Not colonial constitution but Hindu majority sustains India's secular demoracy
India stands as the world's largest democracy, a beacon of resilience amidst a region marked by political volatility. India sustains a vibrant secular democracy despite its staggering diversity—linguistic, cultural, religious, and social. Unlike its neighbours, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have succumbed to military coups, authoritarianism, and democratic erosion, India's democratic experiment endures.
This article argues that India's secular democratic character stems not from its constitution, a document derived from the colonial Government of India Act of 1935, but from the cultural ethos of its Hindu majority. This civilisational framework, with its emphasis on pluralism, dialogue, and coexistence, forms the bedrock of India's democratic success. The argument challenges two narratives: the left-liberal view of secularism, which often sidelines Hindu identity, and the Sangh Parivar's politicised Hindutva, which distorts Sanatana Dharma into a divisive ideology. Both misrepresent the Hindu Majority's inclusive ethos, obscuring its role as a unifying force in India's democracy. We will examine how the Hindu majority's cultural values—philosophical flexibility and acceptance of diversity—sustain India's secular democratic framework.
Defining Hindutva-A pluralistic foundation:
The term 'Hindutva,' coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892 for his eponymous book, encapsulates the essence of Sanatana Dharma, India's ancient spiritual tradition, distinct from the colonial label 'Hinduism.'
This article adopts Basu's definition, emphasising Hindutva's inclusivity and pluralism, unlike Savarkar's 1923 nationalist interpretation, which some view as exclusionary.
Hindutva, the new name of Sanatana Dharma, embraces diverse indigenous traditions, as articulated in the Rigveda's maxim, 'ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti' (Truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways). This ethos fosters a democratic temperament by encouraging dialogue, coexistence, and adaptability.
Hindu majority's cultural ethos: The bedrock of democracy: India's Hindu majority, comprising over 70% of the population, is shaped by Hindutva's principles of flexibility and diversity. Unlike systems like Christianity, Islam, or Communism, which often emphasise conformity, Hindutva embraces diverse practices and philosophies. This pluralism extends to intellectual and social spheres, fostering a culture of dialogue and coexistence that aligns with democratic principles.
The Hindu tradition of shastrartha (scholarly debates) exemplifies this ethos. Scholars from diverse schools engaged in respectful exchanges, mirroring democratic practices of negotiation and consensus-building. The concept of dharma, emphasising duty, justice, and harmony, further supports democratic values. These cultural traits enable India to manage its diversity, ensuring free elections, peaceful power transitions, and robust free expression within a secular framework.
In contrast, Islamic Pakistan and Bangladesh have struggled to sustain democracy. Pakistan, founded as an Islamic state, has faced military coups (1958, 1977 and 1999) and authoritarianism, while Bangladesh, despite an initially secular framework, adopted Islam as its state religion in 1988, experiencing military rule (1975–1990) and democratic backsliding. Their exclusionary politics have marginalised and persecuted minority Hindus, including the 1971 genocide in Bangladesh, where over 30 lakhs were killed. India's Hindu majority, by contrast, has fostered a pluralistic environment, integrating diverse communities into the democratic process.
While India's constitution provides a legal framework, it is the Hindu majority's cultural ethos—rooted in Hindutva's pluralism—that sustains secular democracy. The constitution, largely a derivative of colonial legislation, lacks the cultural depth to fully explain India's democratic resilience. Instead, it is the Hindu majority's tolerance and adaptability that have prevented India from succumbing to the authoritarian tendencies seen in its neighbours.
Historical evidence: Hindutva's democratic roots: India's ancient history reflects practices aligned with democratic values. The ganasanghas (6th–4th century BCE) such as the Licchavis, involved collective decision-making, hereby suggesting openness to participatory governance. While limited to elites, these systems laid the groundwork for inclusivity.
Chanakya's Arthashastra emphasises consultation, justice, and ethical governance, resonating with modern democratic ideals.
The emergence of Buddhism and Jainism from the Hindu cultural matrix reinforced democratic values. The Buddhist sangha employed consensus-based decision-making, influencing societal norms, while the Bhakti movement (7th–17th centuries CE) transcended social and sectarian boundaries, promoting egalitarianism. These traditions shaped a cultural ethos conducive to dialogue and coexistence, evident in India's post-independence ability to manage diversity.
The Hindu majority has historically supported persecuted communities. Jewish settlements thrived in Kerala and Mumbai since the 2nd century BCE. Zoroastrians (Parsis) found refuge in Gujarat after fleeing Islamic conquests in the 7th–8th centuries. Tibetans escaping Chinese oppression in the 20th century preserved their culture in India. This openness, without requiring conversion, reflects Hindutva's pluralistic ethos.
Constituent Assembly's flawed framework: India's Constituent Assembly, predominantly Hindu, instinctively enshrined secular democracy, reflecting the Hindu civilisational pluralistic ethos. However, influenced by a colonial, Abrahamic lens, it crafted a constitution that denied Hindus equal rights. Articles 25–30 grant minorities special privileges while subjecting Hindu temples to state control, creating an imbalance that marginalises Hindu identity under the guise of secularism. This pseudo-secularism ignores the lesson of India's 1947 partition, driven by Muslim demands for a separate state, which underscored the Hindu majority's role as a shield against divisive forces, ensuring India's unity and democratic resilience.
Misrepresentations of Hindutva: Two ideological streams undermine the contributions of India's Hindu majority: pseudo-secularism and pseudo-Hindutva.
The left-liberal establishment, rooted in the Constituent Assembly's flawed pseudo-secular framework, misinterprets secularism as suppressing Hindu identity. It dismisses Hindutva's pluralistic ethos as divisive, distorts history by downplaying Islamic atrocities and temple destruction, and blames Hindus for the partition. This alienates the majority, fostering cultural dispossession and weakening India's secular democratic cohesion. Conversely, the Sangh Parivar claims to champion Hindu identity but distorts Hindutva's inclusive essence for political gain.
Labelled as pseudo-Hindutva, their approach manipulates Hindu symbols and rhetoric to mobilise support while sidelining Hindutva's philosophical core. By focusing on socio-religious divides rather than addressing key Hindu grievances—such as constitutional inequalities, state control over temples, and legal disadvantages—it deepens polarisation and undermines India's democratic framework.
Preserving Hindu majority: India's secular democracy relies on its Hindu majority to sustain its pluralistic ethos. However, aggressive conversion campaigns by Christianity and Islam threaten this foundation. The 1956 Niyogi Committee Report exposed predatory conversion tactics and recommended a constitutional amendment to ban it. Yet, Article 25's inclusion of the right to "propagate" religion enables demographic and cultural subversion under the guise of religious freedom.
Religious freedom, though a democratic cornerstone, is not absolute. Just as the state criminalises suicide to protect life, it cannot allow the erosion of millennia-old traditions through conversion. To address this, India should amend Article 25 to remove "propagate," curbing conversions while preserving the right to practice faith. By safeguarding its Hindu majority, India can protect the cultural ethos that anchors its secular democracy and ensure its civilisational legacy endures.
Strengthening democracy through Hindutva: To bolster its secular democracy, India must integrate Hindutva's universal values:
Education Reform: Revise textbooks to reflect historical accuracy, highlighting Hindutva's democratic roots while avoiding exclusionary nationalism.
Constitutional equality: Amend Articles 25–30 to grant Hindus equal rights, freeing temples from state control, ensuring fairness.
Dharma-based policy: Develop policies rooted in dharma, promoting justice and harmony through community-driven interfaith dialogues.
Interfaith coexistence: Leverage Hindutva's historical inclusivity to foster dialogue among religious communities, strengthening democratic resilience.
Conclusion
Critics may argue that emphasising India's Hindu majority risks promoting majoritarianism. However, recognising the Hindu civilisational ethos is not about privileging Hindus but acknowledging the cultural framework that has historically enabled pluralism.
Secularism, in this context, does not reject religion or civilisational identity but ensures equal treatment for all. India's secular democracy thrives not because of its colonial constitution but due to the Hindu majority's cultural ethos, deeply rooted in Hindutva's pluralistic values. Unlike its neighbours, India's Hindu foundation has fostered inclusivity, contributing to its democratic resilience. By integrating Hindutva's universal principles through education, constitutional reforms, and inclusive policies, India can strengthen its secular democracy.
This approach offers a model of governance that harmonises cultural heritage with secular principles, providing a balanced framework for a polarised world.
(The writer is a retired IPS officer, and a former Director of CBI. Views are personal)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Himanta says will tighten cattle slaughter law after series of arrests bring issue to centre stage in Assam
Politics over cattle and beef have taken a centre-stage in Assam after a string of incidents in which suspected cattle remains have been recovered near places of worship, with Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma saying Friday that the government would tighten the enforcement of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, while Assam Congress president Gaurav Gogoi has alleged BJP involvement in these incidents ahead of next year's elections. In the past two weeks, at least 72 people have been arrested in Dhubri, Goalpara and Lakhimpur after three separate incidents of suspected cattle remains being recovered from near temples in the first two places, and near a namghar (community prayer hall) in Lakhimpur. Sarma Friday referred to these as an attempt to create unrest 'since Eid ul Zuha.' Speaking at a press conference, he said that all these incidents have taken place in 'sensitive areas.' 'When we look at all these incidents and wherever they have taken place, they are near localities where there have been arrangements of eating beef during Eid ul Zuha. Our cattle preservation bill says that if Hindu people stay in an area, or if there are temples or namghars, this kind of meat cannot be consumed within 5 kilometres radius near these. That is a legal provision,' he said. The Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021, that he was referring to has a section which prohibits the sale of beef and beef products in areas 'which are predominantly inhabited by Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other non-beef eating communities or within a radius of 5 km of any temple, satra, or other religious institutions belonging to Hindu religion or any other institution or area as may be prescribed by the competent authority.' Sarma said that the state government would prepare an SOP to stop qurbani (sacrifice) of cattle within a 5-km radius of such premises saying the enforcement of this 'can be a permanent solution.' 'Dhubri has one of the leading gurudwaras in the country. And there are many temples near that… But this time around Eid, the district administration had not enforced this provision the way it should have been done… So, we have directed district administrations that this significant section in our cattle preservation bill has to be enforced very strictly… This can be a permanent solution. If the 5 km provision is implemented, no one can eat and no one can slaughter within Dhubri town,' he said. Last week, he had also alleged that beef is being 'weaponised' against Hindus in the state to force them away from places. Hitting out against these developments, MP and Assam Congress chief Gaurav Gogoi has accused Sarma of 'Jinnah-like politics' and alleged a BJP role in these incidents. 'There should be investigation into all these people who have been held so far on who gave them this idea, who gave them the advice. Those who have done it have done an offence, but who gave them the idea?… Elections are close, failures have to be hidden, and this is their whole strategy,' said Gogoi on Friday. 'There are some criminal minded people within them. Within the BJP, RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, there are some criminal minded people who seek to do these kinds of things before elections. Our aim is not to let a communal environment be created inside Assam… We will not let him do his 'Jinnah-like' politics,' he added.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka moots 7-yr jail for fake news, 2-5 yrs for misinformation
AI image BENGALURU: Karnataka's govt has resolved to crackdown on fake news and misinformation by constituting a six-member social-media regulatory authority to ban promotion and spread of fake news on social media, prohibit posting of content insulting to women, ban publication of content that disrespects Sanatana Dharma, its symbols, beliefs, and content that promotes superstition. Under the Karnataka Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, accessed by TOI, govt has proposed up to seven years in prison or Rs 10 lakh fine, or both, if social-media users are found guilty of sharing fake news. It has also suggested a two- to five-year jail term and fine for misinformation on social media or in publications. These offences will be considered cognisable but non-bailable. The social-media regulatory authority will ensure content posted on social media should be based on authentic research on subjects related to science, history, religion, philosophy and literature. To fasten accountability, the bill states special courts will be set up with Karnataka HC's concurrence, with a sessions judge presiding over one or more districts. The special courts will issue directions to intermediaries, publishers, broadcasters, or any other persons exercising control over communication medium disseminating misinformation to persons in Karnataka. The proposal gives aggrieved parties 30 days to respond to notices. If directions are ignored, then the court can issue punishment of simple imprisonment of up to 2 years and a fine of Rs 25,000 a day, subject to a maximum of Rs 25 lakh. The bill suggests action against directors of companies and employees who were present during the violation of the laws if their company is found guilty.
The Wire
3 hours ago
- The Wire
Opposition Leaders Criticise Shah's Remark that Speaking English In India Will Soon Evoke Shame
Some leaders pointed to the economic value of learning English, while others recalled India's linguistic diversity. New Delhi: A number of opposition politicians on Friday (June 20) expressed criticism of Union home minister Amit Shah's remarks that soon people would feel shame for speaking in English in India, saying that learning the language is economically useful and alleging that Shah was trying to undermine India's linguistic pluralism. Speaking at a book launch in Delhi, Shah on Thursday said that 'the building of a society where those who speak English in this country will feel shame is not far away now'. A 'foreign language' cannot be used to understand 'our country, its history, its traditions and our religions', said Shah, adding to express hope that despite the difficulty in doing so, Indian society would 'once again' run the country, think, conduct research and make decisions in 'our languages'. However, Lok Sabha leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi said English is 'as essential as your mother tongue because it will secure jobs [and] boost confidence', advocating for cherishing Indian languages while teaching English. He also alleged that the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh 'don't want India's poor children to learn English because they don't want you to ask questions, move forward or stand equal'. K. Kanimozhi, Rajya Sabha MP from the Tamil Nadu-based Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party that has resisted what it says is the 'imposition' of Hindi in the state, said that the 'only thing [one] should be ashamed of' is 'imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India', per a machine translation. R. Bindu, education minister of neighbouring Kerala, alleged that Shah was trying to impose Hindi when he spoke against English. The Hindu cited the Communist Party of India (Marxist) politician as saying that the home minister's remarks reflected his 'narrow politics' and, given that 'learning as many languages as possible would enhance one's knowledge', would 'narrow the global perspective of students'. P. Sandosh Kumar, Rajya Sabha MP for Kerala and member of the Communist Party of India, was quoted as saying by PTI that Shah was trying to 'stigmatise India's linguistic diversity and push the RSS-BJP's cultural majoritarianism'. Trinamool Congress leader Sagarika Ghose, who represents West Bengal in the Rajya Sabha, said Indians 'should not be 'ashamed' of ANY language'. 'Preposterous nonsense from Shri [Amit Shah]. 'English is a link language across India, [it's] aspirational, confers a global advantage and knowledge of English is demanded by millions,' she wrote on X.
