Pandit Nehru was against the word secular in the constitution, later his/her daughter Indira included it, now why has the debate started again

New Delhi : A statement by Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has sparked a new debate on secularism. he/she said that India does not need secularism, it is a concept of Europe. his/her statement has been condemned by all opposition parties including the Congress. CPM leader Brinda Karat criticized him/her and said that this statement is ‘worrisome’ and shows that ‘the Constitution has no special value for him/her’. However, it is also true that the word secularism was not mentioned anywhere in the original Indian Constitution. Pandit Nehru himself was against it but the word secular was added to the preamble of the Constitution by his/her own daughter Indira Gandhi.What did the Governor of Tamil Nadu say
Now let’s look at what Governor Ravi said, which has caused controversy. During a program, the Tamil Nadu Governor said that secularism is a European concept. he/she said, ‘Many frauds have been committed with the people of this country, one of them is the wrong interpretation of secularism that they have tried to do. What does secularism mean? Secularism is a European concept, it is not an Indian concept.’

Ravi further said, ‘Secularism came to Europe because there was a fight between the church and the king…how can India stay away from religion? Secularism is a European concept and let it remain that way. There is no need for secularism in India.’

There was a debate in the Constituent Assembly about the word secularism
When the Indian Constitution was taking shape, there was a heated debate in the Constituent Assembly about it. The debate was what the Constitution would be like? What would be its nature? There was a debate about the word secular. On 15 November 1948, Constituent Assembly member Professor KT Shah formally demanded that the word secular be added to the Constitution. The words secular, federalist, socialist should be added. But his/her proposal was not agreed upon. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar were also against adding the word secular.

Nehru and Ambedkar were also opposed to including the word secular
In the Constituent Assembly debates, Pandit Nehru and Dr. BR Ambedkar were the most vocal opponents of making the word ‘secular’ a part of the Preamble or the Constitution. Both were staunch advocates of secularism but were equally strongly opposed to including the word secular in the Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar argued that there was no need to include the word ‘secular’ because the entire Constitution is based on the concept of a secular state, which means that there is no discrimination of any kind on the basis of religion and all citizens have equal rights.

Ambedkar said, ‘What should be the policy of the state, how should society be organised in its social and economic aspects, these are matters on which people themselves should decide according to time and circumstances. This cannot be kept in the Constitution itself because it is completely destroying democracy.’ The result was that the word secular was not included anywhere in the Constitution but to increase the spirit of secularism, the Constituent Assembly added Articles 25, 26 and 27. Overall, the soul of the Constitution remained secular but without mentioning the word secular or secularism. Anyway, equality means no discrimination of any kind. If all citizens have equal rights, then it also means that everyone should be treated equally, everyone should have equal rights without any discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, region, colour or any other kind.

Nehru was against it but his/her own daughter added the words in the preamble
Look at the irony that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was opposed to adding the word secular in the constitution, but his/her daughter Indira Gandhi later made this word a part of the preamble. When emergency was imposed in the country, Indira Gandhi added the words ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ in the preamble of the constitution through the 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976. However, it cannot be denied that in the name of secularism, the trend of opportunistic politics and appeasement of a particular class has increased. Some critics have also been expressing concern that the word secular can be misinterpreted and misused.