The conception of “secularism” in the Constituent Assembly Debates

At the time of the framing of the Indian Constitution, the question came up a number of times as to whether “secularism” as a term should be brought into the Indian Constitution and what should it mean. Interestingly three amendments attempting to incorporate the word “secular” into the Constitution were proposed by K.T. Shah and all of them were eventually rejected by the Constituent Assembly. Other amendments proposing to incorporate “secularism” in the Constitution were also negatived by the Assembly[1]. The first amendment was in relation to the first article of the Constitution and the second in relation to fundamental rights.
The first amendment proposed by Professor K.T. Shah was:
That in clause (1) of Article 1, after the words “shall be a” the words ‘Secular, Federal, Socialist’ be inserted,[2]
Professor K.T. Shah in moving the amendment submitted:
Next, as regards the secular character of the State, we have been told time and again from every platform, that ours is a secular State. If that is true, if that holds good, I do not see why the term could not be added or inserted in the Constitution itself, once again, to guard against any possibility of misunderstanding or misapprehension. The term “secular”, I agree, does not find place necessarily in Constitutions on which ours seems to have been modelled. But every Constitution is framed in the background of the people concerned. The mere fact, therefore, that such description is not formally or specifically adopted to distinguish one state from another, or to emphasise the character of our State is no reason, in my opinion, why we should not insert now at this hour, when we are making our Constitution, this is very clear and emphatic description of that State.
The secularity of the State must be stressed in view not only of the unhappy experiences we had last year and in the years before and the excesses to which, in the name of religion, communalism or sectarianism can go, but I intend also to emphasis by this description the character and nature of the state which we are constituting today, which would ensure to all its peoples, all its citizens that in all matters relating to the governance of the country and dealings between man and man and dealings between citizen and Government the consideration that will actuate will be the objective realities of the situation, the material factors that condition our being, our living and our acting. For that purpose and in that connection no extraneous considerations or authority will be allowed to interfere, so that the relations between man and man, the relation of the citizen to the State, the relations of the States inter se may not be influenced by those other considerations which will result in injustice or inequality as between the several citizens that constitute the people of India.[3]
Opposing the motion Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar memorably said:
Mr Vice-President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K.T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place the Constitution, as I stated in my opening speech in support of the motion I made before the House, is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State. It is not a mechanism whereby particular members or particular parties are installed in office. What should be the policy of the State, how the society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether. If you state in the Constitution that the social organisation of the State shall take a particular form, you are, in my judgment, taking away the liberty of the people to decide what should be the social organisation in which they wish to live. It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better than the socialist organisation of today or of tomorrow. I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves. This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed.[4]
The second amendment suggested by Professor K.T. Shah was:
18-A. The State in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith; and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union.[5]
This was also negatived by the Assembly summarily[6].
Professor K.T. Shah tried to get the said words incorporated a third time through a third amendment and failed.[7] A further proposal for incorporating the words “secularism” as part of the preamble was also rejected by the Constituent Assembly.[8]
Admittedly there was broad consensus about the creation of a “secular” State but then as in today, there was a general confusion as to what that meant and what was the object of the secular State, whether it was a means to an end or the end in itself, whether it was a compromise or a worthy goal. During the entire discussions which were held the views of the three great protagonists in the framing of the Constitution, Pandit Nehru[9], Sardar Patel[10] and Babasaheb Ambedkar[11], were put forward during various occasions, and interestingly and almost presciently reflect the political debate which still haunts the country in discussing the concept of secularism and therefore the method to protect the religious minorities.
An interesting aside to this entire debate and an illustration of the forces which were pulling in different directions in relation to the place of religion in public life of the future Indian Republic was the debate about the inclusion of the prohibition of cow slaughter in the Constitution ( which is today Article 48 of the Constitution ) as a Directive Principle of State Policy, which was about the broader question of allowing the state to intervene in public life to protect religious values . It is instructive here to replicate the exchange between K. Hanumanthayya and Frank Anthony regarding the said provision :
Mr. Frank Anthony : ………While on the matter of Directive Principles, I would like to refer to this provision regarding cow slaughter. I know, again, here, that I will be treading on difficult ground. But, I want to make my position clear. What I resent in this Directive Principle is the insidious way in which this provision with regard to the banning of cow slaughter has been brought in. It was not there before. I cannot help saying that those fanatics and extremists who could not bring in this provision through the front door have succeeded in bringing it through the back-door. Sir, I am not a beef eater; I am not holding a brief for beef eaters. I say, you may ban cow-slaughter, but we should have done it honestly without our tongues in our cheeks, without resorting to methods which may give rise to the accusation of subterfuge. I ask my Hindu friends, does cow-slaughter offend your religious susceptibilities.
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya : (Mysore State) : Yes; it does.
Mr. Frank Anthony : All right; I am glad you have said so. If you had said that, I would have sponsored a provision that a ban on cow-slaughter should have been introduced in the Fundamental Rights and that cow-slaughter should be made a cognisable offence. But, there were not people who were prepared to do that. Why bring in this provision in an indirect way? If it offends your religious susceptibilities, just as much as I expect you to respect my religious susceptibilities. I am prepared to respect yours. As I said, why bring it in, in this indirect way, as an afterthought into the Directive Principles? Look at the way you have brought it in. The clause reads :
“for the purpose of protecting the cattle wealth of India, for the purpose of protecting cattle, milch and draught cattle, a ban on cattle slaughter may be imposed.”
Shri K. Hanumanthaiya : On a point of order, Sir, is it right for the honourable Member to attribute motives, subterfuge and all that? I draw your kind attention to it. The honourable Member is saying that we have introduced a provision by way of a subterfuge. He has attributed motives in regard to the way we have put in this provision in the Directive Principles. Whether attributing motives is right, I leave it to you, Sir to Judge.
Mr. Frank Anthony : I apologise to you and to the House if what I may have said even remotely raises the suggestion of unparliamentary language. I was not attributing motives. I am merely stating objectively what had happened. As I have said, what has happened raises the accusation that perhaps motives may have been there to bring in this provision in an indirect way; I will not say it tantamounts to subterfuge. As I have said, I repeat, if this gives you offence, I would have been the first person to suggest that it should have formed part of the Fundamental Rights. In the way it has been done, it has been attached to a clause purporting to protect the cattle wealth of this country. Any child knows that in this country, in proportion to the population, we have more cattle than in any other country in the world. Any intelligent child also knows that in spite of this huge cattle population, our output for milch and draught purposes is the lowest per capita in the world. The preservation of cattle-wealth and the preservation of the best interests of the country would have required not the banning of cattle slaughtering but the slaughtering of over half of your present cattle population in this country. That is why I say, it should not have been done in this particular way. I only draw your attention to it and I leave it at that.[12]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Constituent Assembly Debates, Monday, 17-10-1949.
[2] Constituent Assembly Debates, Monday, 15-11-1948 at p. 399.
[3] Constituent Assembly Debates, Monday, 15-11-1948 at p. 400.
[4] Constituent Assembly Debates, Monday, 15-11-1948 at pp. 401-02.
[5] Constituent Assembly Debates, Friday, 3-12-1948 at p. 815.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Constituent Assembly Debates, Thursday, 25-11-1948.
[8] Constituent Assembly Debates, Monday, 17-10-1949.
[9] In relation to the debate regarding framing the provisions regarding citizenship Pandit Nehru stated:
One word has been thrown about a lot. I should like to register my strong protest against that word. I want the House to examine the word carefully and it is that this Government goes in for a policy of appeasement, appeasement of Pakistan, appeasement of Muslims, appeasement of this and that. I want to know clearly what that word means. Do the Honourable Members who talk of appeasement think that some kind of rule should be applied when dealing with these people which has nothing to do with justice or equity? I want a clear answer to that. If so, I would only plead for appeasement. This Government will not go by a hair’s breadth to the right or to left from what they consider to be the right way of dealing with the situation, justice to the individual or the group.
Another word is thrown up a good deal, this secular State business. May I beg with all humility those gentlemen who use this word often to consult some dictionary before they use it? It is brought in at every conceivable step and at every conceivable stage. I just do not understand it. It has a great deal of importance, no doubt. But, it is brought in in all contexts, as if by saying that we are a secular State we have done something amazingly generous, given something out of our pocket to the rest of the world, something which we ought not to have done, so on and so forth. We have only done something which every country does except a very few misguided and backward countries in the world. Let us not refer to that word in the sense that we have done something very mighty. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Friday, 12‑8-1949 at pp. 400-01.)
[10] In moving the Report of the Advisory Committee on Minorities Sardar Patel said:
… Now our object is, or the object of this House should be, as soon as possible and as rapidly as possible to drop these classifications and differences and bring all to a level of equality. Therefore, although temporarily we may recognise this it is up to the majority community to create by its generosity a sense of confidence in the minorities; and so also it will be the duty of the minority communities to forget the past and to reflect on what the country has suffered due to the sense of fairness which the foreigner thought was necessary to keep the balance between community and community. This has created class and communal divisions and sub-divisions, which in their sense of fairness, they thought fit to create, apart from attributing any motives. We on our part, taking this responsibility of laying the foundations of a free India which shall be and should be our endeavour both of the majority—largely of the majority—and also of the minority community, have to rise to the situation that is demanded from all of us, and create an atmosphere in which the sooner these classifications disappear the better. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Wednesday, 25-5-1949 at pp. 271-72.)
[11] In moving the Resolution proposing the Draft Constitution, Babasaheb Ambedkar submitted to the Assembly that:
The Draft Constitution is also criticised because of the safeguards it provides for minorities. In this, the Drafting Committee has no responsibility. It follows the decisions of the Constituent Assembly. Speaking for myself, I have no doubt that the Constituent Assembly has done wisely in providing such safeguards for minorities as it has done. In this country both the minorities and the majorities have followed a wrong path. It is wrong for the majority to deny the existence of minorities. It is equally wrong for the minorities to perpetuate themselves. A solution must be found which will serve a double purpose. It must recognise the existence of the minorities to start with. It must also be such that it will enable majorities and minorities to merge someday into one. The solution proposed by the Constituent Assembly is to be welcomed because it is a solution which serves this twofold purpose. To diehards who have developed a kind of fanaticism against minority protection I would like to say two things. One is that minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the State. The history of Europe bears ample and appalling testimony to this fact. The other is that the minorities in India have agreed to place their existence in the hands of the majority. In the history of negotiations for preventing the partition of Ireland, Redmond said to Carson “ask for any safeguard you like for the Protestant minority but let us have a United Ireland”. Carson’s reply was “Damn your safeguards, we don’t want to be ruled by you.” No minority in India has taken this stand. They have loyally accepted the rule of the majority which is basically a communal majority and not a political majority. It is for the majority to realise its duty not to discriminate against minorities. Whether the minorities will continue or will vanish must depend upon this habit of the majority. The moment the majority loses the habit of discriminating against the minority, the minorities can have no ground to exist. They will vanish. (Constituent Assembly Debates, Thursday, 4-11-1948.)
[12] Constituent Assembly Debates Friday, the 25th November, 1949.