Coming back to the Indian notion of secularism, the framers of the Indian Constitution were quite clear that India had to come up with its definition of Secularism, given the very vast, peculiar social fabric that India holds. It is argued and thereby believed that when one dives into the records of the debates of the Constituent Assembly, one would, by all means, formulate an understanding that the very basic fabric of the Indian Constitution is secular in nature. Hence, even though the very word "Secular" was incorporated into the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act in 1976, almost twenty-nine years post Independence, we long before had the Constitution reflect the very secular fabric through the Articles that fall under Part III of the Indian Constitution, which primarily deal with "Fundamental Rights". Thus, Secularism is also one of the key features of the Indian Constitution. 

However, the Indian notion of secularism is quite divergent from the Western notion of the term. Here, in India, we certainly cannot have the state separated from religion into watertight compartments solely because of the fact that we are a pluralistic society that is highly multicultural and multi-religious. Hence, India embraces a form of secularism known as "Positive Secularism" as compared to the "Negative-Rigid" notion of separation adopted by the West, which doesn't let the State interfere in matters of Religion nor does it allow the state to be influenced by religion. The secularism that India believes in is one wherein the state engages to some extent in matters pertaining to religion, for instance; providing aid to minority religious institutions, having the power to make laws related to charitable and religious endowments, etc. So we do see the state exercising power in religious matters, but such power is exercised in its limited sense. The Constituent Assembly further also put forth that the Secularism that India believes in is not an anti-religious concept, rather one that prevents discrimination on the basis of religion. 

In the words of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, "A secular state does not mean that we shall not take into consideration the religious sentiments of people. All that a "secular state" implies is that this Parliament shall not be competent to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. This is the only limitation that the Constitution recognizes."

The Supreme Court went ahead in October 2016 and, amidst a rancorous legal debate on curtailing the role of religion in electioneering, quite rhetorically asked whether, in India, secularism meant the complete separation of religion from politics. The Supreme Court then propounded the following, that secularism does not mean that the state should stay away from religion, but that it should give equal treatment to every religion. However, there is still a sense of ambiguity here, for when the Supreme Court says that the State cannot be away from religion, how much of this would apply to political parties, which form a branch of the state machinery? Hence, the verdict given by the SC remains quite unclear when one has to view the given judgement in light of politics vs religion. 
 
The Basic Structure Doctrine- Soul of the Indian Constitution:
 
In 1973, three years before we had the term "secular" incorporated into the preamble, we had the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati V State of Kerala, 1973, come to the forefront. The landmark judgement of the Kesavananda Bharati case was delivered on the 24th of April, 1973 by a thin majority of 7:6 judges, the judge bench held that a constitutional amendment could not alter the basic structure of the constitution, wherein the bench then put forth that any provision of the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament under the ambit of Article 368 (Amendment to the Indian Constitution) however no changes could be incorporated into the Constitution even under Article 368, if it aimed at changing the "Basic Structure" of the Indian Constitution. The Basic Structure doctrine forms an important part of the Indian Constitution because it puts forth that certain constitutional principles and values cannot be altered by the Parliament even via any amendment. Secularism is one such principle that is a part of the basic structure doctrine. 
 
In India, the Basic Structure doctrine has now very strikingly formed the bedrock of Judicial Review and is viewed in light of all laws passed by the Parliament. There is undeniably no doubt that the Independence of the Judiciary too, forms a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine. However, though Secularism is part of the basic structure doctrine, its practicability in the socio-political conditions faced by India is quite questionable because of the Multi-religious fabric that the country holds.
 
Similarly, in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgement, 1994, (Para 187), the Supreme Court held that "politics in a positively secular state is to get over religion." In other words, in politics, a political party should neither invoke religion nor be dependent on it for support or sustenance. The Constitution ensures the individual the right to protect religion, the right to believe or propagate teachings conducive to secular living, later to be controlled by the State for the betterment of human life and progress.

"Positive secularism concerns itself with such aspects of human life." Hence, here we again see a distinction between the concepts of positive and negative secularism as mentioned above. In India, secularism can never imply that the state is separated from religion (like the Western notion of negative secularism), but rather that the state should treat all religions equally and help in the promotion of the same.

The same also falls under the wide spectrum of Article 14- Right to Equality and Article 15- Prohibition of Discrimination on the basis of Religion, Race, Caste, Sex, etc. However, how justifiable could this be in a country divided along the lines of cultural nationalism? Or rather, how much of it would be acceptable to the Hindu-majority of this nation? 

What is the future of Indian Secularism?
 
When we look back at India post-independence, we very clearly see that one of India's defining characteristics is that the country as a whole has managed to sustain a form of democratic governance even in the face of ethnic, religious, linguistic, and political disparity. Nehru envisaged that the greatest strength of India would be its unity, even amidst the vast diversity it holds. However, the India that "some" of us envision is one which is less Civic and more Cultural, one that is less accommodating and more imposing, one which believes in silencing the minorities and upholding the majority on the mere lines of Religion, one which believes in amalgamating Religion with Politics.
 
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) certainly has been in the limelight ever since the 2014 elections and since then, we have seen attempts at diminishing the Secular fabric of the country. Today, India as a nation is viewed as a Hindu-majoritarian nation rather than a Multicultural one. The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 further aimed at extending citizenship to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, and Parsi's from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and very subtly but significantly excluded Muslims thereby implying that Muslims are already a majority in those countries and hence wouldn't be facing persecution as compared to the other "minority" communities in the countries mentioned above. Wasn't this implementation of the draconian law in the form of the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) 2019 yet another attempt at effectively reducing Muslims to "second-class" citizens? Wherein, the act narrowed its aim of providing citizenship on the mere grounds of religion. However, such deliberate alienation is certainly in violation of Article 14- Right to Equality, which is granted to all, be it aliens or citizens within the territory of India. Adding to its harshness, was the imposition of Section 144 wherein the freedom of all those who wanted to raise their voices against the implementation of the CAA, were curtailed. Do we not have the Right to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution? Or would the government now silence every voice that is raised against it?
 
In this new India, we have all other minority communities subordinated to the Hindu community, and the rest are just considered "second-class" citizens. Even though we are granted "equal rights", there is certainly a deficiency today in the feeling of equality among the minority communities. The question that arises here then is, to what extent do we let the Government exercise its control over the State? Democracy certainly, is more about the Democratic State than the so-called "democratic government". If the Government fails to see Individual freedom as integral and vital for the sustenance of Democracy, we shall soon have Democracy turn into hegemonic authoritarianism. 
 
However, even though we have the term Secular incorporated into the preamble of the Indian Constitution and also have it reflected under the articles that fall in Part III of the Constitution, we yet see a clash between the whole notion of Secularism with that of Article 25- Right to freedom of Religion. The citizen then is expected to be secular as well as is expected to exercise or rather enjoy his right under Article 25 (if here secularism means an unbiased approach). However, this claim certainly is utopian and is one which needs to be viewed in accordance with the functioning of the State. Citizens will certainly exhibit ethnocentric behaviour; however, how much of it should be condoned by the State, is a question to ask. 

Even though Secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and is reflected throughout the Constitution- we see political parties use religion as a weapon for advocating their agendas to the masses. The activities of political parties cannot be curbed in its entirety, however, the State surely can ensure demarcating lines for the conduct of the same. However, both, the State's interference with Religion as well as political parties incorporating religion as their fundamental agenda could prove toxic if necessary curtailments aren't explicitly put forth. Secularism, without an iota of doubt, is the soul of the Indian Constitution. Today, even though the letter of this Constitution remains untampered, its soul, however, is mangled and choked.

One also cannot deny the role of the Judiciary in the functioning of a Democracy, the courts are supposed to act as the Guardian of Fundamental Rights, whether or not they are doing justice to the role conferred on them is something to ponder upon. This would surely be a question left unanswered for time to reveal. The Constitution of India guarantees to all individuals equality in matters of religion, regardless of the person’s faith, establishing very explicitly that the State has no preferred State religion. However, with a party that holds "Hindutva" as its ideology- are we truly Secular? Does the State yet have no State-religion here? The democracy we see today is a form of “managed democracy”- one that reflects all the aspects of democracy but at the same time fully operates as a de facto form of Autocracy. 
 
Hopefully, Secularism in India is not yet dead and only needs to be revived.