Ram Rajya existed centuries before the word secularism entered political language. Yet its ideal of just rule, equal protection and the welfare of all can help us understand why secularism has become central to modern India, observes OSWALD PEREIRA
There is an important distinction to make at the beginning. Dharma and secularism are not the same thing. Dharma is an ancient Indian idea. Secularism is a modern political and constitutional principle.
Dharma tells a person, and a ruler, about duty and right conduct. Secularism tells the modern State how it must treat citizens of different religions. The two ideas come from different worlds, but they need not be opposed to each other.
This distinction has acquired new relevance after RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent remarks on secularism. Speaking at the Yuva Dharma Sansad in Ujjain on September 18, 2026, Bhagwat contrasted Western secularism with what he described as India’s traditional approach of treating different faiths without discrimination.
There is a historical point here. There was no modern concept of secularism in the age of Rama. There was no Constitution, modern nation-state or constitutional principle requiring the State to maintain religious neutrality. The political world of Ram Rajya was very different from that of democratic India today. The religious world too was different.
Ram Rajya belonged to a Vedic world in which dharma—not a modern idea of religion—was the central principle of personal and public life.
But does that historical difference make secularism foreign to India?
The Constitution provides the answer. India is a secular democratic republic, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. In the Indian context, secularism means that the State has no religion of its own, citizens have freedom of conscience and religion, and all citizens are entitled to equal rights regardless of their faith.
This does not mean that religion must disappear from public life. Nor does it mean that the State must be hostile to faith. The State can protect religious freedom and respect religious institutions and practices, subject to constitutional limits. What it cannot do is give one citizen greater rights because of his or her religion.
That is the essential point of Indian secularism: religion cannot determine the value of a citizen.
What, then, is dharma, and what does it have to do with this discussion?
Bhagwat described dharma at Ujjain as something that guides human conduct and responsibility throughout life. He said it connects individuals with society, determines duties and helps society move towards progress. He also stressed that dharma should not be reduced to religion or ritual.
In the context of governance, dharma can be understood simply as duty and right conduct. A king had duties towards his subjects. He was expected to uphold justice, protect the people and place their welfare above his personal interests. This was the idea of Raja Dharma.
Ram Rajya is therefore remembered as an ideal of just rule in which the ruler was not above moral responsibility. Rama’s greatness as a king lay not merely in possessing power but in being bound by duty.
This is where the ancient idea of dharma can meet the modern principle of secularism.
If dharma requires the ruler to act justly and work for the welfare of all, then it does not demand that the State favour one religion. It places a moral responsibility on those who govern. Secularism places a constitutional limit on how that power can be exercised.
The two principles are therefore different, but they can meet in the idea of equal citizenship.
This distinction also matters when Ram Rajya is compared with Hindu Raj.
Ram Rajya was not conceived as a modern programme of religious majoritarian rule. The religious world of the Ramayana was also very different from the modern category of Hinduism. The traditions associated with Rama, Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti developed within a broad civilisational framework in which different forms of worship coexisted.
More importantly, whatever historical meaning is attached to Ram Rajya, the constitutional position of India today is clear. A modern State cannot make religious identity the basis of citizenship.
Mahatma Gandhi understood this distinction clearly. His idea of Ram Rajya did not mean Hindu Raj. He used Ram Rajya to describe a society based on justice and moral government, where the weakest person would enjoy the same rights and protection as the strongest. For Gandhi, Rama represented a moral ideal, not the political dominance of one religious community.
That distinction remains important today.
If Ram Rajya is invoked in a constitutional democracy, its meaning cannot be that the State should favour the majority religion. Its meaning must be that those who govern have a duty to protect every citizen—Hindu and Muslim, Christian and Sikh, Buddhist and Jain, believer and non-believer.
India can therefore draw moral lessons from Ram Rajya without weakening its commitment to constitutional secularism.
The word secularism may be modern. The Constitution is modern. But the principle that a ruler must govern justly and protect the people is much older.
The real bridge between Ram Rajya and secularism, therefore, is not religion. It is equal citizenship.
Ram Rajya belongs to an ancient idea of good government. Secularism belongs to the modern constitutional order. They can meet in one enduring principle: government must serve all its citizens with equal dignity and justice.
Oswald Pereira, a senior journalist, has written ten books, including The Vijay Revolution: People Power & the Politics of Hope, Beyond Autobiography of a Yogi, The Newsroom Mafia, Chaddi Buddies, The Krishna-Christ Connexion, How to Create Miracles in Our Daily Life and Crime Patrol: The Most Thrilling Stories. Oswald is a disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda, and practises Kriya Yoga.
More Stories by Oswald Pereira
Some images are AI generated