Latest news with #PreambleoftheConstitution
Hans India
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Hans India
No plan to remove 'socialism', 'secularism,' says Centre
New Delhi: The Union government has 'no current plan or intention' to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution inserted during the Emergency period, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday. The House was also told that the government has not 'formally' initiated any legal or constitutional process to remove the two words from the Preamble of the Constitution. In a written reply, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said while there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles, 'no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government' regarding amendments to these terms. "The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution. Any discussions regarding amendments to the Preamble would require thorough deliberation and broad consensus, but as of now, the government has not initiated any formal process to change these provisions," the minister asserted. He pointed out that in November 2024, the Supreme Court had also dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment (42nd Constitutional Amendment), which affirmed that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble. The court clarified that 'socialism' in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not impede private sector growth, while 'secularism' is integral to the Constitution's basic structure.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
No current plan or intention to reconsider or remove 'socialism', 'secularism' from Preamble: Government
The Union government has "no current plan or intention" to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution inserted during the Emergency period, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday (July 24, 2025). The House was also told that the government has not "formally" initiated any legal or constitutional process to remove the two words from the Preamble of the Constitution. In a written reply, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said while there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles, "no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government" regarding amendments to these terms. "The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution. Any discussions regarding amendments to the Preamble would require thorough deliberation and broad consensus, but as of now, the government has not initiated any formal process to change these provisions," the Minister asserted. He pointed out that in November 2024, the Supreme Court had also dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment (42nd Constitutional Amendment), which affirmed that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble. The Court clarified that "socialism" in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not impede private sector growth, while "secularism" is integral to the Constitution's basic structure. Regarding the atmosphere created by the office-bearers of some social organisations, Mr. Meghwal said certain groups may be expressing opinions or advocating for reconsideration of these words. "Such activities can create a public discourse or atmosphere around the issue, but this does not necessarily reflect the official stance or actions of the government," he said. Last month, then vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar had asserted that the words inserted in the Preamble of the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency era were a "festering wound", lending weight to the call by a top RSS leader for a review of the added terms 'secular' and 'socialist'. Wading into the political row sparked by RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call for a national debate on whether the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' to define India's foundational values should remain in the Preamble, Dhankhar had said the Preamble is sacrosanct and "not changeable". He further said the added words were a "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan".
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- Politics
- Business Standard
No intention to remove 'socialism', 'secularism' from Preamble: Govt
The Union government has "no current plan or intention" to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution inserted during the Emergency period, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday. The House was also told that the government has not "formally" initiated any legal or constitutional process to remove the two words from the Preamble of the Constitution. In a written reply, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said while there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles, "no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government" regarding amendments to these terms. "The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution. Any discussions regarding amendments to the Preamble would require thorough deliberation and broad consensus, but as of now, the government has not initiated any formal process to change these provisions," the minister asserted. He pointed out that in November 2024, the Supreme Court had also dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment (42nd Constitutional Amendment), which affirmed that Parliament's power to amend the Constitution extends to the Preamble. The court clarified that "socialism" in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not impede private sector growth, while "secularism" is integral to the Constitution's basic structure. Regarding the atmosphere created by the office-bearers of some social organisations, Meghwal said certain groups may be expressing opinions or advocating for reconsideration of these words. "Such activities can create a public discourse or atmosphere around the issue, but this does not necessarily reflect the official stance or actions of the government," he said. Last month, then vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar had asserted that the words inserted in the Preamble of the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency era were a "festering wound", lending weight to the call by a top RSS leader for a review of the added terms 'secular' and 'socialist'. Wading into the political row sparked by RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call for a national debate on whether the terms 'secular' and 'socialist' to define India's foundational values should remain in the Preamble, Dhankhar had said the Preamble is sacrosanct and "not changeable". He further said the added words were a "sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan". (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Why the RSS Wants ‘Secular' and ‘Socialist' Removed From Preamble
Published : Jul 22, 2025 22:27 IST - 10 MINS READ Of course, he will not respond to this article, despite his call for a national debate. Of course, his statement was just an ideological floater intended to tease and not a reasoned argument. But since he is the sarkaryavah (general secretary) of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which rules the country both directly and indirectly, we must take his statement seriously. High officials of the Sangh Parivar do not make statements casually. That, however, is not the main reason for this response. The more important reason is that since 2004 he has been the sah baudhik pramukh (second in command) of the intellectual wing of the Sangh Parivar. That makes him one of the foremost intellectuals of the RSS. In my experience, intellectuals choose their words very carefully. They think before they speak. Their language is measured, suggesting a universe of thought that exists behind what is spoken. This is a universe waiting to be discovered. Terry Eagleton, the Marxist theorist, described intellectuals as people who 'seek to bring ideas to an entire culture'. That is what Dattatreya Hosabale was doing when he asked for 'secular' and 'socialist' to be removed from the Preamble of the Constitution. There are two aspects to what he said that require our consideration. One is acceptable, the other debatable. Unfortunately, the public response has been mostly to the latter. In the best traditions of purva paksha, I shall, therefore, respond to both aspects. (Purva paksha is a traditional approach involving deep familiarity with the opponent's point of view before criticising it.) Hosabale's objections Hosabale's statement contains four objections. He is critical of (i) the context in which the words were introduced into the Preamble, (ii) the procedure that was followed, (iii) the constraints that they, especially 'socialist', would impose on future policymaking by government, and (iv) the impact the two words would have of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. All four are important points and must be considered. To do so, I have adopted the following method. I first re-read the Preamble. Then I revisited the Constituent Assembly debates on the Preamble that took place on October 17, 1949. And finally, going further back, I studied the discussion in the Constituent Assembly that took place on December 13, 1946, when the Objectives Resolution was introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru. (The Objectives Resolution was the ethical basis for the Preamble.) Also Read | Preamble politics All three steps were necessary to respond meaningfully to Hosabale's discontent. Doing so added hugely to my understanding of the vision of India that was being shaped. In fact, I felt compelled to rededicate myself to the India being imagined. This is my rededication. Debates on Preamble The debates in the Constituent Assembly on the Preamble involved a diversity of members across gender, religion, caste, place, and perspective. Those who spoke were H.V. Kamath, K.M. Munshi, Hasrat Mohani, Deshbandhu Gupta, B. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, Jai Narain Vyas, K. Santhanam, A. Thanu Pillai, Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, V.I. Muniswamy Pillai, Shibban Lal Saxena, M. Thirumala Rao, Mahavir Tyagi, Hriday Nath Kunzru, Satyanarayan Sinha, Govind Malaviya, B.R. Ambedkar, J.B. Kripalani, P.S. Deshmukh, Satish Chandra, Brajeshwar Prasad, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Purnima Banerji. Rajendra Prasad conducted the proceedings. I have listed them here to acknowledge them and give them our gratitude. Although the discussions were intense—and some members were obstinate about their amendments—they were very cordial with each other and even showed a touch of humour. Munshi, for example, responded to a point of order raised by Hasrat Mohani, by saying: 'Once in my life I support the Maulana Saheb!' That, sadly, was of a time long ago and far away. Because Hosabale has an aversion to the word 'secularism', it is interesting to note the discussions on 'god' in the Assembly. Saxena proposed the following amendment: 'In the name of god the Almighty, under whose inspiration and guidance, the Father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, led the Nation…' Mahatma Gandhi's name was immediately opposed since this was not a Gandhian Constitution. But, more interestingly, having 'god' was also opposed. Banerji said: 'I appeal to Mr Kamath [who had originally proposed adding god] not to put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon god.' In other words, do not bring god into this. Chaudhuri wanted 'In the name of god' to be changed to 'In the name of goddess' because, as he said, he 'belongs to Kamrup where Goddess Kamakhya is worshipped'. Both proposals were rejected, and nobody got offended. Spirit of secularism Further, Thanu Pillai argued against the compulsion implicit in the amendment by saying that 'a man has a right to believe in god or not'. Note the phrase 'or not'. He went on to say that even though he is a believer, the words make belief in god a compulsion. Thanu Pillai seemed to be equating the rights of atheists with those of believers. Amazing broad-mindedness. From these interventions, it is obvious that secularism was an idea that infused the spirit of the Preamble. Another gem that emerged from these debates, and which supports Hosabale's description of the Preamble as 'eternal', is the statement of Kripalani: 'Sir, I want, at this solemn hour to remind the House that what we have stated in this Preamble are not legal and political principles only. They are also great moral and spiritual principles and if I may say so, they are mystic principles.' While describing the Preamble as 'eternal', Hosabale is making an important point. Something that is 'eternal' stands beyond time, place, context, and regime. It cannot be amended or ignored. If it has to be amended, then it should only be done in the rarest of rare circumstances. Eternal principles Is Hosabale, by his reference to 'eternal', asking his governments at the Union and State levels to commit themselves to 'secure to all its citizens, justice (social, economic and political), liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship), equality (of status and opportunity) and fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation)'? These are eternal principles. Will Hosabale tell his governments in Assam, where citizenship is being undermined, and in Uttar Pradesh, where liberty is being eroded, and in the nation where fraternity is being degraded, that they are violating the Preamble, tarnishing its 'eternal' glow? If Hosabale deliberately chose to use the word 'eternal', such deliberateness being the hallmark of an intellectual, then do we share a common understanding of the special status of the Preamble? There are many things that one can also glean from a reading of the Objectives Resolution, but I shall mention just two. Nehru, on noticing that many members were absent from the session, advised those present to keep in the mind the interests of those absent and to 'do nothing which may cause uneasiness in others or goes against any principle'. Their absence, for him, 'increases our responsibility'. Noble sentiments that I often feel are missing in our Parliament and State Assemblies. Another aspect I found inspiring was Nehru's suggestion that the Resolution be endorsed not by a 'raising of hands' but 'by all of us standing up and thus taking this pledge anew'. Would Hosabale agree that it is time, in the 75th year of the Indian republic, for us to renew this pledge? With this as background, let me now attend to the four discontents. On the first, the context: I agree with his general argument that constitutional changes introduced during a period of authoritarian rule have little legitimacy. During authoritarian periods, both during a declared or an undeclared emergency, fundamental changes that have been introduced have little normative value (although they may be legally correct), and therefore, if they are made, they should be reversed. Changes in 42nd Amendment The many changes of the 42nd Amendment, introduced during the Emergency period in 1976, were reversed by the 44th Amendment during the Janata Party rule in 1978. It is a mystery why the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were retained. Perhaps Hosabale can enlighten us since the Jana Sangh (the precursor of the BJP) was an important constituent of the Janata Party. I also agree with Hosabale's second objection: of the use of improper procedure in introducing the amendments to the Preamble. The words 'secular' and 'socialist' were part of the omnibus 42nd Amendment. If they were to be introduced, they merited a distinct and separate Amendment. Of course, I mean one introduced in non-Emergency times. Let me state unequivocally here that it is my belief that no constitution is fixed in stone for all time. All sections can be amended using the procedures prescribed. But I have a caveat. Amendments to core ideas must be carefully done, with lots of hesitation, introspection, and also done very rarely, the rarest of the rare, because they are the core guiding aspects of our founding document. They should be like Ashoka pillars. They constitute the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, an idea I like, since it accepts that core aspects are capacious, allowing for a different inhabiting as social mores of a society change. Also Read | Secularism and the state That is why the right to life now includes the right to a clean environment. Core aspects must endure, must have long lives, and should only be changed in extreme circumstances. Legitimate changes to core aspects can be likened to apad dharma (moral principles during calamities) being applied to sadharana dharma (everyday moral principles). Perhaps that is why the Janata Party did not remove 'secular' and 'socialist' from the Preamble when it passed the 44th Amendment. I have a question for Hosabale here: How does abrogating Article 370 stand up to this rule? 'Socialist' constraint His third anxiety, that the word 'socialist' would constrain policymaking, is weak on at least three grounds. All founding principles—such as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity—are supposed to constrain governments since such constraint is the measure of a constitutional order. Constraining policymaking is, therefore, not an anxiety worth worrying about. Further, both Nehru and Ambedkar saw the Constitution as being socialist in spirit. That is why Nehru did not insist on introducing the word in the Constitution and Ambedkar saw many of the other provisions as being expressions of socialism. And, finally, which socialism is Hosabale uneasy about since we have, in India, many varieties, such as Gandhian, Lohiaite, and Nehruvian, and the socialistic ideas of Deen Dayal Upadhyay and S.A. Dange, among others? Is not the BJP's Antyodaya concept a socialist idea by another name? And finally, the fourth objection: of diminishing the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. Linguistically, 'socialist' and 'secular' are a bit cumbersome there. They do not have the same status as justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. The former are ideologies. The latter are principles. But Hosabale is not making a linguistic point about the loss in the aesthetics of the Preamble. His is a fluffy point, undefended by serious argument. It is a bias. He does not like secularism or socialism because that is the party line, not an intellectual formulation. It would be interesting to see why he thinks these words sully the 'eternal' aura of the Preamble. I hope this is the kind of discussion that he wanted. If not, he should let us know and we will begin anew. Peter Ronald deSouza is an independent scholar. He was formerly Director of the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
George Jacob Holyoake and the Indian Constitution: How secularism was born and travelled the world
Who even remembers George Jacob Holyoake? The 19th-century British social reformer and journalist hardly ever features in conversations on politics and religion today. And yet, a single word coined by him about 150 years ago has shaped the nexus between the political and religious domains all over the world. In 1851, Holyoake had first established the word 'secularism' to denote a specific kind of approach to the nation state and its affairs. More than a hundred countries today affirm support for secularism. At the same time, the concept is increasingly being contested in many parts of the world. In India recently, senior leaders of the BJP-led government have demanded the removal of the word 'secular' from the Preamble of the Constitution, citing its controversial inclusion through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency of 1975. Backlashes against the concept in other parts of the world have revolved around issues such as the legalisation of same sex marriages, assisted dying, freedom of expression, abortion rights and many more. Political scientist Steven Kettell, in his article 'Secularism and Religion' (2019), explains the troubles over secularism emerging from the conflicting relationship it has with the idea of religion. 'Supporters of a role for religion in public life maintain that religion provides a range of valuable public goods and gives individuals a sense of meaning and identity. As such they argue that efforts to keep religion out of the public sphere are illiberal, intolerant, and undemocratic,' he says. Secularists, on the other hand, he writes, claim that the separation of church and state provides the best framework for upholding the rights and freedoms of all citizens regardless of their religions or beliefs. Most experts would argue that the idea of secularism ought to be understood in the context in which it took birth and the historical forces that have shaped its understanding today. The beginnings Holyoake's idea of secularism was a product of his own imprisonment on account of being convicted of blasphemy. In 1842, during a speech in Cheltenham, England, Holyoake responded to a question on religion by stating that he did not believe in God. 'There is no statute which punishes a man simply for denying the existence of God,' he declared and berated the church for failing to protect the poor. Soon after, Holyoake, who was then the editor of an atheist publication, Oracle of Reason, was convicted for speaking with contempt towards God and Christianity. During the six months that Holyoake spent in the Gloucester County Jail, he reflected upon the conditions of English life and came out convinced of the need for a new social order that would release the individual from the grasp of enforced religious doctrine. 'The English society at this time was dominated by a very powerful church,' British historian Andrew Copson explains in an interview. 'It dominated the education system, judiciary, and political life,' he says. Holyoake was keen on finding an alternative to this way of living. The concept of atheism that he had first embraced, he realised, was often understood as a devilish ideal that rejected God. He spent the next decade struggling to articulate a more acceptable idea, and finally came up with the term 'secularism'. Canadian journalist and author Ray Argyle, in his book, Inventing Secularism: The Radical Life of George Jacob Holyoake (2021), has explained that the word was drawn from the English adjective 'secular' which itself was derived from the Late Latin saecularis which meant 'worldly, of an age', and the French word, seculier, to create the new terminology. Holyoake's secularism, explains Argyle, was 'founded on the idea that the duties of a life on earth should rank above preparation for an imaginary life after death'. Holyoake realised that secularism could coexist with Christianity, with religion remaining a free choice in the private domain of people's lives, while education, science, government and economy could be devoid of religious dictates. 'Over the coming century, the United Kingdom embraced the substance of secularism while retaining the formality of an established church and a monarch who serves as 'defender of the faith',' writes Argyle. Experts point out that Holyoake's idea of secularism had its antecedents in both India and Europe, even though it was not called so. Copson points to the case of ancient Greece, where gods, goddesses, temples and public festivals were important in civic life. 'But the Greek Gods never interfered in human politics,' he argues. He points to the writings of the 3rd century BCE Greek political philosopher Aristotle, who said that the purpose of the city was the 'best and highest life possible'. 'The question of what was 'best and highest' was to be approached entirely in this-worldly terms, not in terms of the divine,' Copson writes in his book, Secularism: A Very Short Introduction (2019). A similar idea of a separation of state and religion can be found in India as well, he says, where 'the rajas were always advised to keep the Brahmin at a distance so he could rule over the subjects without interference'. In the political history of Christianity, the seeds of secularism can be said to have been sown in the Protestant Reformation in 16th-century Europe, which challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. 'The Protestants argued that there should not be anyone between human beings and God, and therefore the state or the king could not tell you what religion one should adhere to,' he explains. Political theorist Rajeev Bhargava, in an interview with suggests that the wars of religion triggered by the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent divisions within Christendom gave rise to the idea of toleration, which is the precursor to secularism. 'An outcome of the religious wars was the idea that the king or queen of a territory will announce what his or her religious allegiance is. Accordingly, all the subjects converted to the same religion and those who did not were expelled on grounds of religious dissent,' says Bhargava. 'But there were some who managed to stay behind. They did not appear in the public domain and were largely restricted to their own little private lives. The state chose to look away and that is how the idea of toleration began,' he adds. According to Akeel Bilgrami, professor of philosophy at Columbia University, secularism as an idea developed in Europe alongside the birth of the idea of a nation. This, he suggests, was done by declaring some segment within the population as an enemy and by further announcing that this nation was 'ours' and not 'theirs'. The Jews, Irish, Catholics in Protestant countries, or the Protestants in Catholic countries, are all familiar examples of these subjugated enemies within a nation. This gave rise to tremendous religious strife in Europe. 'In the face of such strife, a view emerged that religion itself, having such a political profile, was the problem, even though the initial fault line lay in religious majoritarianism,' says Bilgrami in an interview. Secularism, he says, emerged to correct this religious source of strife by steering religion out of the orbit of the polity and its institutions, into places of personal life only or at most to sites of 'civil society'. This, argues Bilgrami, is the biggest contrast in the historical context in which secularism emerged in Europe to that in India. A secularism of one's own Soon after Holyoake's vision of secularism gained ground in the United Kingdom, European colonialism transported variations of it to much of the world, notably in India. America and France, on the other hand, would continue to pursue their own historic visions of the concept. The United States Constitution, for instance, laid out that the 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'. The walls of separation between the state and the church, though, were a lot more impenetrable in France, where in 1905, a law separating the two was passed. Then there was Canada, which is nominally secular, but recognises the 'supremacy of God' in its Constitution and provides public funding for Roman Catholic schools. Copson asserts that secularism, like all political systems, is a human creation, which means that wherever it is applied, it is conditioned by the culture and the history of the people living there. 'If you look at secularism in France, for instance, it is evidently driven by a Catholic understanding,' says Copson. 'It is applied in an absolute sort of way, very similar to the way the Christian religions were incorporated into the state.' Similarly, argues Copson, in India, when secularism was first applied, it bore the imprint of the Hindu approach to diversity. 'Secularism in India is a secularism of diversity in a way that other secularisms are not,' he says. Speaking about the distinctiveness of the Indian variant of secularism, Bhargava notes that 'unlike Europe, which only had one religion to contend with, India always had multiple religions'. Consequently, the state was not trying to separate itself from the church, or from one religion, but it had to show even-handedness and impartiality vis-à-vis all religions. This idea of responding to religious diversity through a policy of pluralism can be traced as far back as the rule of the 3rd-century Mauryan emperor Ashoka. 'Even the British, and for very pragmatic reasons, at least from the 1850s, adopted a principle of neutrality,' Bhargava contends. The unique approach to secularism is precisely why the founding fathers of the Indian nation in 1947 chose to ignore the term's inclusion in the Constitution. Bilgrami explains this when he says that neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Jawaharlal Nehru talked about secularism at all through the long freedom movement, (except passingly, a little bit in the 1940s, when the acrimonies around Partition made it inevitable), precisely because they thought that the damage that secularism was constructed to repair had never occurred in India. There had never been a time when religious majoritarianism had resulted in backlashes from the minorities and civil strife. Rather, as Bilgrami notes, Nehru and Gandhi perceived Indian history to be characterised by 'unselfconscious pluralism'. In Constituent Assembly debates, too, the inclusion of the term 'secularism' in the Preamble was discussed at length. All the members agreed on the need for establishing a secular state since the connection between secularism and an effective functioning democracy was well established in Europe. However, the debates made the ambiguity inherent in the terminology when applied in the Indian context amply clear. Nehru and B R Ambedkar were both strongly committed to the idea of secularism, and yet advocated that it not be included in the Constitution. In order to follow secularism in its truest form, the State would be disallowed from making any kind of religious interventions, which included the reservation system, protection of the Muslim personal law and the directive principle to protect cows, all of which the Constitution went ahead with. Bhargava explains the reluctance on the part of the Constituent Assembly to include secularism in the Constitution when he says that it probably would have created more conflict. 'Remember that a state that had just been formed specifically for Muslims, so there must have been tremendous pressure from both within and outside the Congress to create a Hindu state,' he says, adding that having a nameless state instead of secular would have satisfied everyone, including the Hindu right. Secularism does enter the Indian Constitution, although much later and in very different circumstances. It is inscribed into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi. 'The 42nd Amendment's insertion of secularism was motivated by a range of issues confronting Indira Gandhi in a fraught period in India and in her own panicky responses to electoral opposition and opposition on the street, so it can hardly be doubted that seeking the support of the minorities was a major motivation,' explains Bilgrami. He goes on to explain that, keeping aside the motivation for the term's introduction, it is in the following decades of the 1980s and 90s that the term gained far more relevance due to multiple political factors. The two key developments that resulted in ensuring the relevance of secularism in India in this period included 'the moral high ground that the Hindu right gained in the campaigns against the Emergency and its subsequent electoral respectability in the Janata Party's electoral successes'. Then there were the determined efforts to combat the Mandal politics' exposure of Hinduism's caste divisions, by unifying Hindus to see Muslims as the external enemy within. Both these factors, argues Bilgrami, created a situation of damage caused by religious majoritarianism of the kind that had occurred in Europe centuries ago, fuelling the need for secularism there. Dealing with a global backlash Scholars agree that there is a global backlash against secularism at present. Kettell, in his article, asserts that Western democratic societies are increasingly becoming 'post-secular'. 'The 'return of religion', the endurance of religious communities, and the growth of religious influence in public life are said to have challenged the underlying assumptions on which secularism is based,' he writes. In the United States, for instance, the Christian right, in close association with President Donald Trump, is trying to undermine LGBTQ rights, restrict women's access to reproductive healthcare and increase religious influence in social and political life. Turkey's secularism is under threat by the governing regime, said to be increasingly pursuing an Islamist agenda. Kettell writes that similar developments are taking place in India as well, where Hindu nationalism is on the rise. Copson says that the rise in the popularity of authoritarian leaders, along with religious extremists, is the key challenge being faced by secularism today. 'Be it Putin in Russia or the Communist Party in China, they may or may not have very strong religious views themselves, but they want a single doctrine in their state in the same way they would want a single party or a leader,' he argues. Speaking about the resistance against secularism in India in recent times, Bhargava points out that the introduction of the word in the Indian Constitution under Gandhi's Emergency is unfortunate because it linked it to a certain kind of authoritarianism. 'However, India's Constitution was secular even without the word secular,' he says. And yet the introduction of the word through the 42nd Amendment needs to be studied in the political context of today, says Bhargava, as he argues, 'Imagine if the word secular was not included in the Indian Constitution, how easy it would be for the extremists to turn this into a Hindu state today.' Adrija Roychowdhury leads the research section at She writes long features on history, culture and politics. She uses a unique form of journalism to make academic research available and appealing to a wide audience. She has mastered skills of archival research, conducting interviews with historians and social scientists, oral history interviews and secondary research. During her free time she loves to read, especially historical fiction. ... Read More
