Synopsis

This monograph argues that the modern Indian state, traditionally known as Bharat, must formally and structurally recognize itself as a Sanatan Hindu Nation.  The current political framework, specifically the insertion and application of “Secularism,” represents a profound philosophical, historical, and structural discontinuity that actively undermines the nation’s millennia-old cultural foundation and collective identity.  The argument presented here is that the achievement of Swaraj (political self-rule) remains fundamentally incomplete without the parallel reaffirmation of Swa-Dharma (the nation’s inherent ethos).  We contend that a constitutional reaffirmation of Sanatan Dharma as the state’s guiding civilizational philosophy is essential to ensure political stability, cultural authenticity, and the preservation of indigenous civilizational values, while simultaneously upholding the robust protection and rights of all minority communities, which have historically found shelter and flourished within the naturally inclusive Sanatani ethos.

Presentation:  https://youtu.be/p4p212yYCwA

Podcast:          https://youtu.be/x_QvABmyQ5c

Part I: The Continuity of Bharat: A Civilizational Claim

Bharat is not merely a modern nation-state created in 1947 but a continuous civilization rooted in the perennial principles of Sanatan Dharma.  The imperative for a structurally Sanatan nation rests not on religious dogma, but on three inescapable pillars: historicity, geographical integrity, and philosophical unity, each demanding recognition in the constitutional fabric.

A.  The Primacy of Sanatan Dharma

Sanatan Dharma, literally “the Eternal Law,” represents the indigenous spiritual, ethical, and philosophical framework that has governed the subcontinent for over ten thousand years.  This is evidenced not just by ancient texts, but by an unbroken chain of archaeological records, linguistic evolution, and continuous cultural and ritualistic practices that define the subcontinent’s rhythm of life.

Identity Over Territory: The Rootedness of Governance: The very identity of Bharat (Bhāratavarṣa) is intrinsically linked to this Dharma, which transcends and precedes the modern, Western-derived concepts of organized religion and territorial nationalism.  To attempt to separate the state’s structural moorings from its civilizational soul (Sanatan Dharma) is to render it rootless, susceptible to foreign ideological forms, and unable to articulate an authentic national purpose beyond economic metrics.  The constitutional recognition of this Dharma offers the state a moral compass derived from its own history.

A Unique and Philosophical Pluralism: The Sanatan tradition is inherently and non-negotiably pluralistic, rooted in the metaphysical realization that all paths lead to the same supreme reality (Ekâm Sat Viprâh Bahudhâ Vadanti—Truth is one, the wise call it by many names).  This indigenous pluralism (Dharmic Pluralism) is fundamentally distinct from Political Secularism, as it is derived from philosophical acceptance and mutual respect for differing views, rather than state neutrality enforced by non-religious fiat.  The nation’s capacity to shelter Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and later, Jews, Zoroastrians, and various denominations of Christians and Muslims is a testament to the comprehensive, inclusive Sanatani outlook, a capability that pre-dates and transcends any modern political construct.  Furthermore, the principles of Rita (cosmic order) and Satya (truth) were the foundational anchors for pre-colonial governance, ensuring justice was aligned with universal and natural law.

B.  The Interruption of Foreign Rule and the Colonial Hangover

The periods of foreign invasion and dominion—ranging from various medieval Sultanates to the British Raj—introduced political structures, legal systems, and philosophical paradigms that were entirely alien to the indigenous ethos.  While these events deeply impacted governance, they failed to dissolve the deep, underlying cultural unity of Bharat.  The central critique is that the post-independence state failed to fully reclaim its indigenous identity, instead adopting a governance system (political secularism, common law jurisprudence, and bureaucracy) that mimics the separating and individualizing tendencies of the West, a phenomenon often described as the “Colonial Hangover. “

The Persistence of Macaulayism: The influence of Thomas Macaulay’s educational reforms, designed to create a class of Indians “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect,” persisted long after the British departure.  This educational and administrative legacy ensured that the new Indian elite instinctively adopted Western models of statecraft—including a highly suspicious, restrictive, and bureaucratic view of the majority culture—rather than innovating governance based on indigenous Dharmic political philosophies.  This adoption of Western state neutrality, which itself emerged from the bloody religious conflicts of post-Reformation Europe, was fundamentally mismatched to Bharat’s history of philosophical tolerance.

C. The Original Constitutional Manuscript: A Visual Testament to Civilizational Continuity

The most powerful physical evidence of the Constituent Assembly’s original intent lies not just in the foundational text, but in the elaborate, hand-painted artwork that adorns the original, handwritten 1950 Indian Constitution.  Conceived under the artistic direction of Nandalal Bose and executed by artists from the Kala Bhavana in Santiniketan, these 22 illustrations visually affirm Bharat’s civilizational depth and cultural continuity.  The deliberate inclusion of this iconography directly contradicts the later narrative that the Republic was established upon a purely neutral, Western-style, secular foundation.

The artwork structurally embeds the legal principles within the nation’s continuous spiritual and historical narrative:

Anchoring Rights in Dharma (Part III): The section on Fundamental Rights is illustrated by a scene from the Ramayana—Rama, Sita, and Lakshmana returning to Ayodhya.  This symbolically anchors the most sacred human rights to the ideal Dharmic governance (Rama Rajya), suggesting that individual rights flow from this civilizational ideal of just and ethical rule, not from abstract, non-contextual contractual obligations.

Guiding Policy with Philosophy (Part IV): The chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy features the pivotal scene from the Mahabharata where Krishna delivers the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna.  Placing this divine philosophical instruction on the page detailing the State’s moral and governance directives is a clear, unambiguous statement that the principles of ethical statecraft (Dharma-Yuddha and Karma Yoga) guide the nation’s policy goals and aspirations.

Visualizing the Integrated History: The visual journey begins with a Mohenjo-daro seal from the Indus Valley Civilization and incorporates other key Sanatan deities like Nataraja (Shiva as the cosmic dancer) and the descent of the river Ganga.  This iconography is integrated alongside illustrations of the Buddha, Mahavira, and historical figures like Guru Gobind Singh and Chhatrapati Shivaji.  This totality demonstrates that the framers understood Bharat’s history as an unbroken, integrated Dharmic narrative that includes all its indigenous progeny, a narrative fundamentally different from a politically secular or fragmented one.  The subsequent, deliberate omission of these iconic images from common reproductions of the Constitution is a subtle but potent act of intellectual and cultural erasure, contributing to the “confusion of identity” detailed later in this monograph.

Part II:  Critique of Political Secularism in the Indian Context

The formal introduction of “Secular” into the Preamble in 1976 is viewed not as a benign guarantor of minority rights—which were already protected by the original Fundamental Rights (Articles 25-30)—but as a politically potent imposition that has resulted in deep structural anomalies and chronic political manipulation, ultimately benefiting political elites over the collective good.

A.  The Preamble Discrepancy: A Question of Legal and Historical Integrity

The foundational document is compromised by a critical legal and historical discrepancy embedded within its very Preamble.  The current text creates a misleading impression that its defining characteristics were established by the Constituent Assembly in 1949, when in fact key terms were imposed decades later under politically fraught circumstances.

The original Preamble, adopted on November 26, 1949, established India as a “SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. ” However, the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976—enacted during the national Emergency—introduced the terms “SOCIALIST,” “SECULAR,” and “INTEGRITY. “

The discrepancy lies in the fact that the current Preamble, with its amended content, still concludes with the original adoption statement: “IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY, this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. “

This retention of the 1949 date alongside the 1976 insertions presents the amended Preamble as if it were the original, unanimously adopted text.  This legal forgery misrepresents the historical consensus of the nation’s founders and the democratic process itself, serving as concrete evidence that the ideological shift toward state-mandated secularism was an imposition rather than a foundational agreement.

B.  The Problem of State Intervention and Unequal Treatment

Indian secularism, often defined by the Supreme Court as equal respect for all religions (Sarva Dharma Sambhava), has been interpreted and implemented in practice as a system of “State management and control of the majority religion,” while granting exemptions or autonomy to others, leading to structural inequality.

Financial and Administrative Disparity (HR&CE): The state continues to exercise profound and invasive control over institutions related to the majority faith (e.g., temple trusts, endowments, and properties) primarily through State-level Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) acts.  This is in stark contrast to places of worship for other religions, such as mosques and churches, which are generally managed independently by their respective religious communities.  This unequal treatment creates a structural imbalance where the state perpetually regulates the majority’s assets and religious practice while merely safeguarding the physical freedom of minorities.

Consequences of Control: This control is argued to lead directly to the alleged diversion of substantial temple funds for non-religious, general administrative, or secular state purposes.  Such diversions starve the very institutions responsible for perpetuating majority-community cultural heritage, education (e. g., Vedic schools), and charitable works, leading to the decay of temple infrastructure and a lack of investment in theological study and community outreach, a burden not placed upon minority faiths.

Specific Financial Subsidies (Article 290A): The Constitution contains specific financial arrangements that breach the principle of state neutrality, such as Article 290A, which provides for the annual payment of certain sums to the Devaswom Fund for Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.  While intended for historical reasons, the existence of such religion-specific state funding mechanisms (including past Hajj subsidies, which were in place for decades) can be perceived as preferential treatment and direct state involvement in religious affairs, contradicting the secular ideal.

C.  Secularism as a Tool of Confusion and Disorientation

The Indian model of secularism has failed to uphold key features of a truly secular state, such as the complete separation of religion and state and uniform equality before the law for all citizens, leading to confusion, political exploitation, and constitutional dissonance.

The Failure of Uniformity and Personal Laws: The most profound failure of constitutional secularism is the continued existence of separate Personal Laws based on religion (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi laws) governing critical matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.  This legal pluralism fundamentally contradicts the principle of uniformity and equality before the law, as citizens are treated differently based on their religious identity.  The failure to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), despite being mandated by the Directive Principle of State Policy (Article 44), perpetuates legal inequalities based on religious affiliation.

The Philosophical Vacuum and Opportunistic Ideologies: By defining itself primarily as ‘secular’ (i. e., not based on its indigenous tradition), the state creates a philosophical and moral vacuum.  This vacuum is then filled by external ideologies (like rigid Marxist historical materialism or neo-colonial identity politics) or opportunistic, anti-national narratives that seek to fragment the social fabric along caste or regional lines, often backed by external funding sources.  Reclaiming the Sanatan identity would provide a strong, coherent, and ancient civilizational anchor that is immune to such external subversion.

The Denial of Indigenous Identity: This framework forces the civilizational majority to perpetually negotiate their own ancient identity within their historical homeland.  It promotes a narrative that treats the ancient culture and its institutions as merely one of many competing faiths (a religion in India) rather than the foundational substrate and continuous culture of the nation (the civilization of India).

Part III.  The Proposed Structural Model: A Dharmic Republic

To achieve genuine structural and constitutional integrity, the monograph proposes redefining the Indian state as a Dharmic Republic, formally recognizing the civilizational status of Sanatan Dharma without establishing a theocracy or imposing religious laws on citizens.

A.  Constitutional Reaffirmation and Governance

The Constitution must be amended to explicitly acknowledge Bharat’s status as a Dharmic Republic anchored in the Sanatan tradition of justice, order, and pluralism.  This involves specific structural and functional adjustments:

1. Preamble Amendment: Replacing “Secular” with a term like “Dharmic” or “Civilizational Republic,” signifying governance based on indigenous ethical principles (Dharma) and comprehensive justice, rather than adopting a borrowed Western concept of state neutrality.  This signifies a commitment to the pursuit of Rita (Cosmic Order) in governance.
2. Harmonizing Fundamental Rights: Strengthening the original guarantees (Articles 25-28) to ensure full financial and administrative autonomy for all religious institutions, including those of the majority, thereby ending state control over temple assets.  Concurrently, reaffirming the state’s role in enforcing common, non-discriminatory civil and criminal laws applicable to all citizens, emphasizing the ‘rule of law’ as an aspect of Dharma.  This includes the mandatory implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
3. Educational Integration and Literacy: Structurally integrating knowledge of indigenous history, philosophy, and Dharmic texts (like the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Dharmasutras) into the national educational curriculum.  This is not for conversion but to ensure cultural literacy for all citizens, allowing them to understand the roots of tolerance and philosophical thought inherent to the land.  This must be paired with the removal of special privileges that allow minority-run educational institutions (Article 30) to bypass state standards, ensuring equal educational opportunities and standards for all.
4. Judicial Reinterpretation: Encouraging the judiciary to interpret constitutional principles through the lens of indigenous jurisprudence, favoring restitution and ethical governance over purely punitive or colonial legal models, thereby infusing the justice system with Dharmic considerations like Ahimsā (non-harm) and Nyāya (justice).

B.  A Nation for All: The Dharmic Guarantee

This structural change is not intended to disenfranchise or diminish minorities, but to anchor the state in the robust, indigenous ethos that has historically protected them for millennia.

1. The Sanatani Ethos as a Shield: A Sanatan structure ensures minority rights not through the fragile, often politically compromised, mechanism of state-enforced political secularism, but through the robust, time-tested philosophical principle of inherent pluralism and respect for life.  The doctrine of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (The world is one family) acts as a powerful, ancient Ahimsa-based mandate against state-sanctioned persecution, fundamentally insulating minorities from the majoritarian insecurities often seen in nations anchored by exclusive, monotheistic state religions.
2. Structural Stability through Cohesion: A nation that is secure, coherent, and confident in its own civilizational identity is inherently less likely to be insecure or hostile toward its internal diversity.  Formal constitutional recognition of the foundational ethos provides deep structural and psychological stability, effectively ending the perennial political conflict over identity, historical revisionism, and cultural legitimacy, thereby redirecting national energy toward development and justice.
3. The Concept of Anubandha: The relationship between the state and its citizens should be redefined by the Dharmic concept of Anubandha (a deep, interconnected bond or relationship).  This implies that the state is not merely a political contract but a mutual relationship of ethical duty and reciprocal obligation, ensuring that the welfare of the poorest and the most marginal is structurally prioritized as a primary duty (Rajadharma).

Part IV.  The Foundational Pillars of Sanatan Dharma

This section elaborates on the core characteristics of Sanatan Dharma—its history, heritage, population, and philosophy—to underscore its depth, resilience, unique capacity for adaptation, and suitability to serve as the structural anchor for Bharat.

A.  History, Heritage, and Resilience

Sanatan history is not linear but cyclic, often conceptualized across several major periods that underscore its deep-rooted continuity, offering profound lessons in adaptation and preservation:

Vedic Period:  The foundational era characterized by the oral composition and codification of the four Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, Atharvaveda).  This period established the concept of Rita (cosmic order, precursor to Dharma), laid the groundwork for the later concepts of Karma and Moksha, and pioneered sophisticated methods of phonetic preservation (the Pathas).  The society was primarily focused on harmonizing individual action with the macrocosmic order through ritual and contemplation.

Epic and Puranic Period:  This transformative time saw the composition of the great epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.  These monumental narratives served to popularize complex philosophical ideas across all social strata through accessible stories of ideal heroes, moral conflicts, and ethical dilemmas.  The Bhagavad Gita, a key text embedded within the Mahabharata, outlines the paths to spiritual realization (Yoga), demonstrating the tradition’s adaptability in offering individualized spiritual paths.  This period solidified the transition from ritual-centricity to devotion- and ethics-centric practice.

Classical and Medieval Periods:  This era was the golden age of philosophical and scientific flourishing.  It saw the consolidation of the six schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy (Darshanas—Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, Vedanta) and the construction of some of the world’s most sophisticated architectural marvels.  Temples—such as those at Khajuraho, Konark, and the massive Chola complexes in the South—were designed as cosmic models of the universe, acting not just as places of worship but as massive repositories of art, science, mathematics, literature, and community life.  Furthermore, the Gurukul system operated as decentralized universities, preserving and advancing knowledge in astronomy, medicine, and linguistics.  The continuous existence of this cultural heritage for millennia, despite centuries of foreign rule and deliberate destruction, speaks to the immense, non-institutional resilience inherent in the tradition, a resilience the state should formally recognize and protect.

B.  Global Demographics and Cultural Reach

While Sanatan Dharma is the foundational identity of Bharat, its philosophical and cultural principles have profoundly transcended geographical boundaries:

Population and Density: India remains the civilizational center of Sanatan Dharma, housing approximately 1.1 billion Hindus, constituting about 80% of the nation’s population (as of the last major census).  Globally, the Hindu population is estimated at around 1.25 billion, making it the third-largest religion in the world.  This demographic reality underscores the civilizational scale that demands constitutional recognition.

Philosophical and Cultural Dissemination: Beyond direct populations, the concepts and practices derived from Sanatan Dharma—such as Yoga, meditation, Ayurveda (traditional medicine), the pursuit of ecological harmony, and the Advaita (non-dualistic) philosophy—have been adopted and integrated globally.  Specific examples include the profound influence of the Upanishads on 19th-century American Transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, and their later impact on 20th-century intellectual figures.  Theoretical physicists like J.  Robert Oppenheimer and Erwin Schrödinger referenced the Bhagavad Gita and Advaita Vedanta, respectively, acknowledging the sophisticated cosmological framework found in Dharmic texts.  This global acceptance confirms that Sanatan principles offer universal, secularly relevant insights into human consciousness and existence.

C.  The Philosophy of Life: Purusharthas and Four Yogas

The comprehensive philosophy of Sanatan Dharma is structured around the integrated fulfillment of human existence, balancing necessary material needs with ultimate spiritual goals.  This integrated structure provides a template for societal and state balance, defined by the Purusharthas (the four aims of human life) and the different paths to self-realization (Yogas):

1. Dharma (Righteous Conduct): This is the foundation of individual, societal, and state culture.  It is a highly nuanced concept encompassing ethics, duties, moral law, and right conduct towards self, family, community, and the cosmos.  It is the ethical framework that sustains society and is often categorized into four types: Sadharana Dharma (universal virtues like non-violence, truthfulness), Varna Dharma (vocational duties), Ashrama Dharma (duties based on stage of life), and Sva-Dharma (individual, inherent duty).
2. Artha (Prosperity and Means): This is the pursuit of wealth, material resources, and economic security.  Crucially, this pursuit is never considered an end in itself but must be acquired and used ethically, strictly in accordance with Dharma.  The Dharmic framework emphasizes that sustainable economic growth must be structurally subordinate to moral and ecological considerations.
3. Kama (Pleasure and Desire): This refers to the enjoyment of life, sensory fulfillment, and emotional satisfaction.  Like Artha, Kama must be pursued within the boundaries of Dharma to prevent self-destruction, societal imbalance, or excess.  It acknowledges the totality of human experience.
4. Moksha (Liberation): The ultimate spiritual goal: freedom from the cycle of birth and death (Samsara) and the realization of one’s true, unbound nature.  The ultimate focus on Moksha instills a unique long-term perspective in the Sanatani ethos, where governance is not focused merely on short-term political gains, but on the long-term, spiritual welfare (Loka-samgraha) of society.

These Purusharthas are balanced by the concepts of Karma (the universal law of action and consequence, ensuring cosmic accountability) and Reincarnation, which provide a comprehensive, rational ethical system.  The four core paths (Yogas) to achieve Moksha—Karma Yoga (selfless action), Bhakti Yoga (devotion), Jnana Yoga (discriminative knowledge), and Raja Yoga (meditation and mental control)—demonstrate the inherent non-dogmatic, individualized, and adaptable structure of the faith.

Part V.  Constitutional Anomalies and Political Intent

The monograph asserts that certain constitutional provisions, along with subsequent political interpretations and legislative actions, have deliberately created a legal environment that is disproportionately managed or controlled by the state, primarily targeting and debilitating the institutions of the majority community while simultaneously fostering intellectual confusion.

A.  Non-Secular Articles and Deep State Control

Critics argue that the following articles are fundamentally non-secular in their application, as they enable deep state intervention into the financial and administrative affairs of Hindu institutions, thereby compromising their autonomy and efficacy:

1. Article 25(2)(a): Regulating Secular Activities.  This clause grants the State the power to regulate or restrict any “economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. ” In practical application, this has been exclusively used to control the administration, finances, and properties of thousands of major Hindu temples through draconian state-level endowments (HR&CE) acts.  The financial consequence is severe: temple revenues, which could otherwise be used for religious education, preservation of ancient monuments, and social welfare within the community, are instead allegedly diverted to the state’s general exchequer or utilized for non-religious administrative purposes, leading to the decay of spiritual and cultural infrastructure and lack of autonomy for Gurukul schools.
2. Article 25(2)(b): Social Welfare and Reform.  This clause allows the state to legislate for “social welfare and reform, or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. ” While the original intent of abolishing untouchability is laudable and fully aligned with Dharmic reform, the State has not applied similar deep regulatory frameworks—particularly concerning financial and administrative oversight—to the core bodies or finances of major minority religious institutions (such as mosques, churches, or seminaries), cementing a clear, ongoing legal double standard. 
3. Article 26(d): Administration of Property.   Although Article 26 guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, the caveat in 26(d)—the right to administer property “in accordance with law”—is used to justify the continuation of state control over Hindu temple properties.   This has resulted in the political appointment of non-religious or politically aligned individuals to manage sacred trusts, further undermining the spiritual integrity and financial independence of the majority’s religious life. 
4. Article 290A: Financial Favoritism.  This Article provides for the annual payment of certain sums to the Devaswom Fund for Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.   The existence of such a religion-specific state funding mechanism in the Constitution itself is cited as a contradiction of state neutrality, especially when past government subsidies, like the Hajj subsidy (phased out in 2018), have highlighted state involvement in religious affairs. 

B.  Structural Inequality and Minority Privilege

The framework of minority protection, while essential, has been criticized for creating a system of unjustifiable privilege that undermines the constitutional goal of equality and fosters division rather than integration.

1. Article 30: Educational Autonomy: This article grants religious and linguistic minorities the unalienable right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.   Judicial interpretation has extended this right to grant minority-run institutions significantly greater autonomy from state educational control (e. g., in curriculum design, hiring, and fee structure) than institutions managed by the majority community.  This structural advantage solidifies the perception of unequal constitutional treatment where the state actively restricts the majority’s freedom in education while maximizing the minority’s autonomy.
2. The Problem of Religious Quotas: Minority Educational Institutions are often allowed to reserve a significant percentage of seats for students from their own communities.  This special treatment is viewed as preferential and not in line with a truly secular education system, as it allows for educational institutions that may promote religious ideologies, potentially fostering division rather than integration.

C.  Legislative Imbalance and Political Exploitation

The constitutional failure to enforce true separation has allowed subsequent legislative actions and political decisions to systematically institutionalize imbalance, often driven by electoral politics.

1. Targeted Legislative Acts: Laws passed long after independence have been criticized for disproportionately affecting communities:

1. The Places of Worship Act (1991): This law restricts Hindus’ ability to legally reclaim religious sites that were altered or destroyed during historical invasions, effectively freezing the religious character of places of worship as they existed on August 15, 1947.  This is viewed as a measure that legally protects historical injustices against the majority community.
2. The Wakf Act (1995): This legislation grants extensive rights and authority over vast tracts of land to Muslim Wakf Boards, with provisions that are seen as complex and often infringing on the property rights of non-Muslim individuals and institutions, further highlighting the state’s deep, differential intervention in religious property administration.
3. The Minority Commission Act (1992): This Act institutionalized specific privileges and protections for minorities, leading to the perception that the state’s machinery is dedicated to addressing the needs of specific religious communities through preferential legislative action.

2. Judicial Overrides and Political Concessions: The political manipulation of law to satisfy religious conservative demands is evidenced by the Shah Bano case.  The initial Supreme Court ruling granted maintenance rights to a divorced Muslim woman under secular law, but the subsequent legislative override by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, was widely seen as a political concession to conservative religious demands, thus undermining the principle of secularism and equality before the law in favor of segmented legal application.
3. Manipulation of History and the De-Civilizational Intent: The systematic manipulation of educational curriculum and the intentional erasure of historical narratives are viewed as a deliberate strategy by the post-colonial elite to create a de-civilizational state and intentionally confuse the Hindu collective identity.  The insertion of the word “Secular” into the Preamble in 1976 during a national Emergency is cited as a prime example of political opportunism and fundamental constitutional manipulation executed without widespread democratic consensus at a time when civil liberties were suspended.

And lastly:

The argument for a formal and structural Sanatan Hindu Nation, or Dharmic Republic, is fundamentally an argument for authenticity, comprehensive justice, and structural integrity.  The profound history, resilient heritage, global population, and sophisticated life philosophy of Sanatan Dharma demonstrate conclusively that it is far more than a mere religion; it is the cohesive, adaptable civilizational bedrock of Bharat.  The physical evidence found in the original Constitution’s manuscript confirms the framers’ recognition of this historical continuity.  

The current constitutional arrangement, particularly its selective application of state control (Articles 25, 26, 30, 290A) and the historical inaccuracy of its Preamble (42nd Amendment), fosters chronic political instability and cultural disorientation by structurally disadvantaging the majority’s institutions and manipulating its historical memory for political gain.  

By constitutionally recognizing its eternal identity, Bharat reclaims its sovereignty not just politically (Swaraj), but civilizationally (Swa-Dharma).  This shift would provide a stable, indigenous, and authentically pluralistic framework for governance, ensuring the preservation of the unique cultural tapestry that defines the subcontinent while safeguarding the rights and dignity of every citizen, regardless of their path to the Divine, through the time-tested principles of Dharma and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

References

Presentation:   https://youtu.be/p4p212yYCwA

Podcast:          https://youtu.be/x_QvABmyQ5c

Ionic Images in the Indian Constitution

1. https://indianhistorycollective.com/illustrations-from-the-constitution/
2. https://lalitkala.gov.in/uploads/update/6002e5c30107735f9c86d8818ffad970.pdf
3. https://map.sahapedia.org/article/Decoding-the-Images-in-the-Handcrafted-Edition-of-the-Indian-Constitution/11541

Constitutional Law and Political Secularism

• Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press, 1966.
• Austin, Granville. Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience. Oxford University Press, 1999.
• Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Retrospect and Prospect. Oxford University Press, 2006.
• Bhargava, Rajeev. “The Promising World of Indian Secularism.” In Secularism and Its Critics. Edited by Rajeev Bhargava, 485–529. Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Kashyap, Subhash C. The Constitution of India: Fully Updated. Universal Law Publishing, 2021.
• Shourie, Arun. Indian Controversies: Essays on Religion in Politics. Voice of India, 1993.
• Smith, Donald Eugene. India as a Secular State. Princeton University Press, 1963.
• Tsevas, Shlomo. “The Concept of Secularism in the Indian Constitution.” Journal of Indian Law Institute 19, no. 1 (1977): 33–50.

 

Dharmic Philosophy, History, and Civilizational Critique

1. Das, Sudipta. The Incredible Rise of Hindu Nationalism: An Interpretive History. Routledge, 2024.
2. Jaffrelot, Christophe. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics: 1925 to the 1990s. Penguin Books India, 1999.
3. Malhotra, Rajiv. Breaking India: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines. Arktos Media Ltd, 2011.
4. Malhotra, Rajiv. Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity. HarperCollins, 2014.
5. Madan, T. N. “Secularism in Its Place.” The Journal of Asian Studies 46, no. 4 (1987): 747–59.
6. Radhakrishnan, S. The Hindu View of Life. George Allen & Unwin, 1927.
7. Trivedi, B. V. The Hindu Temple: An Introduction to Its Meaning and Forms. University of Chicago Press, 1977.
8. Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. 9 vols. Advaita Ashrama, 1989. (Especially works on Practical Vedanta and Universal Religion).

*****

About the Author

Dr. Ryan Baidya, PhD, MBA, is a scholar-practitioner of governance reform and founder of the Takshila Foundation in Silicon Valley, California.  His work centers on constitutional renewal, citizen-first institutions, and practical anti-corruption frameworks that translate research into implementable policy. Baidya has written extensively on the United States, India, Nepal, and Japan, with a consistent focus on how education, institutional design, and oversight can reduce inequality and expand opportunity.

An entrepreneur, educator, and mentor, Baidya has taught or collaborated with academic programs at the University of California, Santa Cruz; the University of Colorado Boulder; UC Berkeley Extension; the National University of Singapore’s Silicon Valley program; and Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala.  He earned his PhD from the University of California, Santa Cruz, his MBA from San José State University, and a master’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.  He has been a Damon Runyon–Walter Winchell Foundation fellow and a Fulbright Specialist with the U.S. Department of State.

In parallel with A New Nepal, Baidya leads comparative projects on constitutional design and justice delivery, including proposals for randomized judicial benches, integrity protocols, periodic constitutional review, and independent “police-of-police” oversight.  His books and initiatives aim to bridge scholarship and statecraft—offering lawmakers, civil society, and citizens clear pathways from aspiration to implementation.

——–