The finest way to understand the macro-state of the Indian society, its politics and aspirations, is to grasp the basic aspects of all religions present in India. India is home to, and land of origin of, various religions. It is this religious diversity of this country which gets most traction among all the diversities.

Waves of Indian politics rise and fall in the big ocean of this diversity, enabling many politicians’ surf to power, and many governments’ fall to the bottom. Religion’s central role in the Indian society can not be understated. As the pioneering sociologist August Comte had pointed out that as society slowly transforms itself into the state, religion plays a central theme in it. In India too it was the amalgamation of these diverse religions and the interpretation of their presence which played a crucial role in the formation of the Indian state and its constitution.

Background to the Making of the Constitution

India’s constitution was developed in a series of debates and discussions in the lofty halls of the parliament between December 9, 1946, and January 26, 1950. This debate and discussion of the Constituent Assembly of India completely shaped the content and spirit of the Constitution of India. Members of the assembly were indirectly elected representatives to draft the constitution. The assembly was not elected by vote from the general population of India; in other words, it was not an assembly elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, and Muslims and Sikhs received special quota under minorities of the country. Majority of the assembly members were elected from the victors of provincial assembly elections in 1946. After the partition, the assembly’s members from the newly created dominion of Pakistan left for the new constituent assembly of Pakistan. Princely states of India had 70 nominees. At the end, India’s constituent assembly had a total of 299 members, including 15 women. The assembly conducted eleven sessions for two years, eleven months and seventeen days, which in true sense created the present Republic of India, with its functions, good or bad.

It was the views and ideas of these members, their interpretation of the Indian history and society, which was inked in the book that now governs our nation. The path for understanding the Indian state and its approach towards religion starts from these constituent assemblies.

Assembly and Religion

On October 17, 1949, disagreements and desperate debate over the inclusion of the principle of secularism took most of the assembly’s time. Proceedings on that day of the assembly clearly summed up the disparate positions of the members since past three years of the assembly.

HV Kamath, on that day, along with SL Saksena and Pandit Govind Malviya moved amendments to begin the preamble with the phrase “In the name of god”. Pandit Kunzru objected to the use of the phrase, terming it a show of “a narrow, sectarian spirit.” Pandit Malviya clarified that he intends to honor all gods of all religions with the generic phrase. But the objection persisted and SL Saksena and Pandit Malviya had to withdraw their proposals. HV Kamath, nonetheless, stuck to his point.

Rajendra Prasad tried to persuade Kamath to drop the proposal as Prasad believed it went against the spirit of religious freedom of the constitution. Kamath responded that religion was “the voice of our ancient civilization” and the preamble of the constitution of India by taking gods name would only reflect the spirit and will of the Indian people.

Kamath and his proposals didn’t win the assembly though, as the majority of the members insisted that religion was a matter of individual choice and in this matter, the collective will should not be imposed ^[1]. Purnima Benerji went so far as to state that Kamath “should not put us to the embarrassment of having to vote upon God” ^[2].

Although Kamath’s proposal was defeated, the assembly didn’t accept the induction of the word “secular” in the preamble either. Most of the assembly believed that a relation between the state and religion must be present to essentially democratize religion later. Members brought in ideas like liberty, equality, and secularism from European revolutions, from the Irish constitution, along with the usual rivalry between socialism and liberal capitalism.

Since India was to be a democracy; it was argued that, like Europe, “it is essential for the proper functioning of democracy that communalism be eliminated from Indian life”. Assembly seemed to agree on the principle of secularism governing the state function but the question of which form of secularism was to be inducted still remained big. Was it to be secularism where the state would completely stay away from religion and religious matters, or where the state slowly secularises the population, or finally where the state treats all religions equally? Assembly was to now debate upon which form captured the essence of secularism best. Speakers discussed the idea and value of religion as opposed to the idea of secularism.

Radhakrishnan in his speech on December 13, 1946, asserted that nationalism is greater than religion. “Nationalism, not religion, is the basis of modern life…. the days of religious states are over,” he said ^[3]. Similarly, GB Pant expressed that the individual superseded all kinds of communities and that thinking in terms of community (religion etc.) is a “degrading habit” [4]. Guptanath Singh went on to declare that “The state is above all gods. It is the god of gods.” [5].

European ideologies of individualism, liberalism and socialism; all saw religion as an authority contesting their claim to power and traditions as a physical embodiment of that religion. Proponents of these ideas in India worked with the same view.

This was the first position of the assembly on religion. It asserted supremacy of state over religion. Some speakers directly proclaimed that any display of religion in public should be banned. These were the proponents of early modern European political thought which saw individual as supreme. Religion, to this school, was a mere private affair. Secularism to them meant the gradual weakening of the bond of religion and its replacement by nationalism. The acknowledgement of religion as a private affair was also solely based on the idea that it should be allowed the narrowest of spheres and its grandeur instead be replaced by nation state.

Another thought stated that religion was completely indifferent to the state. It emphasised that religion should not be made subject to changing politics of majority and votes. This view asserted that religion was too important and crucial part of Indian life to be made subject to political whims and therefore religion should be kept separate from the state. This thought was rooted in respect for the religion and the gods. Traditions were taken rightly to be older than all other political thoughts echoing in the assembly.

And the third, more intermediate view, propagated by the likes of K.M. Munshi, was that the Indian people are inheritors of a millennia old civilisation and its values are now the part of everyday living. Hence, disassociating the state completely from religion would lead India to a sudden shift towards materialism, threatening the tolerant spiritual base of the society. Proponents of this view suggested that India should be a secular country which respects all religions equally and actively seeks to impart some kind of spiritual knowledge to its citizens. They believed that this equal respect to all religions and ideas embodied India’s culture.

But what would define the equal respect to all religions? Tolerance, said J.B. Kriplani. Tolerance, he said, was accepting another’s faith as being equally good. Kriplani believed that terming religion as a private affair would be a display of intolerance to other faiths by the state. Instead, the state should promote that everyone’s belief has an element of truth, worthy of respect.

Jay Prakash Narayan, adding to the thought, said that it was the politicisation of religion (use of religion as a socio-economical & political tool) that caused communal violence. And hence, he stated, political institutions should not be used for religious purposes or vice versa.

Finally, the constitution was added with articles proclaiming that citizens had the right to practice and propagate religion, except that the individual was not allowed to use religion as an exemption from civic duties and from respecting fundamental rights. The right to practice religion meant that, for example, one can follow his religious commandments only when it agreed with the fundamentals of the constitution.

The assembly however back-tracked or rather strayed away from its own conclusions when it came to the religious minority status. It was argued, as shown earlier, that the state was meant to have no relation with any particular religion. Yet the proceedings on minority status were conducted by a minority sub-committee. The sub-committee favoured certain religions in allowing them a religious minority status, which was otherwise thought of as antithetical to the constitution and its idea of secularism (of respecting all faiths equally and of the state not associating with any faith).

Since the status of minority was granted to religious groups, it was naturally discussed whether a uniform civil code should apply to all citizens or they be allowed to practice the personal laws of their respective religions. To this enquiry, Ambedkar, Amrita Kaur, Munshi; all favored a uniform civil code while Mohamad Ismail, B. Pocker, and Mahboob Ali Baig Bahadur stated that a secular state meant that all religions can be practiced equally and that all adherents of a religion be allowed to follow its laws freely ^[6]. While Mahboob Ali was defending his religion and its laws, Munshi and Ambedkar were pointing out how Hindu personal laws were discriminatory. Eventually, the assembly decided not to implement UCC at that time.

Further going now with no uniform civil code, the question was of what the special status of the minority would constitute. Ambedkar pushed for separate electorates reserved for minorities. He included scheduled castes in minorities although they form the second majority in the Indian population after OBC. Minorities for Ambedkar meant socially discriminated against and intended to include many other groups, including Muslims ^[7].

Earlier by mutual consent, everyone from Nehru, Patel, Prasad to Munshi, agreed to grant special reservations to Muslims and Christians (Constitution Draft, February 1948) but later with improved understanding both Nehru and Patel opposed reservations on a religious basis. Patel even went on to say that reservation of seats for religious communities “would lead to a certain degree of separatism” ^[8]. By May 11, 1949, Muslims and Christians lost their reserved seats.

Conclusion

Most of the members, across the ideological spectrum, were fearful of allowing complete religious freedom and hence a cap of civil duties and laws was put to contain it. Secularism was taken to mean equal treatment to all religions; yet by the end of it, a minority status was created. Religious practices were taken to be discriminatory and conflicting with civil laws, yet certain minorities like Muslims were allowed to practice their personal religious law. State was meant to distance itself from all religious institutions; yet by the end, a provision was brought to allow the state in assisting minorities in setting up and running their religious institutions. Throughout the constituent assembly debates, we see a clear sign of phobia driven approach towards Hinduism, the majority religion, compared to the minorities. The makers of Indian constitution were focused more on controlling Hinduism than allowing it the freedom given to other religions.

Footnotes –

1. Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates, 1946-1950, Shefali Jha, EPW Vol 37 No. 30.
2. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol 10, Pg 438.
3. Shiva Rao. The Framing of India’s Constitution – Select Documents – Vol 2, Pg 16, GoI Press, Nasik, 1948.
4. Shiva Rao. The Framing of India’s Constitution – Select Documents – Vol 2, Pg 62-63, GoI Press, Nasik, 1948.
5. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol 7, Pg 865.
6. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol 7, Pg 540-548.
7. Shiva Rao. The Framing of India’s Constitution – Select Documents – Vol 2, Pg 109, GoI Press, Nasik, 1948.
8. Shiva Rao. The Framing of India’s Constitution – Select Documents – Vol 4, Pg 600, GoI Press, Nasik, 1948