---
title: "Religion, Secularism & Communal Harmony: UPSC GS-1"
description: "Indian secularism rests on principled distance and constitutional design. Study communalism's roots and the imperative of communal harmony for UPSC GS-1"
url: "https://modeldiplomat.com/learn/lessons/upsc-indian-society-religion-secularism-communal-harmony"
---

[New](https://modeldiplomat.com/)

Religion, secularism & communal harmony

Read 1 of 3

1/70 XP so far this lesson

Lesson 18 min 20 XP

# Religion, secularism & communal harmony

Indian secularism's constitutional architecture, the principle of principled distance, communalism's roots and the imperative of communal harmony for UPSC GS-1.

## 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.

One question, then back to the lesson

Ask about this lesson