The recent observations of the Bombay High Court concerning Diwali celebrations and secularism have once again brought the meaning of Indian secularism into public and constitutional discourse. The controversy arose after an environmental awareness video featuring actor Dia Mirza, intended to highlight the harmful effects of firecrackers during Diwali, was removed from the social media platforms of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). During the hearing, a Division Bench comprising Justice Girish S. Kulkarni and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale questioned whether India was not a secular country. The Court observed that no individual should be excluded from participating in the celebration of a festival merely on account of belonging to a particular religion. Environmental protection, the Bench emphasised, was a common concern transcending religious and community boundaries, since everyone breathes the same air.
These observations provide an important opportunity to revisit a fundamental constitutional question: What does secularism mean in the Indian context? Does it imply the exclusion of religion and spirituality from public life, or does Indian secularism possess its own distinct cultural, philosophical and civilizational foundations?
It is particularly important for the present generation, especially members of the judiciary and those occupying constitutional offices, to revisit the debates and deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. Constitutional interpretation cannot be divorced from the historical circumstances, philosophical convictions and intellectual discussions that accompanied the making of the Constitution.
In this context, the debate of 27 December 1948, concerning Amendment No. 1146 moved in the name of H. V. Kamath, deserves particular attention. The amendment proposed a modification in the prescribed form of oath or affirmation under Article 49 of the Draft Constitution. Kamath suggested that the words, "In the name of God, I, A. B., do swear" should be incorporated, while retaining the alternative of making a solemn affirmation without invoking God's name.
What makes this debate particularly significant is that the proposal did not remain merely an expression of an individual member's opinion. The amendment, as modified during the discussion, was put to vote and adopted by the Constituent Assembly. The Vice-President announced, "The amendment was adopted." Subsequently, Article 49, as amended, was also adopted. Thus, the provision expressly recognising an oath in the name of God, alongside the alternative of solemn affirmation, became part of the constitutional framework. The corresponding provision in the Constitution of India is now reflected in Article 60, concerning the oath or affirmation by the President.
This decision is significant because the Constituent Assembly accommodated both the right of an individual to invoke God while taking an oath and the freedom of another individual to make a solemn affirmation without such invocation. It recognised the coexistence of religious faith and freedom of conscience within the constitutional framework.
While advocating his proposal, Kamath spoke passionately about the relationship between God and human existence. He observed that the more human beings attempted to flee from God, the more persistently God pursued them. In this connection, he referred to the celebrated poem The Hound of Heaven by Francis Thompson, which describes an individual attempting to escape from God through the nights, days and long corridors of the years, only to discover that God's pursuit remains constant and unrelenting. The poet writes:
"I fled Him down the nights
And down the days,
I fled Him down the arches of the years..."
Kamath further strengthened his argument by referring to statements made by prominent national leaders. He recalled that President Dr. Rajendra Prasad, in his Independence Day broadcast, had acknowledged that India had won its freedom with the help of God and under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. He also referred to the oath taken by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in Singapore as the leader of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, beginning with the words, "In the name of God, I solemnly pledge." He further recalled Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's expression of gratitude to God for the establishment of relatively stable conditions in the country.
Through these examples, Kamath sought to demonstrate that spiritual consciousness and faith in God had remained integral to India's national life and freedom struggle.
He reminded the Assembly that India was the inheritor of an immortal spiritual heritage. This heritage, according to him, was neither physical nor material nor temporal; it was a heritage of the spirit, eternal in its existence and significance. Referring to Swami Vivekananda, he called upon India to aspire to conquer the world spiritually and illuminate the path of humanity. He concluded this part of his address by recalling the famous words associated with Mahatma Gandhi:
"Ishwar Allah tere nam,
Sabko sanmati de Bhagvan."
This invocation symbolised the spirit of harmony, mutual respect and accommodation among different religious traditions.
The most significant aspect of Kamath's intervention was his interpretation of secularism. He criticised those politicians who, in their attempt to imitate fashionable Western slogans, had come to believe that God was taboo in a secular State. According to him, a secular State did not necessarily mean a State that denied God or excluded spiritual values from public life. Rather, it meant a State founded upon truth, God and eternal values, without prejudice towards any particular religion.
He emphasised that India's culture, policies and civilisation had evolved around a profound spiritual consciousness. If God were banished from this civilizational framework, he questioned, what would Swaraj ultimately mean for India?
Reflecting upon his participation in the freedom struggle, Kamath stated that he and countless other Indians had struggled for nearly thirty years for Swaraj. However, the Swaraj of his conception was not confined to political independence. It was Ram Rajya. He argued that India's real anguish was not merely the loss of political freedom but also the erosion of its spiritual freedom.
To illustrate what he considered a misinterpretation of secularism, Kamath referred to a conference of All India Radio officials where, according to his statement, a decision had been taken to discontinue the recitation of the Gita, Ramayana, Quran and Bible. Questioning such an approach, he asked whether political freedom would have any meaningful value if children in India were deprived of the opportunity to become familiar with these spiritual and religious traditions. In a particularly striking expression, he observed that if God were banished from Ram Rajya, India would become Ayodhya without Ram.
Kamath also referred to the practice followed in the British Parliament, where parliamentary proceedings commence after prayers. He argued that the observance of prayers did not make Britain a communal State. Similarly, he referred to Ireland and other countries where public life had not entirely excluded the acknowledgement of God.
Concluding his argument, Kamath maintained that India believed in God and that its spiritual faith deserved recognition in public life. According to his understanding, the Indian State should not become a godless State; rather, it should remain guided by spiritual consciousness and moral values. This, he maintained, was the Indian meaning of secularism.
The significance of this debate extends far beyond the question of the form of oath or affirmation. The adoption of Amendment No. 1146 demonstrates that the Constituent Assembly consciously accommodated the invocation of God alongside the freedom to affirm without religious invocation.
The recent observations of the Bombay High Court provide an occasion to revisit these historical deliberations. The Constitution must be understood not merely through contemporary political interpretations or isolated expressions, but also through the debates, arguments and intellectual foundations upon which it was framed.
It is therefore essential for the present generation, particularly judges, constitutional scholars, legislators and members of public institutions, to study the Constituent Assembly Debates with an open and informed mind. A proper appreciation of Indian secularism requires an understanding of constitutional impartiality alongside India's historical, cultural and philosophical inheritance.
The Constituent Assembly debate of 27 December 1948 reminds us that Indian secularism was a subject of serious constitutional deliberation from the very beginning. The adoption of an oath in the name of God, while retaining the alternative of solemn affirmation, is a significant part of that constitutional history. Revisiting these debates is not merely an exercise in constitutional history; it is an essential step towards understanding India's constitutional and civilizational identity.
The author is an advocate practising before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. Views expressed are personal.
