on religious identity was radical in colonial India. It was not accidental. It was deliberate.

Early Influences and the Idea of Citizenship

Early Congress leaders consciously chose to build political unity around citizenship rather than faith. Dadabhai Naoroji, known as the ‘Grand Old Man of India’, consistently argued that Indians were citizens with shared political interests, not members of competing religious groups. His famous Drain Theory explained India’s poverty as the result of colonial economic exploitation, not religious conflict. By doing so, he moved political discussion away from blaming communities and towards questioning unjust systems.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale believed that religion belonged to personal conscience, not to state policy. He trained a generation of Congress leaders to value reason, reform, and restraint. As Mahatma Gandhi’s mentor, Gokhale placed this idea firmly at the centre of public life: faith may guide personal morals, but politics must protect everyone equally.

Mahatma Gandhi himself was deeply religious, but firmly secular in his understanding of the state. He never argued for a Hindu state, nor did he support the use of religion as political power. He consistently stood by Muslims and other minorities during communal violence, often at great personal risk.

This was not ‘appeasement’, as critics claim today. It came from a clear moral belief: a just state must always protect the weakest, especially minorities, from the power of the majority.

Gandhi believed that individuals may follow religion, but the state must not. His prayer meetings included readings from the Gita, the Quran, and the Bible, symbolizing equal respect for all faiths. This tradition continues even today at the Gandhi Ashram in Wardha, Maharashtra. Experiencing it now stands in sharp contrast to today’s politics, where religious identity is often used to divide citizens.

Nehru, Ambedkar, and the Constitutional Design

If Gandhi gave secularism its moral meaning, Jawaharlal Nehru gave it institutional shape. Influenced by ideas of reason, democracy, and social justice, Nehru believed that when religion controls politics, democracy suffers. He warned that communalism in India was similar to the forces that destroyed democracies in Europe. For Nehru, secularism did not mean ignoring religion. It meant actively preventing religion from dominating the state. This understanding deeply influenced the Constitution of India.

The Constituent Assembly Debates reflect this clarity. Proposals to invoke God in the Constitution, to declare India a Hindu nation, or to define India as a religious state were openly discussed and clearly rejected. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar took this logic further. He argued that religious freedom belongs to individuals, not religious groups, and that the state has a duty to intervene when religious practices violate equality or human dignity. K.M. Munshi, who was personally rooted in Hindu culture, supported this view. He made it clear that respecting religion does not mean allowing it to shape state power. Religion, he argued, must remain in the private sphere.

Why ‘Secular’ Was Not Written in 1950

A question often raised today is why the word ‘secular’ did not appear in the Constitution when it was adopted in 1950. The answer is simple: secularism was assumed. The Constituent Assembly believed that Fundamental Rights — equality before law, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination — already made India a secular state. At that time, this idea was not controversial. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment later made the word explicit, but it did not change the Constitution’s original spirit.

Congress and the Fear of Majoritarian Power

Congress did not treat secularism as a slogan. It built it into its political thinking and practice. It feared communal politics more than colonial rule because it understood that India’s unity was a constitutional project, not a religious one. While other movements mobilized people through identity, Congress mobilized citizens. Its secularism was not about favouring minorities. It was about preventing the unchecked power of the majority. In any democracy, majorities already have numbers on their side. Minorities need protection. As Ambedkar reminded us, democracy is not just majority rule; it is the protection of rights. Congress also made a crucial distinction between Hinduism as a lived cultural reality and political Hinduism as state power. Rejecting a Hindu state does not mean rejecting Hindu society. It means refusing to turn culture into coercion. This approach was not free from mistakes. No party governing a deeply diverse democracy can claim perfection. But Congress has consistently rejected the idea of a religious state and defended secularism as a constitutional principle. Errors in governance do not amount to abandoning foundational values.

Why Secularism Still Matters

A secular state recognizes people first as citizens, not as religious identities. Rights flow from citizenship and humanity, not from belief. No one should have to prove faith in order to belong. History shows that large-scale violence often follows when belief becomes political power. Secularism prevents the state from enforcing religious ‘truths’. It lowers the emotional temperature of politics and allows disagreement without hatred. When religion controls the state, religion itself becomes corrupt. When the state controls religion, faith becomes empty. Secularism protects belief by keeping it voluntary, personal, and free. Science, education, medicine, women’s rights, caste reform, and social justice all require freedom from dogma. Equality cannot survive if belief is allowed to override law.

Secularism is not anti-God. It is pro-human

It does not deny faith. It simply refuses to allow faith to become a tool of domination. In the end, secularism is not about removing religion from society. It is about preventing religion from being used against humanity.

(The author is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of India and a National Spokesperson for the Indian National Congress)