1

‘Justice’ in the Constitution of India?

An Appraisal of the Parivar’s Position on Secularism
- R.D.Mawia Ralte

The secular-ness of the Constitution of India has been debated for many years now. The focal
point of the debate is clear: whether our respected Indian Constitution is doing justice to its entire
citizen by giving equal respect and treatment irrespective of what faith they profess. Is Indian
Constitution truly secular as it claims, doing justice to all religious groups? We will try to
critically examine the concept of ‘positive secularism’ which the Sangh Parivar had proposed
against what they called ‘pseudo-Secularism’ professed, practiced and propagated by Jawaharlal
Nehru and his Indian National Congress.

Etymologically ‘Sangh Parivar’ means ‘family association’ (Sangh – association or club;

Parivar- Family). The term ‘Sangh Parivar’ is used to denote collectively those who believe in
the same religio-political and cultural ideology called Hindutva. The term ‘Hindutva’ is
understood normally as ‘Hinduness’. It refers to ‘national Hinduness’ which comprises of Hindu
faith in its geographical and cultural elements. Hindutva requires the following things- (a) birth
and growth in Indian territory; (b) belonging to the Indian race, having Hindu blood; (c) an
appreciation for all the customs and traditions of Hindu, (d) acceptance of India alone as one’s
fatherland and holy land and its heroes as persons of veneration; and (e) acceptance of Hindu
Samskriti (culture) alone as one’s own culture. There are many organizations, more than two
hundreds, under the Sangh Parivar. The four main groups of Sang Parivar are the Rastrya
Swayamsevak Sangh (R.S.S), the mother organization after which the label Sangh Parivar is
coined; the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (V.H.P), the world Hindu council and the religious wing of
Sang Parivar; the Bharatiya Janata Party (B.J.P), the political wing, and the Bajrang Dal, the
activist group. In this paper we will analyze the position of the Sangh Parivar on the secular-ness
of the Indian Constitution.

‘Secularism’, a word found in the Preamble to the Constitution of India since 1976 is
undoubtedly one of the most debated ones in the Constitution of India. The meaning and
implications of it is defined, explained and presented in various ways by various people. One
group of people argues that the meaning of the term ‘secularism’ should be understood on the
basis of its dictionary meaning and its Western connotation. By this, ‘secularism’ is known to
imply that the state shall have no religion of its own and it should maintain equidistance when it
comes to dealing various religions and that all persons shall be equally free to practice religion of
their own. Another group, represented by the Sangh Parivar opines that ‘secularism’ implies
‘sarva pantha samabhav’ –attitude of equality towards all faiths1. In the former sense ‘secular
state’ is meant to be a state without Dharma or religion2, which according to Sangh Parivar is not
correct. According to Chitkara a Hindutva writer, Sarva pantha samabhav has three ingredients,
such as rejection of theocracy, equality of all the citizens irrespective of their faith, and full

1
H.V. Seshadri, Sarkaryavaha, Lucknow, 11th March 1999, Report: March 1989-March 1999 in RSS on National
Scenario compiled by Central Office, Nagpur: Bharatiya Vichar Sadhna, 2000, p.166.
2
According to Asghar Ali Engineer, a Muslim writer, secularism means separation of politics from the hegemony of
religion. In a truly secular state, religion will not influence, let alone dictate, the sphere of politics. Both the sphere
will remain separate and enjoy perfect autonomy. Cf. Asghar Ali Engineer, Lifting the Veil: Communal Violence
and Communal Harmony in Contemporary India, Hyderabad: Sangam Books, 1995, p. 268.
 2

freedom of faith and worship3. In the latter sense religion plays an important role in the
management of the state but there should be equal respect for all religions; Chikara, puts it,
“Secularism is not a negative or a passive concept but a positive and proactive one, which calls
for an unbiased involvement also. Tolerance and equal respect for all religious faith are its
hallmark”4.

The Sangh Parivar denounced the western concept of secularism or what they called ‘Nehruvian
secularism’ as ‘pseudo-secularism’ where there is neither ‘equal respect’ nor ‘equal treatment’ of
religion but full of minority appeasement and minority-orientation. In contrast to this, they
projected what is called ‘positive secularism’ as a true secularism which, in opposition to the
Western-imposed Nehruvian pseudo-secularism, will give equality to all religion of India.
Pseudo Secularism “is used mainly for winning the Muslim bloc votes” says B.L. Agarwal, a
VHP leader5. Positive secularism, on the other hand, does not discriminate people in the line of
caste, sex and faith.

They criticize the Neruvian secularism because of its alleged discriminative nature which is seen
in the Constitution of India as well as in the governance of the so called ‘secularist’ parties.
Article 25 that gives freedom to propagate one’s own religion is one example of the elements of
pseudo-secularism in our Constitution because it violates equal respect for all religions and also
is against Hindus who are not following the tradition of propagation and proselytisation. Again,
Article 30 which gives special privilege to the religious minorities to establish and run
institutions of their own, a right which is not given to Hindus, is seen as a clear violation of
‘secularism’. Dr. Lakshmi Narain observes thus, “Special rights are sought to be conferred in the
name of religion not available to the followers of the other religions: this is the very anti-thesis of
the basic concept of a Secular State”6. Again, the Sangh Parivar denounce the Nehruvian
secularism practiced by the Congress Party as ‘psuedo’ because of the un-implementation of
Article 44- uniform civil code and and also the presence of Article 370 and 371 that give special
status to Muslim dominated state of Jammu and Kashmir as well as the Christian dominated
states of Mizoram and Nagaland respectively. They alleged that by favouring some religious
groups, Indian constitution is not secular as some people claimed it to be.

The Sangh Parivar found negation of secularism during almost a half century long Congress
regime in India. They claimed that it was explicitly exposed in the case of Shah Bano who was
divorced by her Muslim husband. The Supreme Court ordered her husband to give maintenance
which was challenged by the Muslim clerics because - it violates Shariat7. The then Congress
government at the central headed by Shri Rajiv Gandhi with two-third majority in the Lok Sabha,
reversed the Court’s verdict by passing the ‘Muslim (Divorced Women’s) Protection Act’ which
negates maintenance of divorced Muslim women as per Secular law. For the Sangh Parivar this
is a clear example of the drawback of Nehruvian Secularism which is always partial and in
favour of religious minorities. Against this ‘pseudo Secularism’ they propound the so-called
‘positive secularism’ which is imbedded in the Hindu Dharma.
3
M.G. Chitkara, Hindutva, New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation, 1997, p. 98.
4
M.G. Chitkara, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, , New Delhi: APH Publishing Corporation, 2004, p. 156.
5
Manjari Katju, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Indian Politics, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2003, p.119.
6
Lakshmi Narain, Secularism of India, Meerut: Shri Prakashan, 2004, p. 38.
7
Shariat is Muslim personal laws. The provisions relating to maintenance in Section 125 Cr. P.C. basing on which
the Supreme Court’s judgment was passed are quite different from the one in Shariat.
 3

For them Hindus are always secular. K.L.Advani says, “We also believe that India is secular
because it is predominantly Hindu”8. VHP leader claims- “We do not need a certificate to be
secular. We are naturally secular. That is why we allowed outsiders to come and prosper in our
country. They prosper because of us Hindus”9. Praveen Togadia, another VHP leader laments:
“In the name of secularism the rulers of this country have become anti-religion and anti-
dharma…They say that dharma should not interfere in politics…They want untruth in Politics,
robbery in politics and corruption in politics” 10. The Sangh Parivar are united in claiming that
Hinduism they represent is not communal but always secular as Harish Sharma a leader of
Bajrang Dal puts it-

We are secular. The Hindu dharma has never gone against anyone. History tells us. The
Christian came to Kerela first and settled there. Nobody opposed them and their religion.
There was no bad behaviour even with the Jews. We have synagogues in our country.
The Parsees have their worshipping place as well…Nowhere such a lenient attitude has
been found except here…11.

The Hindutvavadis claim that secularism they project is not like the existing ‘pseudo-secularism’
which is discriminatory in nature by creating division among the citizens, giving minorities
upper hand at the expense of majority for political purpose and it is meant to appease religious
minority communities in India for gaining political power. In contrast to this the Sangh Parivar
advocate positive secularism where there will be no discrimination, no partiality, no appeasement
to gain power, where all are equal before the law, having equal freedom to worship their own
gods and goddesses, profess their own religions without the state’s interference.

Critical Consideration
It is correct that there are a number of protective clauses awarded to minorities in our
constitution, which are not enjoyed by the majority Hindus. However, in contrast to the Sangh
Parivar’s opposition, this is a necessity if equality and freedom for all is going to be maintained,
because, without such protection it is too risky for the minority to live with the majority.
Sanghamitra Padhy notes, “Secularism sans protection to minority religious and cultural groups
creates majoritarianism”12. To protect minority interests, special protective measures are needed,
although that looks odd from the perspective of secular principles. It is not practical and
reasonable to have uniform common law in a heterogeneous society like India. “Legal pluralism
is not inconsistent with national integration and hence to argue for uniformity on such grounds is
indeed against the spirit of pluralism”13. Again, it is not possible to have such uniformity by force
or coercion “and certainly not while you demolish their places of worship, question their
patriotism”14.

8
Quoted in M.G. Chitkara, Hindutva, p. 98.
9
Ibid., pp. 120-121.
10
Manjari Katju, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Indian Politics, p.120.
11
Ibid., p.121.
12
Sanghamitra Padhy, “Secularism and Justice: A Review of Indian Supreme Court Judgments”, in Economic and
Political Weekly, November 20, 2004, p. 5030.
13
Ibid., p. 5031.
14
C.R. Irani, Ayodhya: Demolishing a Dream, New Delhi: UBSPD, 2004, p. 124.
 4

The Hindu nationalists argue that as the essence of every religion is common and that all faiths
are equal there is no need for any concession or special protection to be given to any one in the
Constitution. This is also the view of Supreme Court when it declared, in connection with
NCERT textbook case, that all faiths are equal15. However, according to Sanghamitra Padhy this
is against the principle of tolerance because it is assimilative in its intent and does not give an
individual the autonomy of self. He says, “There are many different belief systems, cultures,
viewpoints and groups and these differences need to be respected so that they do not lose their
identity. The problem with such notions is that they seek to create uniformity based on oneness
rather than allowing a space for diversity”16.

For the Hindu nationalists, some Articles, like 25, 30, 370, etc. are a clear example of inequality
and discrimination in favour of minorities; by giving special treatment and appeasing the
minorities; and according to them here the constitutional principle of equality is violated. But
this is not correct. The very fact that there is ‘major’ and ‘minor’ indicates inequality. So, to
bring or maintain equality, the weaker section, i.e. the minor, should be protected, helped and
given special attention by providing special rights and privileges and only by such a process
equality could be maintained. That is exactly taking place in our constitution. Justice Khanna in
St. Xavier’s College V. State of Gujarat, stated:

Special rights for minorities were not to create inequality. Their real effect was to bring
about equality by ensuring the preservation of the minority institutions and by
guaranteeing to the minorities autonomy in the matter of the administration of those
institutions. The differential treatment for the minorities by giving them special rights,
ensures that the ideal of equality may not be reduced to a mere abstract ideal but should
become a living reality and result in true, genuine equality, an equality not merely in
theory but also in fact17.

Cossman and Kapur argued that the model of equality by which we determine equality should be
reframed, and they suggest a ‘substantive model of equality’ over again a formal model of
equality which insists on ‘treating likes alike’ without taking the difference into account, which a
new model would take on18. This ‘substantive model of equality’ negates the claim of the Hindu
nationalists that minorities should be judged and treated in accordance with the norms of the
majority, and it “creates the possibility that difference might be relevant, and directs attention to
the possibility of systematic discrimination in dominant social and legal practices”19. Again,
“equal respect for all religion need not be taken to imply the equal treatment of all religions…
Equally respecting cultural minorities thus means respecting their differences, and a substantive
model would allow for these differences to be respected within the constitution mandate of
equality”20.

In principle, it is articulated that secularism means equal respect, freedom of all religions and
non-discrimination on the ground of religion; but without special protection to minority, it is a
15
Ibid., p. 5028
16
Ibid.
17
Quoted in Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s Last Sigh? Hindutva and the (Mis)Rule of law, New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 106-7.
18
Ibid., p. 102.
19
Ibid., p. 104.
20
Ibid., pp. 104-5.
 5

form of majoritarianism21, where the minority remains under the mercy of the majority, which
itself shows inequality. Therefore, to maintain secularism where religions of various types enjoy
equality in the sight of law, certain protective and promotive clauses ought to be created in
favour of the minorities, so that they could be able to stand together with the rest of the
community. This type of ‘gracious’ act is seen in the history of Hinduism where minorities like
Jews, Parsees, Christians were given land to build their respective religious places and assisted
them with financial help22, which is also affirmed by the Sangh Parivar. So, it is not a new thing
that minority communities were given special privileges in order to ensure peace and stability in
the country.

So, in a closer look, the Sangh Parivar’s concept of equality is nothing but majoritarianism
which has fallen short of true equality. Since, without special treatment equality can not be
enhanced among ‘the already’ unequal people who are by now dichotomized into ‘majority’ and
‘minority’, ‘great’ and ‘tiny’, ‘large’ and ‘small’, ‘many and less’; subsequently, doing justice
with such a process is out of question. To do justice and bring true equality – equality not in
paper but in a real sense among the people of India, weaker and smaller section of the society
should be protected and facilitated by giving special privileges so as to enable them to live
together with the majority, because, it would be erroneous and hazardous to put a lion and a
sheep in the same room and to tell them: “You are given equal freedom and opportunity, so
enjoy yourselves”.

Writer:
- Ordained Minister of BCM
- Presently teaching at AICS in the dept. of Religion
- Written two books in Mizo – India Ram Sakhaw Lian Zualte & Kawng Dang a awm em?

21
Sanghamitra Padhy, “Secularism and Justice: A Review of Indian Supreme Court Judgments”, p. 5031.
22
S. Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western Thought, London: Oxford University Press, 1940, pp. 310-311.