Public discourse in India often reveals how fragile the understanding of foundational concepts can be. A recent controversy surrounding remarks made by Kirti Azad, a Member of Parliament from the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), offers a telling example.. India national cricket team visited a Hanuman temple after their triumphant victory in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup final on March 8. (ANI Video Grab). Azad reportedly criticised members of India national cricket team for visiting a Hanuman temple after their triumphant victory in the ICC Men’s T20 World Cup final on March 8. His comment suggested that such a visit was somehow inconsistent with the secular ethos that India claims to uphold.. Kirti Azad’s comment was impulsive, ill-thought-out, shallow and condemnatory in a manner that displayed an unfortunate lack of understanding of the meaning of secularism in India. In doing so, he trivialised secularism itself by applying it in circumstances where it is not threatened.. To my mind, the reaction of the victorious players was entirely human. Sport, particularly cricket in India, is not just a game; it is an emotional spectacle that binds millions across caste, creed and region. When the national team wins a momentous global tournament, expressing gratitude to the divine for many Indians is instinctive. It is a gesture rooted not in exclusion but in humility — a recognition that human effort, however remarkable, often seeks a larger moral or spiritual anchorage.. To interpret such a gesture as an affront to secularism is to misunderstand both the players and the idea itself.. The word ‘secularism’ has travelled a long intellectual journey before entering the vocabulary of modern India. In its European origins, secularism emerged from centuries of conflict between Church and State. The aim was to limit the political power of organised religion and create a state that remained neutral in matters of faith. In many Western countries, this neutrality evolved into a strict separation: religion was confined to the private sphere, while public institutions remained rigorously non-religious.. India’s historical experience was fundamentally different. Here, religion was never monopolised by a single church-like institution, nor was political authority uniformly defined by theology. Instead, India evolved a civilisational ethos in which multiple faiths coexisted, interacted and enriched each other. The Indian understanding of secularism therefore did not emerge from hostility to religion but from a deep respect for pluralism.. The phrase often used to describe this ethos — sarva dharma sambhava, or equal respect for all faiths — captures this distinction elegantly. The Indian state does not demand that citizens abandon their religious identities in public life. Rather, it requires that the state itself treat all religions with fairness and impartiality.. Seen in this light, the visit of the cricketers to a Hanuman temple cannot reasona