Abstract
Secularism in India represents a complex, context-dependent concept that cannot be reduced to a single universal definition. This paper examines the meaning and application of secularism in India through comparative constitutional analysis and historical examination of the Constituent Assembly debates. Drawing on Gary J. Jacobsohn’s typology of secular constitutional designs—assimilative, visionary, and ameliorative—and Hanna Lerner’s framework of permissive constitutions, this study argues that Indian secularism is best understood as an “ameliorative” model that balances religious pluralism with social reform. Through comparison with secular models in the United States, Israel, Indonesia, and Turkey, this paper demonstrates that secularism is not a monolithic concept but a contextually adaptable principle shaped by historical, social, and political factors. The paper concludes that while a universal definition of secularism remains elusive, the Indian model embodies a unique form of secularism that accommodates religious diversity while striving for national integration and social justice.
Keywords: secularism, India, comparative constitutional law, Constituent Assembly, religious freedom, constitutional design
INTRODUCTION
Secularism and its varied voices have been much debated in India and to truly understand its meaning and what it signifies to the nation, one must identify its history and how it compares amongst nations. Although the term ‘secular’ was only introduced in 1976[1] to the Indian Constitution, the Constituent Assembly debates and the history of the nation has been in constant conversation with the concept of secularism. However, in the words of T N Madan, secularism can only be understood in the contextual sense, this essay will attempt to derive the meaning of the word ‘secular’ as it means to India.
Before diving into the meaning of the term ‘secular’, this essay refers back to the theory established by Gary J Jacobsohn, in his book The Wheel of Law[2], wherein he identifies three main models of secular constitutional design being (1) Assimilative; (2) Visionary and (3) Ameliorative. He identifies, India’s constitution to have imbibed an ameliorative secularism as a projection of her multifaceted character yet maintaining a method of social reform. Jacobsohn interestingly highlights the caste system and the social evils of the society prevalent in the country and yet how it identifies with the deep-rooted cultural values imbibed historically. This elemental quality of the Indian nation cannot be uprooted and we can safely assume that although the state is secular the people are not[3]
To understand the ‘meaning’ of a concept, especially secularism in a country as diverse and complex as India, it would entail close inspection of the developments in a historical context and to assimilate the original intent of the Constitutional Framers. Hanna Lerner[4], has interestingly compared the constitutional debates of Turkey, Israel, Indonesia and India as countries having had extensive debates on the concept of secularism during the formation of their constitution. Lerner’s method is an inspiration to the later part of this essay to dive deep into the Constitutional debates of India to truly understand the meaning of ‘secularism’.
In fact, Jacobson’s thoughts expressed in his book and subsequent works and the different approach adopted by Lerner laid the pathway and inspiration to this essay to identify the meaning of ‘secularism’. Although both their works are exceptional in its own accord, the union of the two different approaches could aid in arriving at a better understanding of secularism in two aspects i.e. (1) to understand whether a universal application of the word secularism can be adopted across the varied nation-states and (2) to understand what ‘secularism’ means to India.
This essay attempts to understand and compare the kind of secularism that the Indian secularism falls under, through preliminarily analyses of opinions and observations of authors and thinkers and also by comparing the Indian Constitution to that of other countries. This essay also brings about a historical comparison of the concept of secularism in the Indian Constitution by skimming through the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution. The primary focus of this essay is to distinguish the type of secularism that India has and what secularism means to the nation and compare the original intent to that of the current scenario. I have limited myself to the countries mentioned in Jacobsohn and Lerner’s works to merely corelate and compare the different approaches and to read them together.
This essay is divided into two distinct parts. The first part attempts to understand the different kinds of secularism with respect to different contextual backgrounds and identify if a universal meaning can be arrived at. In the process of achieving the same, the essay analyses the relevant literature and is influenced by the work of Jacobson and also compares the Constitutions of the countries in the West (US), the Middle East (Israel) and East (India). The second part attempts to identify the original intent of the Constitutional Assembly through its debates and compare with other similar countries as identified by Lerner, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia and India. The third part concludes the essay.
[1]The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976.
[2]Gary J Jacobsohn, The Wheel of Law, India’s Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context (Princeton University Press, 2005).
[3]Nirad C Chaudhuri, Hinduism: A Religion to Live (OUP, 1997).
[4]Hanna Lerner, ‘Permissive Constitutions, Democracy, and Religious Freedom in India, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey’ (2013) 65(4) World Politics 609