The recent escalation of communal tensions in several regions of India necessitates a thorough analysis of the concept and essence of “Secularism” as intended by the architects of the Indian Constitution. The Constitution openly references secularism, particularly through its inclusion in the Preamble via the 42nd Amendment; yet, issues remain over whether the current interpretation and implementation of secularism genuinely reflect its constitutional foundations. Though the term Secularism, while not explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution, typically denotes the separation of religion from state matters. It is a system that prohibits religion influence in governmental affairs and vice versa. A secular state is neither religious nor irreligious rather it upholds neutrality, guaranteeing equal protection and treatment for all religions. Contrast of Western Secularism and Indian Secularism Western secularism and Indian secularism seemed to contradict each other.
The Western worldview, founded by Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church and State,” emphasises religious organisations’ complete separate from government. This strategy protects individual rights and conscience while maintaining public order. The Indian model, developed by the Constituent Assembly, takes a different path. Indian secularism seeks to end religious discrimination, not atheism. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said a secular state cannot force a religion on its citizens. H.V. Kamath also claimed that India’s secularism respects all religions. Thus, Gandhi’s Sarva Dharma Sambhav (respect for all religions) and Nehru’s Dharma Nirpekshata (religious impartiality in government) dominated post-independence thought. Independent India allowed religious freedom, separated the State from religious entities, and respected all faiths. The reality is that Indian secularism has become state-sponsored minority favouritism and majority discrimination. Political parties use secularism to promote religious groups for electoral benefit, deepening communal differences rather than promoting “unity in diversity.” No major civilisation practices “Indian-style” secularism. Unlike India, other nations recognise religion’s impact on national identity and thrive without pretending secularism.
The Church of England is the state church in the UK. Monarch is Supreme Governor. Britain is a stable democracy. Israel calls itself Jewish. Judaism is central to its national identity, yet Christians, Muslims, and Druze have strong minority rights. The Quran is Saudi Arabia’s constitution. No effort is made to artificially separate State and religion. Although the US has a separation of Church and State, Christianity strongly influences its culture, legislation (such Sunday laws), and public affairs. Powerful nations either embrace their religious background or maintain a token distinction. India’s erratic selective religious interference policy is unique. In reality, secularism weakens nationalism. Sanatana Dharama-based culture is stifled by India’s secularism. India was historically a spiritual society with numerous pathways. Western secularism has alienated Indians from their culture, causing identity issues. A nation like India without a strong culture faces internal strife and external threats now a days. Unlike the other countries as comparison to Shintoism is important to Japanese identity. Thailand’s national identity includes Buddhism.
The Russian Orthodox Church is crucial to Russia’s revival. Stance of Constitution and Indian Judiciary Although the term ‘secular’ was officially incorporated into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, the essence of secularism was previously ingrained in the Constitution through multiple Articles: Articles 14-16 provide legal equality and forbid religious discrimination. Articles 25-28 ensure the right to religious freedom, contingent upon public order, morality, and health considerations. Article 44 advocates for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) as a guiding concept. But the critics say that it is antidote to the concept of secularism. Further, Article 27 prohibits governmental financial support for religious activities.
Thus, framing of these provisions clearly envisage the motive of the framers to uphold the religious neutrality as well as for protecting religious liberties. The Indian judiciary has been instrumental in defining the evolving notion of secularism. In Sardar Taheruddin Syedna Sahib v. State of Bombay (1962), the Supreme Court underscored the secularism in Indian Constitution. The pivotal Kesava nanda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case established secularism as an integral part of the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and immune to parliamentary alterations. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court articulated that secularism entails the equitable treatment of all religions and denounced the incorporation of religion in politics. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002) and Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017), the Supreme Court reiterated that secularism encompasses non-discrimination based on religion and is fundamentally associated with democracy. Challenges to the Secularism Notwithstanding robust constitutional support, secularism in India encounters numerous challenges due to the disparity in governing the religious institutions: The politicisation of religion often serves electoral purposes, undermining the secular foundation. The disparate application of legislation, predicated on religious identification, undermines the dedication to the UCC. State oversight of Hindu temples but not mosques or Christians raises problems of religious impartiality. Article 27 vs. Minority Welfare the Ministry of Minority Affairs and other social projects have been condemned for promoting religious differences and eroding secularism. Critics say the CAA violates secularism by excluding Muslims, violating Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution.
The government claims fair classification under Article 14 protects oppressed and persecuted Islamic minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan. Again, the present waqf bill amendment acts also endeavoured to hold the essence of secularism by allowing non-Muslim properties declared as Waqf, it plays a crucial role in serving religious, charitable, and social welfare needs, especially for the underprivileged. However, its impact has often been reduced due to mismanagement, encroachment, and lack of transparency. The Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025 creates a secular, transparent, and accountable framework for Waqf governance. Waqf properties, designated for religious and philanthropic purposes, necessitate structured governance due to the legal, financial, and administrative duties involved in their management. The function of Waqf Boards and the Central Waqf Council (CWC) is regulatory rather than religious, guaranteeing adherence to legal standards and protecting public interest. The Bill establishes a progressive and equitable framework for Waqf administration in India through the implementation of checks and balances, the empowerment of stakeholders, and the enhancement of governance. In concluding, it can be said that India’s secularism is distinct from the Western model. It is more about managing the complex interplay between multiple religions in a pluralistic society rather than enforcing strict separation.
However, the gap between the ideal and the practice is significant. In practice, secularism in India often appears selective and politically expedient, leading some critics to describe India not as a theocracy, but as a “hypocrisy” in secular terms. The constitutional dream of a secular India envisions a society where all religions are treated equally and the State remains equidistant from all faiths. Achieving this vision requires political will, judicial vigilance, and societal commitment. Secularism, as envisaged by the framers of the Indian Constitution, is integral to the sustenance of India’s democracy and pluralism. While the legal and constitutional framework for secularism exists robustly, its actual realization demands vigilant enforcement and continuous societal engagement. The need of the hour is to depoliticize secularism, protect it from misuse, and foster a truly inclusive civil society where religion becomes a personal choice rather than a political weapon. Only then can the myth surrounding Indian secularism transform into an enduring reality. Mainan Ray, PhD, Legal Academician and Advocate at Calcutta High Court
