For all the vitriol that some BJP leaders heap on the word ‘secular’, the party’s own constitution makes more references to it than the Congress Party’s guiding document. Even Yogi Adityanath, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, who said the word ‘secularism is the biggest threat to develop India’s prosperous traditions’, would have had to swear by the party’s constitution. This document promotes ‘integral humanism’ as the party’s basic philosophy.
It also asks its cadres to swear to uphold ‘Nationalism and National Integration, Democracy, Gandhian approach to socio-economic issues leading to the establishment of an egalitarian society free from exploitation (originally termed Gandhian Socialism), Positive Secularism, (Sarva Dharma Sama Bhava) and Value-based politics . . . [in a] Secular State and Nation not based on religion’.
The opponents of the BJP who apprehend that the party secretly aspires to remove the word ‘secular’ from the Preamble of the Constitution forget that in order to do so it would first have to amend its own party’s constitution. Interestingly, the party’s stalwarts quarrelled not so much over secularism as the suitability of including the term ‘Gandhian Socialism’ in the party’s constitution.
Of course, lofty declarations made in a party constitution aren’t necessarily sacrosanct. But the BJP’s founding document does provide a useful starting point for any serious analysis of that party’s view on what ideals our nation’s constitution ought to edify. In 2015, following the publication of a government advertisement that carried the original Preamble to the Constitution without the words ‘socialist’ and ‘secular’, the Opposition was up in arms. Several critics of the Modi administration became convinced that moves were afoot to strip India of its secular identity.
Also read: Caste, cash, compromise – What Tamil Nadu’s Dalit party VCK gives up to win elections
The government was quick to douse the fire, with the then parliamentary affairs minister, Venkaiah Naidu, declaring that ‘secularism is there in the blood of the Indian people, that’s part of our culture. It was not there in the original Preamble and was inserted during the Emergency. But the government advertisement was about the original Preamble. We are committed to secularism, and we don’t have any idea to drop it.’
The BJP idolizes Savarkar and is an ideological descendant of the RSS, which it looks up to as a paternal guide. But, as a political entity in the business of governance and fighting elections, its senior leadership has been guarded about overtly describing India as a Hindu Rashtra. Even when prompted to specifically discuss Savarkar’s views describing India as a Hindu Rashtra, and whether the BJP and the Modi government saw India as one, the Union home minister, Amit Shah, in a 2019 interview, was categorical: ‘Absolutely not. We believe in the Constitution, and we accept the Constitution in its spirit. In this country, all sects have complete freedom. The government has only one religion and that’s the Constitution and nothing else.’
The NDA, at least for now, believes that the Preamble to our Constitution is sacrosanct. But does this also mean that a Hindu Rashtra, in a cultural sense, would never find constitutional expression under the current government? Today, the BJP is electorally at its strongest following two successive mandates, giving it an outright majority in the Lok Sabha. Significantly, it has ninety-four out of 245 seats in the upper house.
This gives Modi’s NDA far greater freedom to pursue its stated goals through Parliament But even so, aside from virtually abrogating Article 370, it is yet to use its majority to bring legislation in line with its core objectives. For instance, it resisted pressure to enact a Central law to introduce a uniform civil code so far or construct a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. And there has never even been a hint from its highest leadership pulpit about tinkering with the Constitution’s Preamble to eject the word ‘secularism’.
In fact, the NDA has sought to dispel fears from secular quarters over legislation and policy that have been criticised as steps being taken by the BJP towards turning India into a Hindu Rashtra. In the one reference Modi as prime minister has made to a Hindu Rashtra, he did so in the context of the CAA in Parliament, when he chose to remind agitated Congress MPs of Jawaharlal Nehru’s own commitment to protect minorities in Pakistan.
Modi invoked the Nehru–Liaquat pact in 1950: ‘For them [Opposition], they are Muslims. For us, they are all Indians. The act does not affect any Indian. I want to clearly state that with the CAA coming, there will be no impact on citizens of India, practising any faith. The CAA does not affect any Indian, it doesn’t harm minority interests. Pandit Nehru himself was in favour of protecting minorities in Pakistan. I want to ask Congress, was Pandit Nehru communal? Did he want a Hindu Rashtra?’
Also read: What Gandhi wanted from students—avoid politics, strikes
Indeed, the NDA government has been keen to counter any claim that Muslims in India are living in fear. Especially in a year in which India has assumed the mantle of the G20 presidency, its representatives in government have gone to some lengths to allay such concerns. Sample this response from the country’s finance minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, in Washington, DC, in April 2023: ‘India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world, and that population is only growing in numbers.
If there is a perception, or if there’s in reality, their lives are difficult or made difficult with the support of the state, which is what is implied in most of these write-ups, I would ask, will this happen in India in the sense, will the Muslim population be growing than what it was in 1947?’ Sitharaman drew attention to the contrasting situation in Pakistan.
‘Violence prevails against Muhajirs, Shia and every other group you can name which is not accepted by the mainstream . . . whereas in India you would find every strand of Muslims doing their business, their children getting educated. Fellowships are being given by the government.’
Rajeev Mantri, who has co-authored A New Idea of India: Individual Rights in a Civilisational State, is of the view that those who continue to think that the 2024 election will see the BJP pursuing a more militant line are being alarmist. Mantri believes that the BJP is not about to shoot itself in the foot. If anything, he believes that the BJP may be more inclined to push a harder secularism:
Any other course of action [modifying the Constitution to describe India as a Hindu Rashtra], while doable will be prone to misrepresentation . . . and frankly, my fear is that we will see a good idea getting hamstrung or diluted because of overwhelming pushback with people projecting it to be something which it is not, similar to what happened with CAA . . . Ultimately, being a secular republic means to me having the same/equally applicable laws to all citizens of India, so that is what we should aspire towards . . . let’s become truly secular.’
This excerpt from Modi & India 2024 and the Battle for BHARAT by Rahul Shivshankar and Siddhartha Talya has been published with permission from Penguin Random House.