Hindu Society Is Not Secular Calling Hinduism an inclusive religion is also historically and socially contradictory. I agree with most of the points made by former Chief Election Commissioner @DrSYQuraishi in his podcast, but I fundamentally disagree with his argument that Hindus are secular. India's Constitution is secular not because Hindu society was inherently secular, but because the freedom struggle, the trauma of Partition, and the historical experiences of the Constitution's framers established the necessity of a secular state. Let us not forget that Hindu-Muslim communal violence occurred during Independence and Partition, and communal riots have continued periodically even after Independence. If the majority community were inherently secular, why would constitutional guarantees protecting religious minorities have been considered so essential? Hindu society was not secular in ancient India, although comparing that period with modern secularism is itself problematic because the concept of the modern state did not exist in its present form. Nor can Hindu society in post-Independence India be described as uniformly secular. The second misconception is that Hinduism is inclusive. Inclusive in what sense? Hinduism certainly contains diversity, but diversity and inclusivity are not the same thing. How can a social order historically characterised by caste hierarchy, birth-based privileges, social exclusion, and untouchability be declared inclusive without critical examination? Such a claim may reflect a Brahmanical perspective of privilege that tends to glorify every aspect of the tradition while overlooking its deeply discriminatory structures. The caste system is exclusionary by its very structure. Diversity is not evidence of equality. India has accommodated numerous religions, sects, and cultures, but attributing this entire historical process to the supposed generosity of Hinduism is a gross oversimplification of history. India's social diversity emerged from several factors, including geography, trade, migration, political developments, and struggles among different communities. Even the caste-based and social divisions within Hindu society have historically complicated the consolidation of political power. But the security of religious minorities should never depend on the generosity of the majority or divisions within it. It must rest on constitutional guarantees and equal citizenship. The making of modern India was not some religious miracle either. The integration of more than 550 princely states, along with numerous languages, cultures, and communities, into a single political entity was the outcome of historical struggles, political leadership, and constitutional vision. To present India's diversity as proof of Hinduism's secular character is to reduce the entire history of nation-building to a single religious identity. That is an injustice to the Constitution itself. The secular character of the Indian Constitution does not establish that Hindu society is inherently secular. If Hindu society were naturally secular, why was it necessary to establish secular constitutional principles and protections in the first place? And what is the situation today? In my view, under BJP rule, communal polarisation has not merely been used as a political instrument; it has increasingly been normalised at the institutional level. Both secularism and social inclusion now face serious challenges. This does not mean that secular, liberal, and egalitarian individuals do not exist within Hindu society. Of course they do. But presenting the liberal values of some individuals as the inherent character of an entire religion or society is intellectually dishonest. Secularism is neither a religious inheritance nor an inborn virtue. It is a constitutional and social ideal that must be continuously defended and strengthened. #Hinduism #Secularism #inclusion #Constitution #HinduismIsNotSecularReligion