The Impact of Gandhi’s Secularism on India’s Constitution and Polity

When India gained independence in 1947, its founders faced a monumental challenge: how to build a unified nation from a land of extraordinary religious diversity. The answer came through Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of Sarva Dharma Samabhava-equal respect for all religions. This principle would fundamentally shape how India understood secularism, creating a model distinct from Western concepts and embedding religious pluralism into the very fabric of the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional embodiment of Sarva Dharma Samabhava 🔗

The Indian Constituent Assembly was unanimous in its decision that India would be a secular state. However, there were conflicting views and perceptions about what “secular” truly meant in the Indian context. The Gandhian perspective of equal respect for all religions, rather than the Western model of strict separation between church and state, significantly shaped the constitutional outcome.

As scholar D.E. Smith observed, for most Indians, secular means non-communal or non-sectarian rather than non-religious. This distinction is crucial. While Western secularism typically demands complete separation of religious and governmental institutions, Indian secularism embraces what scholars describe as “principled distance”-the state maintains neutrality from all religions while allowing for meaningful engagement.

Gandhi himself believed that the function of religion was to unite rather than divide people. Though he was deeply grounded in Hinduism, his religious philosophy was cosmopolitan and humanist. He tirelessly called for Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-Christian unity based on a pluralistic theism with the core concept of Truth as ultimate and one.

The “no preference” doctrine in practice 🔗

Indian secularism, as reflected in the Constitution, translates to a “no preference doctrine”-the state does not privilege any religion over another. This principle is enshrined across multiple constitutional provisions.

Fundamental guarantees of religious freedom 🔗

Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health. This encompasses both the freedom to hold religious beliefs and the right to express them.

Complementing this, Articles 14-16 ensure equality before law and prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion in matters of public employment. The Constitution explicitly declares that no citizen shall be discriminated against on the basis of their faith-a direct embodiment of Gandhi’s vision of treating all religions with equal respect.

Notably, the word “secular” was not explicitly mentioned in the original 1950 Constitution, though secular principles were woven throughout. The 42nd Amendment in 1976 formally added “secular” to the Preamble, making explicit what had been implicit for twenty-six years.

Complexities and contradictions 🔗

The political practice of Indian secularism has proved far more complex than its constitutional articulation. Several provisions have generated ongoing debates about the nature and limits of religious accommodation.

Minority educational rights 🔗

Articles 29 and 30 protect the cultural and educational rights of minorities, including the right to establish and administer educational institutions. While designed to protect vulnerable communities, critics have sometimes characterized these provisions as “pseudo-secularism” that privileges certain groups over others.

Personal laws and the Uniform Civil Code debate 🔗

Perhaps no issue better illustrates the tensions within Indian secularism than the ongoing debate over personal laws. Currently, personal laws on matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption are governed by different religious scriptures for different communities.

Article 44 of the Directive Principles states that the State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout India. Yet this aspiration has remained unfulfilled since independence. During the Constituent Assembly debates, arguments against a uniform code included claims that it would violate freedom of religion, create disharmony within communities, and interfere with personal law without community consent.

The retention of separate religious personal laws has created what critics see as inconsistencies. For instance, Muslim personal law permits polygamy while Hindus and Christians face legal consequences for the same practice. The Shah Bano case of 1985, where the Supreme Court upheld a Muslim woman’s right to maintenance, sparked intense political controversy and ultimately led to legislation that reversed the Court’s decision-demonstrating how communal politics can override judicial pronouncements on gender equality.

State neutrality versus state intervention 🔗

While the Constitution mandates state neutrality and prohibits an official religion, it simultaneously permits state intervention in religious affairs for social reform. This has led to numerous entanglements that blur the line between separation and regulation.

Article 25(2)(b) explicitly empowers the State to enact laws promoting social welfare and reform, even if such laws interfere with certain religious customs. This clause has facilitated progressive legislation such as the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, and judicial interventions like the triple talaq judgment.

However, this reform power has been applied unevenly. The Hindu personal laws were comprehensively codified in 1956, yet there has been no comparable attempt to reform Muslim personal law through legislation. Critics argue this asymmetry reflects political considerations rather than principled secularism.

The state’s involvement extends to managing religious endowments, administering temple trusts, and even subsidizing religious pilgrimages. The Indian structure has created incentives for various religious denominations to start and maintain schools, impart religious education, and receive substantial financial support from the government-a far cry from the strict separation envisioned in Western secular models.

Secularism and communalism in post-independence politics 🔗

Ironically, the politics of post-independent India has often seen the advocacy of secularism combined with the practice of communalism. Gandhi’s lifelong struggle for Hindu-Muslim unity ended with him falling victim to the very communal violence he spent his final days trying to prevent.

In the months following India’s blood-soaked Partition in August 1947, Gandhi devoted himself to stopping communal riots and appealing for peace rather than celebrating independence. His fasting and protests are credited with halting religious violence in several regions. His final fast, undertaken from January 13-18, 1948, aimed to restore harmony in Delhi and pressure the Indian government to honour its financial commitments to Pakistan.

Just twelve days after ending this fast, Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu nationalist who believed Gandhi had betrayed Hindu interests by advocating for Muslim rights and Hindu-Muslim unity. The assassination starkly revealed the persistence of communal divisions Gandhi had fought against his entire life.

As Nehru declared after Gandhi’s death, “Communalism resulted not only in the division of the country but also the assassination of the Father of the Nation”. The tragedy exposed how deeply communal sentiments had taken root despite constitutional commitments to secularism.

The continuing challenge 🔗

The decades since independence have witnessed recurring communal tensions-from the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 to the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, the Gujarat riots of 2002, and the Delhi riots of 2020. These events demonstrate that constitutional secularism alone cannot prevent communal violence when political actors exploit religious identities for electoral gain.

Vote bank politics, the politicisation of religious issues, and the selection of electoral candidates based on religious considerations continue to challenge India’s secular fabric. The constitutional framework, however robust, requires continuous reinforcement through political practice and social commitment.

Pluralism as a desirable civilizational end 🔗

Gandhi viewed Indian civilization as inherently pluralist, where diversity itself was a desirable goal rather than a problem to be managed. His secularism was inclusive yet intolerant of intolerance. He believed that truth could only be approached through religious tolerance and deeply admired India’s shared folk culture as a model for a harmonious, multi-religious nation.

Gandhi’s religious pluralism found expression in his own words: “My position is that all religions are fundamentally equal”. This was not mere political strategy but a deeply held conviction emerging from his understanding that all paths lead to the same ultimate truth.

His morning prayer sessions, which included recitations from the Bhagavad Gita, Quran, Bible, and other sacred scriptures, demonstrated this principle through practice. Gandhi quoted the Quran alongside the Bhagavad Gita and helped compose devotional songs that found common ground between different theologies, declaring that Ishwar and Allah were one and the same.

This vision of civilizational pluralism-where religious diversity enriches rather than divides-remains India’s most distinctive contribution to secular thought. India is perhaps the only civilization that appreciates different faiths and sentiments while recognizing that differences in faith do not make people fundamentally different; they simply indicate different mediums to connect to the divine.

In a world increasingly marked by religious polarization, Gandhi’s conception of Sarva Dharma Samabhava offers a compelling alternative: not the elimination of religion from public life, but the cultivation of mutual respect among all faiths as the foundation for peaceful coexistence.

What do you think? Can Gandhi’s vision of Sarva Dharma Samabhava provide a viable model for managing religious diversity in contemporary democracies? How might the tensions between constitutional secularism and communal politics be addressed in India’s evolving political landscape?

References

1. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/34047/1/Unit-9.pdf
2. https://www.oneyoungindia.com/cuet-and-upsc-general-studies-notes/secularism
3. https://banotes.org/indian-gov-and-politics/secularism-indian-constitution-evolution-interpretations/
4. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-25-freedom-of-conscience-and-free-profession-practice-and-propagation-of-religion/
5. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-freedom-of-religion-articles-25-28/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code
7. https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-44-uniform-civil-code-for-the-citizens/
8. https://cleartax.in/s/uniform-civil-code
9. https://www.gktoday.in/article-25/
10. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/uniform-civil-code
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_India
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahatma_Gandhi
14. https://m.thewire.in/article/communalism/after-gandhis-assassination-nehru-saw-the-hindu-right-as-a-threat-to-the-indian-state
15. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/secularism/
16. https://thediplomat.com/2024/01/how-india-betrayed-mahatma-gandhi/
17. https://edumound.com/article/sarva-dharma-sambhava/