Secularism in India: Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar and Beyond
Introduction
Secularism in India is different from the strict separation of religion and state associated with some Western models. India is a religiously diverse society, and therefore the Constitution attempts to maintain religious freedom while also allowing the state to intervene when religion conflicts with equality, social reform and fundamental rights.
The Indian debate on secularism can broadly be understood through different perspectives: Gandhian secularism, Nehruvian secular-liberalism, Ambedkar’s constitutional approach, the Hindu-nationalist critique, and the contemporary scholarly debate on Indian secularism. These perspectives differ mainly on one question: Should the state remain completely separate from religion, treat all religions equally, or actively intervene in religious practices to protect equality and reform?
1. Gandhian Perspective: Sarva Dharma Sambhava
Mahatma Gandhi understood secularism not as hostility towards religion but as equal respect for all religions. He believed religion was an important part of public and moral life.
His idea is often expressed through “Sarva Dharma Sambhava”, meaning equal respect for all religions.
For Gandhi, religion could contribute to morality and public life, but the state should not establish or privilege one religion. He therefore advocated religious tolerance, inter-faith harmony and respect for different faiths.
However, Gandhi’s understanding was not simply about keeping religion outside politics. He believed politics without morality could become corrupt, and therefore ethical values derived from religion could influence political action.
Relationship between religion and state:
- No religious domination by the state
- Equal respect for different religions
- Religion can provide ethical values for public life
Thus, Gandhian secularism is based more on principled coexistence of religions than on strict separation.
2. Nehruvian Perspective: Secularism, Modernity and Scientific Temper
Jawaharlal Nehru viewed secularism more strongly through the ideas of modernity, rationalism and scientific temper. He was concerned that communalism could weaken national unity and democratic politics.
For Nehru, the state should not be governed according to religious principles. Citizens should enjoy equal rights irrespective of their religion.
The Nehruvian model therefore emphasised:
- Separation of state institutions from religious authority
- Equal citizenship
- Opposition to communal politics
- Scientific temper and rationality
- Protection of minority rights
However, Indian secularism under Nehru was not identical to complete separation. The state could intervene in religious institutions and practices where necessary for social reform.
Relationship between religion and state:
The state should maintain institutional neutrality, but it can regulate religious practices when issues of equality, reform or public order are involved.
3. Ambedkar’s Perspective: Constitutional Secularism and Social Reform
B.R. Ambedkar approached secularism primarily through the principles of constitutional morality, individual rights and social equality.
For Ambedkar, merely declaring all religions equal was insufficient if religious practices themselves reproduced caste inequality and social oppression.
This is important because the Indian Constitution protects freedom of religion under Articles 25–28, but this freedom is subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights. The Constitution also permits the state to undertake social welfare and reform.
Ambedkar therefore provides a perspective in which religious freedom cannot be used to deny constitutional equality. This approach creates space for state intervention in practices that violate equality and dignity.
Relationship between religion and state:
- The state is not completely separated from religion.
- It protects religious freedom.
- At the same time, it can intervene for social reform and equality.
Thus, Ambedkar’s approach places the Constitution above religious authority when the two come into conflict.
4. Hindu-Nationalist Perspective: Critique of Indian Secularism
Thinkers associated with Hindu nationalism, particularly V.D. Savarkar, challenged the dominant understanding of secularism.
Savarkar’s idea of Hindutva was primarily framed in terms of cultural and national identity rather than simply religious belief. He argued that Indian nationalism should be connected to a common civilisational-cultural identity.
Later Hindu-nationalist critiques have often argued that Indian secularism has sometimes resulted in what they describe as “pseudo-secularism”, where governments are accused of treating different religious communities differently for political purposes.
From this perspective, the ideal relationship between religion and state should be based on equal treatment rather than selective accommodation.
Relationship between religion and state:
- Criticism of state policies that appear to favour particular communities
- Emphasis on common national/cultural identity
- Preference for equal citizenship rather than community-based political accommodation
This perspective differs from Gandhi’s because it does not primarily emphasise equal respect for different religions; instead, it gives greater importance to national-cultural unity and uniform citizenship.
5. Rajeev Bhargava: “Principled Distance”
Political theorist Rajeev Bhargava provides one of the most important contemporary interpretations of Indian secularism.
He argues that Indian secularism cannot simply copy the Western model of “strict separation” because Indian society has historically been deeply religious and socially diverse.
Instead, Bhargava proposes the idea of “principled distance.”
According to this approach, the state should maintain a flexible distance from different religions. It may intervene in religion when intervention is necessary to protect constitutional values, but it may also refrain from intervention when religious autonomy deserves protection.
For example, the state can intervene against discriminatory practices while simultaneously protecting minority religious rights.
Key Difference: Western vs Indian Secularism
The classical Western idea is often represented as:
- Religion → Private sphere
- State → Public sphere
- Minimal interaction
Indian secularism follows a more complex model:
- Religious diversity → State neutrality + religious freedom + possible intervention
Therefore, Indian secularism is sometimes described as “principled engagement” rather than complete separation.
Conclusion
The Indian debate on secularism does not revolve simply around whether religion should be separated from the state. Rather, it asks how the state should manage religious diversity while protecting equality, liberty and minority rights.
Gandhi emphasised equal respect for religions, Nehru emphasised modernity and a secular state, Ambedkar prioritised constitutional equality and social reform, Hindu-nationalist thinkers questioned the practice of community-based accommodation, while Rajeev Bhargava conceptualised Indian secularism through “principled distance.”
Thus, the distinctive feature of Indian secularism is that it combines religious freedom with constitutional intervention. The state is neither completely detached from religion nor controlled by it; its relationship with religion is shaped by the constitutional goals of equality, liberty, justice and pluralism.
⭐ For a class test, remember this line:
“Western secularism tends to emphasise separation, whereas Indian secularism seeks a constitutional balance between religious freedom, equal citizenship and state intervention for social justice.”