In ancient India, the people had freedom of religion, and the State granted citizenship to each individual regardless of whether someone's religion was Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other. Ashoka, 2200 years ago, and Harsha, 1400 years ago, accepted and patronised different religions. One of Ashoka's Rock Edicts of 250 BC reads:" There should not be the honour of one's own religious sect and condemnation of others without any grounds." Ellora cave temples, built between the 5th and 10th centuries, testify to the coexistence of religions and a spirit of acceptance of different faiths.

Pandit Nehru's unwavering commitment saw India establish secularism within the democratic framework. It is one of his finest legacies. If India remained a secular democracy, preserving its unity and integrity, we owe it to him. Communalism and majoritarianism had no place in his thinking. He nourished secularism with the objective of ensuring respect for religious diversity, focusing on nation-building tasks.

He visualised India as one nation where all individuals and communities could live peacefully as equals. He unequivocally condemned the communalism of the Hindus and the Muslims. In his letter to Chief Ministers (heads of provincial governments) dated November 22 1947, he cautioned: "The danger to us is not so much external as internal. Reactionary forces and communal organisations are trying to disrupt the structure of free India."

And in another letter dated December 7, 1947, he drew a stunning analogy of the communal organisations in India to the German Nazis: "It is amazing how they carry on this communal propaganda in its extremist form. I have some knowledge of the way the Nazi movement developed in Germany. It attracted by its superficial trappings and strict discipline, considerable numbers of lower middle-class young men and women who are normally not too intelligent and for whom life appeared to offer little to attract them. And so they drifted towards the Nazi party because its policy and programme, such as they were, were simple, negative and did not require an active effort of the mind."

Anantasayanam Ayyangar, a member of the Constituent Assembly, moved a Resolution in the Assembly on April 3, 1948: "Whereas it is essential for the proper functioning of democracy and the growth of national unity and solidarity that communalism should be eliminated from Indian life, this Assembly is of the opinion that no communal organisation which by its constitution or by the exercise of discretionary power vested in any of its officers or organs, admits to or excludes from its membership persons on the grounds of religion, race and caste, or any of them, should be permitted to engage in any activities other than those essential for the bona fide religious, cultural, social and educational needs of the community…"

While participating in the debate, Nehru said: "We have seen, as a matter of fact, how far communalism in politics has led us; all of us remember the grave dangers through which we have passed and the terrible consequences we have seen. In any event, now there is no alternative; and we must have it clearly in our minds and in the minds of the country that the alliances of religion and politics in the shape of communalism are a most dangerous alliance, and they yield the most abnormal kind of illegitimate brood…the combination of politics and of religion is a most dangerous combination…it is harmful to the majority… it is most harmful to any minority that seeks to have some advantage from it." The Resolution was adopted by the Assembly.

To Nehru, secularism does not mean the State is irreligious or opposed to religion. It is the right to freedom of religion. It simply means equality of all faiths, the separation of religion from the governance of the State, and the State not associating or patronising any particular religion. It is not appeasement of minorities. It is protecting and creating a sense of security and belonging among the minority communities, particularly the Muslims, considering the communal carnage after the partition, as he believed that unless all communities learn to co-exist and live in peace and harmony, it would be difficult to sustain the hard-earned freedom and maintain the unity and integrity of India and transform it into a robust modern nation-state, occupying its rightful place in the community of nations.

India was divided in 1947 because of sectarianism. In a broadcast to the nation on October 2, 1048, Nehru said: "I am proud of my country…of my faith in her today and my belief that she will stand for truth and freedom and the higher things of life…we will not tolerate any communalism in this country and that we are building a free, secular State, where every religion and belief has full freedom and equal honor, where every citizen has equal liberty and equal opportunity." 

The fundamental principle is that in India, which has many faiths and religions, no real nationalism can be built up except based on secularity, and we have to build a true nationalism, integrating the country's various parts, creeds and religions.

How the people are polarised and communal sentiments are aroused during the elections; the National Registration of Citizens (NRC) sought to be enforced; the method adopted to abolish the special status of Jammu & Kashmir -which was show-cased to demonstrate to the world how a Muslim majority state could opt to remain with the Indian Union, refusing to accede to the Muslim Pakistan- and dismembered it; the discriminatory Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) is brought about, denying Indian citizenship to the Muslim immigrants; cow vigilantism and mob violence; promoting majoritarianism by projecting the majority community as a victim; and now states bringing the anti 'love-jihad' legislations to curb inter-faith marriages - all these indicate erosion of Nehruvian secularism that serves as a glue to hold the multi-religious and cultural society together.

A question is repeatedly asked: Why can't a secular India have a uniform civil code? Secularism is dubbed as "pseudo-secularism" and "appeasement" of Muslims. Yes, India should have a uniform civil code concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc., applicable to all communities. In fact, the Directive Principles of State Policy- Article 44 of the Constitution- lay down that "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The reason why the Nehru government could not bring about a uniform civil code while enacting the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act in the 1950s was that the situation following the partition was so volatile and surcharged atmosphere of communal frenzy it wasn't desirable to touch the Muslim Personal Law. However, Nehru felt that the majority community should set an example for the minorities by codifying their personal laws. Therefore, what is needed to bring a uniform civil code is persuasion, dialogue, and discussion to build a consensus with the stakeholders; imposing it will lead to unpleasant repercussions.

The Congress party, which is supposed to be committed to the Gandhian-Nehruvian ideals and the values of the freedom movement, is also guilty of diluting the Nehruvian secularism for party politics. The Anthony Committee reported to have observed that the Hindus are moving away from the Congress because they think the party is "appeasing minorities", particularly the Muslims. This is not true, as protecting and safeguarding the interests of minorities is not appeasement. The majority of Hindus are secular and liberal and expect the party to stick to its core ideology of secularism, not go by political expediency, and take on the communal forces head-on. The party needs conviction and unwavering commitment to its ideology, speaking in one voice. As Nehru saw it, secularism is an article of faith to preserve the unity and integrity of India and its constitutional democracy. If the party subscribes to 'soft Hindutva', fearing the Hindu backlash, it will further weaken its support base, leading to more ignominious electoral defeats. The party should realise it is an ideological war-Nehruvian secularism Vs political Hindutva.

Dr G. Ramachandram, moulded in the Nehruvian and Gandhian ideals and values, is a man of deep convictions and impeccable personal integrity. He holds a first-class Master's in Political Science from Bombay.Dr G. Ramachandram, moulded in the Nehruvian and Gandhian ideals and values, is a man of deep convictions and impeccable personal integrity. He holds a first-class Master's in Political Science from Bombay.