"If you want to see the future, you must look into the past" 

The one thing that is most peculiar about India is it's balancing nature. Politically we had always kept equal distance between the blocks, western and eastern. Non alignment movement thus proves to one of the confounding grouping ever seen in an international arena. This balancing tendency can be seen in the making of our own constitution. It is neither rigid nor flexible, neither unitary nor federal and where separation of powers is demarcated properly. Yet one of the most heated debates in constitutional assembly were regarding the nature of constitution towards religion and how secularism can be moulded into Indian context. A country such as India where religion is deeply rooted in all spheres of life including governance and public life, the design of western secularism seemed impractical. A complete separation of state with religion is never a choice. We are the people who aligned themselves behind a great man who proclaimed the "Ram Rajya" and "Vasudeva kudumbakam." His ideology were as simple as that. Accepting every religion in same philosophical sense. "Ishwar allah tere naam, sabko sanmathi dhe bhagavan" was his ideology and we graciously followed that. Naturally we decided to stick on with our own version of secularism thus making it a confused and controversial subject in India's discourse. The term has taken on several different meanings over time and now has little to do with any unbiased form of government or removal of religion from politics. It eventually came to mean keeping Indic ideas and insights out of political discourse. 

"Secularism in the Constitution"

There are several departures in the Indian constitution from the model of western secularism. Article 25, which enshrines the right to individual freedom of religion,  also empowers the state to intervene in Hindu religious institutions. Then the entire section of freedom of equality provides safety net against marginalisation based on religion. Finally, there are personal laws in place for different religious communities, along with a non justifiable directive principle of state policy demanding the need of a uniform civil code in future. 

"Secularism making a U turn"

By 1970s there were many debates regarding the secular nature of Indian polity. Even though the Government introduced "Secular" into the preamble of the constitution through 42nd amendment act, the events followed created a vortex of paradoxes. The executive sought to capitalize on religious differences in several blatantly cynical ways which included promoting secessionist sikhs like Bhindranwale against Akali dal and appeasement policies towards vishwa hindu parishad. The next term continued these policies in issues like Shah bano and Ayodhya dispute which culminated in the demolition of Babri Masjid. 

"Role of Supreme court"

The supreme court is the final interpretor of the Constitution. Through Keshavananth Bharathi judgement in 1973, supreme court had invoked the "Basic structure doctrine" which safeguards the constitution from amendment beyond it's basic structure. In the wake of Babri Masjid demolition, supreme court declared secularism as a part of basic structure through Bommai judgement. But from time to time court has interpreted the priority of rights which formed the basis of Shabarimala verdict providing right to equality priority against right to religion. 

"Uniform civil code vs Right to Religion" 

A uniform civil code seeks to provide one law for the entire country, for all religious communities in their personal matters including marriage and divorce. This will ensure the principle of gender justice and freedom of choice. But the stand against personal laws which are integral part of every religion and culture is against the very nature of Indianism that is plurality and diversity. The debate and the inclination of the respective Governments can drive us either way in the wide spectrum of Indian secularism. 

"Today's secularism - Hinduism and Hindutva"

V D Savarkar coined the word Hindutva to describe the quality of being a Hindu in ethnic, cultural and political identities. From there ,there has been many depictions many variations , many interpretations of the word Hindutva. Many of them includes the idea of ultra nationalism and fundamentalist approach on cultural symbols of Hindu ideology. Some of them profess the idea of Hindu dharma as a source of enriching philosophy which ensures sanatan. The former interpretation creates a sense of hostility while the latter a sense of amity. 

These interpretations naturally evolved into new grounds which connected Hindutva ideology to ruling Governments to Hindu vigilantism including Gau Rakshak and ghar vapsi. The growing tensions in one community will eventually result in similar tensions in other which has now taken the shape of communal indifferences. 

The future of Indian polity can only be assured with clear distinction between the state and religion and limiting the executive in the spheres of religion. May be this is high time that we look into the western secular approaches and make actions beyond any vote bank politics to safeguard the law of the land and the land itself.