Religion, secularism & communal harmony

Secularism the Indian Way

Indian secularism is constitutionally distinct from the Western 'wall of separation' model articulated in the U.S. case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Where the American First Amendment mandates strict non-establishment, the Indian Constitution adopts what political theorist Rajeev Bhargava termed 'principled distance': the state keeps a flexible distance from all religions, intervening or abstaining depending on whether the goal of liberty and equality is served.

The word 'secular' was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976), but the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that secularism was always part of the Constitution's basic structure, even before the textual insertion. The architecture rests on:

• Article 25 — freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
• Article 26 — freedom of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
• Article 27 — no compulsion to pay taxes for promotion of any religion.
• Article 28 — no religious instruction in wholly state-funded educational institutions.
• Articles 29 and 30 — cultural and educational rights of minorities, including the right to establish and administer institutions.

Equal Respect, Not Strict Separation

Unlike the French laïcité model that privatises religion, the Indian state engages religion. It funds the Haj pilgrimage subsidy (phased out in 2018), administers temples through state Endowment Boards, and reformed Hindu personal law through the Hindu Code Bills (1955–56). The Constitution itself sanctions intervention: Article 17 abolishes untouchability, and Article 25(2)(b) opens Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of Hindus.

The doctrine of essential religious practices, evolved from The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), lets courts decide which practices are integral to a faith and hence protected. It was applied in Sabarimala (Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018) to admit women of menstruating age, and debated in the Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin (1962) and Ismail Faruqui cases. Critics argue this turns judges into theologians.

This model balances two impulses: respecting India's deep religiosity and protecting individual rights against oppressive practices. It explains why the same state can both protect the right to convert (Rev. Stainislaus v. State of M.P., 1977, upholding limits on fraudulent conversion) and reform discriminatory customs.

Communalism: Ideology, Not Mere Religiosity

Communalism is not religiosity; it is the political ideology that members of a religious community share common secular interests fundamentally opposed to those of other communities. Historian Bipan Chandra theorised three escalating stages: (1) belief that followers of a religion share common interests; (2) belief that the interests of different communities are different; (3) the extreme stage where interests are mutually hostile and incompatible, breeding violence.

Its roots are colonial and structural, not theological. The Indian Councils Act of 1909 (Morley–Minto Reforms) introduced separate electorates for Muslims, institutionalising religion as a political category. The two-nation theory, the Partition of 1947, and recurrent riots — the Ahmedabad riots (1969), the anti-Sikh pogrom (1984), the Bombay riots and Babri Masjid demolition (1992), and the Godhra/Gujarat violence (2002) — illustrate how communal mobilisation translates into mass casualties.

Instruments of Communal Harmony

The state's response is layered. The National Integration Council, first convened in 1961, the National Foundation for Communal Harmony (1992) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (penalising promotion of enmity and outraging religious feelings) form the institutional toolkit. The Supreme Court in Bommai (1994) made communal disharmony a ground for invoking President's Rule under Article 356, dismissing state governments after the 1992 demolition.

The Sachar Committee Report (2006) documented the socio-economic backwardness of Muslims, reframing communal harmony as a development question, not merely a law-and-order one. Genuine harmony rests on the syncretic traditions of the subcontinent — the Bhakti and Sufi movements, Akbar's Sulh-i-Kul (peace with all), and Gandhi's insistence on sarva dharma sambhava (equal respect for all religions).

Why This Matters for the Exam

Religion and secularism is a perennial GS-1 (Indian Society) and GS-2 (Constitution) overlap. PYQs are explicit: 'How the Indian concept of secularism is different from the western model of secularism? Discuss.' (2018) and 'Distinguish between religiousness/religiosity and communalism giving one example of how the former has got transformed into the latter in independent India.' (2017). Essay-paper topics on tolerance and pluralism draw directly from this material.

High-yield retention list: the 42nd Amendment (1976); S.R. Bommai (1994) and basic-structure status; the Article 25–28 cluster; the Shirur Mutt (1954) essential-practices doctrine; Bipan Chandra's three stages; and the Sachar Committee (2006). Examiners reward answers that contrast principled distance with laïcité, cite at least one case, and end with a constructive note on harmony rather than alarmism.