Sadguru Nilesh Singbal, Dharmapracharak of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), has argued that the term “secular” in the Indian Constitution is unconstitutional and that any attempt to remove it would require the formal procedure under Article 368 alongside an ideological struggle. Framed within India’s ongoing constitutional discourse, this position invites a sober, evidence-based examination of how “secularism,” “Dharma,” and civilizational ethos are understood in law, society, and public philosophyparticularly in ways that reinforce unity among the dharmic traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.
From a legal standpoint, the Preamble’s language evolved during the 42nd Amendment (1976), when “secular” and “socialist” were added. Article 368 sets out the amendment procedure, typically requiring special parliamentary majorities and, for certain matters, ratification by at least half the states. Subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudencemost notably the basic structure doctrine articulated in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and the affirmation of secularism in S. R. Bommai (1994)has treated secularism as intrinsic to the constitutional architecture. Any proposal that touches the Preamble must therefore be evaluated against this established doctrine, ensuring that national integration, equal citizenship, and freedom of conscience remain non-negotiable.
Within public conversation, “Hindu Rashtra” is often interpreted in multiple ways. A constructive, dharmic reading understands it not as a theocratic state, but as a cultural-civilizational framework grounded in Dharmaembracing the shared ethical streams of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. In this sense, sarva dharma sambhavaequal respect for all pathsaligns with India’s lived pluralism and can coexist with constitutional commitments to non-discrimination, religious freedom, and unity in diversity. Approached through this inclusive lens, ideological debates need not polarize; they can clarify how a dharmic ethos supports harmony and constitutionalism together.
Everyday life in India already reflects this ethos: neighborhoods where Diwali, Vesak, Guru Nanak Jayanti, and Mahavir Jayanti are celebrated side by side; schools that teach ahiṁsā, karuṇā, satya, and seva as shared virtues; and civic spaces where families of different traditions collaborate for the common good. These lived experiences suggest that constitutional language and societal practice are most effective when they reinforce each otherstrengthening unity while protecting the dignity and rights of every community.
In this context, the “ideological struggle” referenced by Sadguru Nilesh Singbal can be understood as a call for rigorous scholarship, open dialogue, and civic engagementrather than confrontation. Constructive pathways include constitutional literacy, research-based debate, and policy design that upholds freedom of conscience, safeguards minorities, and encourages interfaith cooperation within the bounds of the Constitution. Such an approach honors both the rule of law and the dharmic commitment to social harmony.
Ultimately, the current debate presents an opportunity: to articulate how Indian secularismunderstood as principled state neutrality and equal respect for all faithscan be enriched by dharmic pluralism. Any constitutional deliberation must preserve the basic structure, promote unity among dharmic traditions, and ensure that every citizen’s rights are protected. By centering shared ethical values and inclusive Dharma, public discourse can move beyond zero-sum narratives toward a deeper integration of civilizational wisdom with constitutional fidelity.
Inspired by this post on Hindu Jagruti Samiti.
