Indian Secularism Is Beyond Mohan Bhagwat

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat’s claim that secularism is a foreign, modern concept incompatible with India’s civilizational dharma collapses under historical scrutiny, theoretical critique, and the imperative of non-majoritarian equality 

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent assertions at the ‘Yuva Dharma Sansad’ in Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, have once again brought the contentious debate over secularism to the forefront of Indian public discourse. Cautioning young people against hubris and the illusion of human control, Bhagwat pivoted to a sweeping ideological claim: that secularism is a "modern" concept fundamentally incompatible with India’s traditional understanding of society, religion, and the state. In Bhagwat's reading, Western secularism emerged as a historical byproduct of a bloody, protracted power struggle between medieval European monarchs and the Church. Because India traditionally viewed life holistically through the lens of dharma – seeking both material prosperity and inner liberation from anger, greed, and jealousy – Bhagwat argues that secularism has no native root in the Indian context. He boldly asserts that "whenever India was governed by Indians, the country followed the path of dharma". 

By reducing secularism to a caricatured Western import born of ecclesiastical friction, Bhagwat creates a convenient straw man. His argument relies on dismissing modern constitutional protections to pave the way for an all-encompassing, majoritarian framework of dharma. Yet, when subjected to historical facts, and the internal contradictions of Bhagwat's own logic, this civilisational defence of majoritarianism unravels entirely. Secularism is neither foreign to Indian soil nor antithetical to its pluralistic ethos; rather, it is the ultimate safeguard against the tyranny of religious hegemony. 

The indigenous roots of secularism  

Bhagwat’s core thesis rests on the premise that pre-modern Indian governance was governed exclusively by a singular, cohesive conception of dharma that somehow bypassed the need for secular statecraft. This assertion requires a profound amnesia regarding India’s actual, multifaceted history. Long before the modern nation-state was conceptualised in Europe, Indian emperors, kings, and dynasties grappled with internal pluralism and devised sophisticated mechanisms of state-level neutrality and inter-religious accommodation. 

Consider the 3rd century BCE. Ashoka, one of the most consequential monarchs in ancient Indian history, grappled with a deeply diverse population spanning various sects, philosophies, and belief systems. Far from imposing a singular, majoritarian dharma or establishing a sectarian order, Ashoka utilised his royal edicts to institutionalise cross-sectarian respect. In his 12th Rock Edict, Ashoka explicitly declared: "His Sacred Majesty the King does reverence to men of all sects, whether ascetics or householders, by gifts and various forms of reverence." Furthermore, Ashoka cautioned that a person who extols his own sect while disparaging another out of devotion actually severely injures his own sect. This was not modern secularism, true, but an ancient, indigenous template of state-level pluralism and public neutrality that directly contradicts Bhagwat’s claim that native Indian governance was uniformly exclusionary or monocultural.

Centuries later, the Vijayanagara Empire – often invoked by nationalist ideologues as a golden age of indigenous Hindu sovereignty – demonstrated an equally sophisticated administrative pragmatism. King Deva Raya II (1424–1446 CE) maintained a remarkably inclusive court culture that accommodated Muslim commanders, diplomats, and royal visitors. Demonstrating a profound cultural sensitivity, Deva Raya II reportedly kept a copy of the Quran on a low stool before his throne during court proceedings. This allowed Muslim dignitaries to interact with and offer obeisance in the presence of the sovereign without the religious embarrassment or theological compromise of bowing down to a monarch they considered an infidel.

The self-deceiving trap

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1954) states that “secularism is wholly unconcerned with the unknown world and its interpretation. It deals with the known world, interpreted by experience and neither offers nor forbids any opinion regarding another life". This view is naturally in stark ideological contrast to the view espoused by Mohan Bhagwat.

While Bhagwat champions dharma as an inclusive umbrella that naturally fosters peaceful co-existence, his argument collapses under the weight of India’s actual religious landscape. India is home to radically divergent theological traditions not limited to Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, various tribal and animist belief systems, and extensive atheist and agnostic currents. Each hold views on creation, salvation, the nature of the divine, and the "unknown world." 

To claim that all these traditions can be unproblematically harmonised under a single, overarching algorithm of dharma is self-deceiving. When a dominant political ideology insists that dharma is the sole legitimate framework for Indian public and private life, it inevitably flattens theological differences and subsumes minority identities into a majoritarian worldview. What one tradition venerates as absolute truth, another may view differently, and non-believers reject entirely.

By dismissing secularism, Bhagwat’s worldview strips away the neutral constitutional referee that keeps the playing field level. In a multi-religious democracy, an amorphous civilisational dharma defined by the majority is not an impartial canopy but something that lends itself to the hegemony of Brahmanical Hinduism. Minority communities and dissenters are reduced to second-class citizens tolerated only at the grace of a majoritarian consensus.

The need for freedom from religion

To understand why secularism remains indispensable to the Indian experiment, one must turn to the incisive frameworks offered by political theorists like Rajeev Bhargava. In his seminal essay 'India’s Secular Constitution,' published in India’s Living Constitution (2002), Bhargava cuts through the semantic confusion surrounding secularism, offering a definition that addresses precisely what majoritarian critics choose to ignore: 

"A secular state is not anti-religious but exists and survives only when religion is no longer hegemonic. It admits a general equality between believers and unbelievers. It secures peace not only between different kinds of religious believers but between believers and non-believers. It legally sanctions freedoms for all religions but also freedom from religion itself."

Bhargava’s formulation exposes the core blind spot in Mohan Bhagwat’s rhetoric. Secularism is neither an attack on spirituality nor a blind imitation of Western anti-clericalism. It is a structural necessity that activates when religious institutions or majoritarian ideologies attempt to claim cultural and political hegemony. 

By securing equality between believers and unbelievers, secularism ensures that the state does not become the instrument of any single religious orthodoxy.

Key is the fact that Bhargava also highlights a legal and moral guarantee that majoritarian ideologies inherently reject: freedom from religion itself. In a truly free society, an individual must have the right to dissent, to question dogma, to live free from religious coercion, and to step outside the bounds of traditional communal identities without facing social ostracisation or state-backed marginalisation. 

Reclaiming the secular republic

Bhagwat’s dismissal of secularism as an alien concept is a rhetorical manoeuvre designed to legitimise cultural majoritarianism. His worldview attempts to dismantle the foundational pillar that holds India's staggering diversity together. 

India does not need to abandon its rich civilisational history to remain secular. Its own history proves that accommodation and respect have deep indigenous roots.

Faisal C.K. is deputy law secretary to the government of Kerala and author of The Supreme Codex: A Citizen’s Anxieties and Aspirations on the Indian Constitution.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.