Why constitution needs to be read in entirety to understand secularism?

India is witnessing a growth of intolerance in the society and insecurity among the minority communities whether India is really secular and recently statements by an elected representative put this question in the forefront again.

According to some, India has never been a secular state because the Constitution, as it was originally adopted, did not contain the word “secular”. They also point to B.R. Ambedkar’s pointed rejection of proposals during the Constitution’s drafting to have the word “secular” included in the Preamble.
However, secularism is inbuilt in the foundations of constitutionalism.

Constitution doesn’t acquire its secular character merely from the words in the Preamble, but from a collective reading of many of its provisions, particularly the various fundamental rights that it guarantees.
Other provisions included in the Constitution which show the secular nature of it are:
1. Freedom of Religion as guaranteed under article 25, 26,27 and 28, supporting the idea of practicing any religious practice as long as it does not harm the social and moral order of society.
2. Article 29 and 30 provides special protection to religious minorities and their educational institutions.
3. Article 44 in DPSP makes a constitutional obligation on State to bring uniform civil code.
4. Article 51A call upon the citizens to upholds principles of fraternity and brotherhood, and to endure religious diversities.

Not mentioning secular word in the constitution was not on account of any scepticism that the drafters might have had on the values of secularism. The assembly virtually took for granted India’s secular status.

Constitutional makers felt that any republic that purports to grant equality before the law to all its citizens, that purports to recognise people’s rights to free speech, to a freedom of religion and conscience simply cannot be un-secular.
There have also been instances under which judiciary made wide interpretation of Constitution and provided judgements related to Secularism as well.

Within the Assembly, there existed a conflict between two differing visions of secularism:
1. One that called for a complete wall of separation between state and religion.
2. Second demanded that the state treat every religion with equal respect.
A study of the Constitution reveals that ultimately it was the later vision that prevailed.

Secularism in the Indian setting calls for is the maintenance of a “principled distance” between state and religion. This does not mean that the state cannot intervene in religion and its affairs, but that any intervention should be within the limitations prescribed by the Constitution.

According to K.M. Munshi the non-establishment clause (of the U.S. Constitution ) was inappropriate to Indian conditions as Indian state could not possibly have a state religion, nor could a rigid line be drawn between the state and the church as in the U.S