In Indian politics, the English word ‘Secularism’ implies anti-Hindu politics — particularly to appease Muslims and get their votes. It has absolutely no connection with what it means to the world – separation of State and Religion. Indian Constitution makers debated the Western ‘secularism’ but felt it would not suit Indian society. So, they did not use the words “secularism” or “secular” anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, looking at the liberal and accommodative Hindu way of life, they adopted its core trait, “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” — respect for all faiths. Such an idea would be unacceptable in a Christian or Muslim dominated societies because they consider other ideologies inferior. In contrast, the Hindu community is not phobic of faiths other than their own and they inherently accept presence of diverse philosophies.

But three decades later, during the dark-period of emergency rule, Indira Gandhi deliberately inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution. It was a pure political idea, and a nasty one, to further Congress Party’s Muslim appeasement politics. It gave a strong push to anti-Hindu politics and it became a fashion to be a ‘secular’ politician! But after Congress fell in the hands of an Italian fascist lady in the 1990s, anti-Hindu politics acquired very ugly dimensions.

Indian Politicians’ Perverted “Secularism”

It’s funny! How dividing Hindus on caste lines is called ‘social justice’, uniting Muslims is called ‘secularism’, uniting Christians is ‘assertion of minority rights’ but uniting Hindus is called ‘communalism’ in India. – Shefali Vaidya

In the amphitheater of India’s “secular” absurdity Muslims and Christians must dictate; Hindus must submit. It would embrace shari’ah, but not Gita or Vedas; it would glamorize Mecca and Vatican, but can’t even recognize Ayodhya or Kashi. It makes skull cap and namaj ‘secular’, but shuns yoga and meditation as ‘communal’!

Foreigners are amazed by Indian politicians and their unique ‘freestyle’ use of word ‘secularism’ to malign Hindus. Used to knowing secularism as separation or religion and State and Hinduism as a religion that inherently accommodates diversity, they just can’t understand why India’s ‘secular politicians’ donning Tilak on the forehead attack their own community and go into ‘secular silence’ when Hindus, Hindu culture and symbols are mocked. They are almost filled with disbelief when they discover that glorifying mass murderer Muslim kings of the Islamic dark-age is ‘secularism’, but even mention of Rajput, Sikh or Maratha heroes becomes politically incorrect!

The Nehruvian secularism is plainly an absurd anti-Hindu ideology. While it aims to appease the minority community, in reality it empowers no one and brings injustice to all. Instead of uniting Indian society, it has been sowing seeds of fragmentation and alienation. In India, the word ‘minority’ is synonymous with Muslims; but Christians can be added if needed. These two communities are the privileged minorities of India!

Until 70s, Indian politics was largely “minorityism” when Hindu interests were best treated through neglect. It was largely the “ignore-Hindu” brand secularism. Then in the dark period of Emergency, Indira Gandhi “deliberately” inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Constitution in 1976 — that the Constitution makers had avoided after much discussion. It was quite unusual because absolutely nothing had changed in the country in the Hindu-Muslim equation. But her intentions became clear in later years when the Congress politicians began to polarize the discourse into secular-communal debate. You are secular if you take pro-Muslim stance or anti-Hindu, else you are ‘communal’ – a bad adjective.

The ‘secular politics’ of Muslim “appeasement” was on open display in the mid 1980s during the Shah Bano case when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM. Two years later, he banned Salman Rushdie’s book Satanic Verses (which neither he, nor his colleagues nor protesting mullahs had read) – much before the Islamic world could act! What appeared to be “Muslim appeasement” was in reality just “maulvi appeasement” because they controlled Muslims votes. Congress politicians remained blind to the rights and dignity of Muslim women. When Jihadi Muslims drove away around 4 lakh Kashmiri Hindus from the Kashmir valley in late 1980s, a Kashmiri Muslim was India’s home minister and the ‘secular’ politicians remained in ‘secular silence’!

Indira Gandhi Added the Word ‘Secular’ in the Constitution in 1976

After independence, India began to be ruled by the Congress Party led by Jawaharlal Nehru, a self declared ‘accidental Hindu’. If the British groomed Muslims for their divisive communal agenda in the colonial period, post independence the Congress leaders replaced the British and started appeasing Indian Muslims for their vote bank politics. The majority Hindu community and its sentiments never interested Nehru or his party-men. They became mere numbers to be managed, keeping Muslim interests at the forefront.

Yet, despite special political attention to Muslims and Christians (in the name of ‘minority’ protection) the national politics by and large remained focused on larger issues – abject poverty and economic development – until early 1970s. In the 1971 Lok Sabha election, people even voted believing in Indira Gandhi’s famous slogan ‘garibi hatao’. But soon they realized that Indira Gandhi has betrayed them, as their economic conditions worsened. Their frustration manifested in the JP movement that engulfed the whole country. It was a period when, after winning the Bangladesh war in 1971, Indira Gandhi, had grown bigger than the State. Sycophant Congressis gave the slogan: India is Indira and Indira is India! And, today her half lunatic grandson, Raul Vinci, claims: I am Congress!!

Realizing her all round failures, she became paranoid and started behaving like a self-serving dictator. In order to maintain her grip on power, she started to weaken all pillars of democratic governance including the judiciary, by planting pliable individuals everywhere. Even the President was a puppet Muslim. When her own election was nullified by the Allahabad high court due to corruption, she imposed a ‘National Emergency’ in 1975 as if her political career is equivalent to national interest — and people lost all their democratic rights and freedoms.

It was in this dark period of emergency that Indira Gandhi inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of the Constitution through the controversial 42nd Constitutional Amendment, which came into effect from January 3, 1977.

On June 26, 1975, Indira Gandhi declared emergency and put all political opponents in jail. She initiated a series of Constitutional amendments to prolong her rule. The 38th amendment ensured that no judicial review of the Emergency could take place and the 39th amendment stated that the office of the prime minister could not be challenged by the Supreme Court, but only by a body constituted by the Parliament. Then came the 42nd amendment in 1976 which changed the description of India in the preamble from “sovereign, democratic republic’ to ‘sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.”

Did anything happen in the country from 1950 when the Constitution was enforced till the 42nd Amendment in 1976 that would necessitate bringing about a Constitution Amendment to incorporate the word “secular” in the Preamble of the Constitution? Absolutely NO. Justification for the 42nd Amendment was given in the “Statement of Objects and Reasons”. It reads:

“The question of amending the Constitution for removing the difficulties which had arisen in achieving the objective of socio-economic revolution, which would end poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity, had been engaging the active attention of government and the public for some years…It was, therefore, considered necessary to amend the Constitution to spell out expressly the high ideals of socialism, and integrity of the nation”.

It tells that the word ‘secular’ was inserted to ‘remove the difficulties’. It’s absolutely weird and senseless. “Emergency” was not imposed due to any Hindu-Muslim tension. People clearly understand that it was just another of her cheap gimmick to divert people’s attention from the pressing issues of poverty, inequality and utter lack of economic development — while furthering her divisive Muslim appeasement agenda.

Why Impose ‘Secularism’ on Hindus; They are Already Secular!

“Hinduism teaches us the tolerance and gentleness of mature mind, understanding spirit and a unifying, pacifying love for all human beings.” — Will Durant (1885 – 1981)

One thing that astonished Western thinkers is the lopsided importance given to the issue of minority protection in the post-independent India. They argue that the Hindu mindset and culture is inherently multi-theist, multi-cultural and naturally accepts diversity among people, so where is the need of asking them to be secular? They further argue:

If at all secularism has any relevance, it is only for Indian Muslims and Christians whose religions train them to discriminate against people who are not among them. Christians and Muslims are drilled to have bias against the people of other faith. Therefore, secularism should be only directed towards Indian Christians and Muslims. Asking Hindus to be secular is like asking the sun to give light!

Foreigners who know how Muslims forced partition of India in 1947 to get a separate “Islamic State”, Pakistan, find Hindus irrationally tolerant and forgiving. Many of them strongly feel that Hindus should have demanded massive compensations from both the Muslim and Christian communities for centuries of occupation, plunder and injustices done to them during the dark-ages of the Islamic rule and British period.

They ask: “Can you imagine the Jews giving special privileges to the Germans or Arabs in Israel?”

Secularism turned Totally “Anti-Hindu” Since 1990s

When fascist Antania Maino (who fools people by posing as Sonia Gandhi) became Congress President in the 1990s, Indian secularism turned squarely anti-Hindu. The Italian lady started the cult of demonizing Hindus. [eg, remember how she tried creating the false “Hindu Terror” narrative.]

Thus, the majority Hindus continued living as unimportant ‘ignored community.’ But then in the 1990s, the secular politicians became aggressive and Hindus became ‘undesired community.’ Indian secularism turned “anti-Hindu.” It became particularly evident after installation of Italy born Antania Maino (aka Sonia Gandhi) as “Royal Empress” of the Congress Party, who was alien to both Indians and Hindi language and avoided taking Indian citizenship until it appeared politically profitable. Her secular buddies taught her Hindi through phrases like “Maut Ka Saudagar” and her half mature son (Raul Vinci) picked up street slang like “Khoon Ki Dalali.” The mother-son duo has taken the political discourse to the filthiest levels, so much so that their anti-Hindu tirade often goes too far when it begins to sound anti-India. [‘Secular’ Riots of India]

The self-declared secular politicians are today the biggest threat to India’s integrity. Their vote-bank gimmicks have emboldened the isolationist and separatist tendencies in the Muslim community. Already there are regions in West Bengal, UP and Bihar where Muslims have local majority, in many such areas they try imposing sharia.

And then, … they come out to claim that the “secular fabric” of the country is weakening because Hindus are “intolerant”!

Appeasement at its Worst in India

You may also like to explore:

India’s ‘Unity in Diversity’ is Unique in the World

World Needs More Dharma, less Religion

