SCHOOL OF LAW

PONDICHERRY

UNIVERSITY

PAPER: INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS: NEW

CHALLENGES

TITLE
The Dichotomy of Secularism and Religious Fanaticism
in Contemporary Society

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY

DR. GURMINDER KAUR MG RAAGUL

& DR. G. SUBHALAKSHMI
Assistant Professors CRIMINAL JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS

School of Law 24MLAW0PY0019

2024 - 2026
Abstract:

In contemporary society, the tension between secularism and religious fanaticism has become
increasingly pronounced, particularly in diverse nations like India. As a country characterized
by its rich tapestry of cultures and religions, India stands at a crossroads where the ideals of
secular governance are often challenged by the rise of religious extremism. This article aims
to explore the complex interplay between these two forces, focusing specifically on their
implications for Indian democracy and social cohesion. Secularism, as enshrined in the Indian
Constitution, is a foundational principle designed to ensure that the state remains neutral in
matters of religion, treating all faiths equally.

However, the rise of Hindu nationalism has posed significant challenges to this framework.
Political parties, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), have increasingly mobilized
support based on religious identity, often blurring the lines between governance and religious
affiliation. This shift has raised concerns about the erosion of democratic values and the
marginalization of religious minorities. The political landscape is further complicated by
social movements that advocate for a Hindu-centric vision of India, which can undermine the
secular principles that are meant to protect all citizens regardless of their faith. By analysing
constitutional frameworks, judicial interpretations, political dynamics, and comparative
models of secularism, one can obtain a comprehensive understanding of how these forces
interact within Indian society today. Through this lens, we can better appreciate both the
achievements and challenges that lie ahead in sustaining a democratic framework that
respects diversity while promoting unity among its citizens.

Key Words:

Secularism, Religious Fanaticism, Article 30, Hindu Nationalism, Interfaith Relations,

Political Mobilization and Social Cohesion

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER – I
Introduction…………………………………………………………...3
Review of Literature………………………………………………….4
Objectives……………………………………………………..……...5
Research Questions……………………...………………….....……. 6
Hypothesis………………………………………………………..…. 6

CHAPTER – II
The constitutional framework of secularism in India and its
foundational principles as articulated in the Preamble and relevant
articles…………………………………………………………...…... 7

Key Supreme Court judgments that have shaped the understanding

and application of secularism in relation to religious practices and
freedoms…………………………………………………………….10

The Erosion of Indian Secularism and the Impact of Hindu

Nationalism and Political Party Involvement.………………………14

India's model of secularism compared to Western paradigms, focusing

on its unique socio-cultural context………………………………....17

Chapter – III
Conclusion…………………………………………………………..21

2
Introduction:

Contemporary India, the world's largest democracy, is increasingly characterized by a

profound dichotomy between secularism and religious fanaticism. Enshrined in its
Constitution, secularism is meant to ensure equal rights and protections to all citizens,
regardless of their faith or lack thereof. However, the rise of Hindu nationalism and religious
extremism has led to growing intolerance, violence, and discrimination against minority
communities, particularly Muslims and Christians. This tension has escalated since the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014, with its Hindu-centric ideology
challenging India's secular fabric. The consequences are manifest in religiously motivated
riots, cow vigilantism, and anti-conversion laws, undermining social cohesion and individual
freedoms.

India's identity as a secular state is enshrined in its Constitution, emphasizing religious

freedom, equality, and tolerance. Secularism in India, however, operates uniquely compared
to the Western model. Rather than a strict separation of religion and state, Indian secularism
encourages equal respect for all religions while maintaining governmental neutrality. This
approach aims to foster unity in a nation with deep religious diversity. However, this harmony
is continuously challenged by growing religious fanaticism, which seeks to impose specific
beliefs and practices on the broader population. The clash between secular ideals and
religious extremism has escalated in contemporary times, raising concerns about India's
commitment to its secular foundation.

Religious fanaticism, marked by rigid orthodoxy and intolerance, often stokes communal
tensions, threatening social cohesion. Political agendas that exploit religious sentiment further
complicate the dichotomy, undermining secular values for short-term electoral gains. In
recent years, India's secularism has been tested by a rise in identity politics, where religious
divisions are deepened, and state policies sometimes seem to favor majority beliefs. This
growing friction between secularism and fanaticism not only endangers India's pluralistic
ethos but also poses significant questions about the future of democracy and constitutionalism
in the country.

It is essential to understand how different models of secularism impact religious freedom,

state governance, and social harmony. By examining countries like India, France, and the
USA, we can highlight the nuances in their approaches to secularism—India's balanced
treatment of all religions, France's strict separation of religion from public life, and the USA's

3
focus on individual freedom of religion. The study sheds light on how each system navigates
religious pluralism, curbs fanaticism, and maintains democracy.

Review of Literature:

1) The article under review aims to explore the political development of Hindutva, a
Hindu nationalist ideology that has gained significant traction in Indian politics over
the past few decades. Hindutva, which emerged in the early 20th century, has evolved
into a potent political force, influencing various aspects of governance and public
policy. The literature shows the role of key organizations and political parties such as
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bharatiya Jana Sangh, Janta Party, and the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and how Hindutva has shaped public policies and
cultural identity while also examining the challenges it faces in a secular and
democratic society. These challenges include its association with communal violence
and the potential alienation of non-Hindu communities.
- Jabin, Assad, “From Hindutva to Moditva: Growing Religious Fanaticism in
Indian Politics”. Asian Journal of Academic Research, 2023, Available at
SSRN: [Link]

2) The article explores the political evolution of Hindutva, a Hindu nationalist ideology
that has significantly influenced Indian politics over the last few decades. Originating
in the early 20th century, Hindutva gained traction as a response to British colonial
rule and has since transformed into a potent political force. The analysis highlights
key Hindu nationalist organizations, RSS and BJP, illustrating how these entities have
integrated Hindutva into mainstream politics. The ideology asserts the dominance of
Hindu culture and values, shaping public policies and cultural identity while
simultaneously facing challenges from India's secular and democratic framework. The
article also addresses how the rise of Hindutva has been exacerbated by communal
violence and the historical context of events such as the Partition of India, which
intensified Hindu nationalist sentiments. Overall, it provides a comprehensive
examination of how the narrowing space for secularism has facilitated the ascent of
Hindutva, impacting both domestic stability and regional security in contemporary
India.
- Alam, S., Bhatti, M. N., & Khan, A. S. “An analysis of the narrowing space of
secularism in India and its ramifications in the region”. Liberal Arts and Social

4
 Sciences International Journal, Volume 6 Issue 2, Available at:
[Link] (2022).
3) It presents a critical examination of the relationship between liberal democracy and
secularism, particularly in the context of Anglophone political theory, which often
champions a strict separation between state and religion as exemplified by the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, this model is deemed inadequate for
assessing the secular achievements of states like India. It introduces a new framework
termed "minimal secularism," which serves as a transnational normative comparison
that does not treat religion as exceptional but instead emphasizes principles such as
equal inclusion and personal liberty. This approach allows for a more nuanced
understanding of secularism, particularly in light of contemporary Indian debates
surrounding issues like the Uniform Civil Code and the rise of BJP nationalism. The
literature suggests that while Western secularism may have blind spots regarding
sovereignty and religion, India's secular framework strives to uphold liberal
democratic ideals, even amidst challenges posed by religious nationalism. This
explains how different societies can navigate the complexities of secularism while
respecting diverse cultural identities and promoting democratic values.
- LABORDE C. “Minimal Secularism: Lessons for, and from, India.” American
Political Science Review. Volume 115, (2020)

Objectives:

 To analyze the constitutional framework of secularism in India and its foundational

principles as articulated in the Preamble and relevant articles.

 To examine key Supreme Court judgments that have shaped the understanding and
application of secularism in relation to religious practices and freedoms.

 To evaluate how Hindu nationalism has undermined Indian democracy and secularism
and involvement of political parties.

 To evaluate the effectiveness of India's model of secularism compared to Western

paradigms, focusing on its unique socio-cultural context.

5
Research Questions:

1) What is the constitutional framework of secularism in India, and how are its
foundational principles reflected in the Preamble and relevant constitutional articles?
2) How have key Supreme Court judgments shaped the interpretation and application of
secularism concerning religious practices and freedoms in India?
3) In what ways has Hindu nationalism undermined Indian democracy and secularism,
and how have political parties contributed to this process?
4) How effective is India's model of secularism compared to Western paradigms,
particularly considering India's unique socio-cultural context?

Hypothesis:

The constitutional framework of secularism in India, while initially robust, is increasingly

challenged by Hindu nationalism, which undermines democratic values and alters the
interpretation of secular principles. Compared to Western paradigms, India's model of
secularism is becoming less effective in maintaining social cohesion and protecting minority
rights amidst rising religious nationalism.

Citation Rule:

The ILI - Indian Law Institute Citation Rule was exercised.

6
 CHAPTER – 2

1. The constitutional framework of secularism in India and its

foundational principles as articulated in the Preamble and relevant
articles.

Secularism in India is a foundational principle enshrined in the Constitution, reflecting the

country’s commitment to maintaining a neutral stance towards all religions. This framework
aims to ensure that the state treats all religions equally, fostering an environment of religious
harmony and pluralism. The Preamble and specific articles of the Constitution articulate these
principles, establishing a legal foundation for secular governance.

The Preamble defines the direction of and purpose of the constitution. Hence, so in 1976 via
42nd Amendment the term “Secular”1 was added into the preamble of the constitution,
ensuring that the state treats all religions with equal respect and does not favour any
particular religion. It provides clarity and emphasis on secular principles while serving as a
bulwark against potential encroachments by majoritarian forces. This clarity is crucial in a
diverse nation like India, where multiple religions coexist. The explicit mention of secularism
acts as a safeguard against majoritarian tendencies that may seek to undermine minority
rights.

The Part 3 of Indian Constitution contains several articles that reinforce the principle of
secularism, particularly Articles 25 to 28, which guarantee freedom of religion. These are
fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens of India. They are further elaborated below:

 Article 25 of the Constitution grants individuals the right to freedom of conscience

and the liberty to profess, practice, and propagate religion. It ensures that all
individuals are entitled to religious freedom without discrimination. However, the
exercise of this right is subject to reasonable limitations, including public order,

1
The Constitution of India, preamble.

7
 morality, and health, to ensure that religious practices do not infringe upon the rights
of others.2
 Article 26 grants religious denominations the freedom to manage their own affairs in
matters of religion. This includes the right to establish and maintain institutions for
religious purposes and to administer their own affairs without interference from the
state.3
 Article 27 prohibits the state from compelling any citizen to pay taxes or promoting or
maintaining any particular religion. That is freedom from taxation for promotion of
religion. Also requires the state to remain neutral in matters of religion, ensuring no
financial support or favouritism towards any religion.4
 Article 28 ensures that no religious instruction is provided in educational institutions
wholly maintained out of state funds. This provision aims to maintain secular
education by preventing any form of religious indoctrination in public schools,
reinforcing the secular nature of education. It also brings consent requirement where
the individuals attending educational institutions recognized by the state cannot be
compelled to participate in religious instruction unless they provide consent.5

Even Article 15 can be interpreted to be included here as it prohibits discrimination on

grounds of religion. 6

India’s legal system operates under different personal laws based on religious affiliations—
Hindu Personal Law, Muslim Personal Law, etc. While this may seem contradictory to
secular ideals, it reflects India’s unique approach to accommodating diverse cultural practices
within a secular framework. And the Indian government has enacted various laws aimed at
social reform which also align with secular principles few examples of them are:

The Hindu Marriage Act (1955): Regulates marriage among Hindus and promotes gender
equality by providing rights concerning divorce and maintenance.

The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (1986): This act was enacted
following public outcry over gender injustice within Muslim personal law.

2
The Constitution of India, art. 25.
3
The Constitution of India, art. 26.
4
The Constitution of India, art. 27.
5
The Constitution of India, art. 28.
6
The Constitution of India, art. 15.

8
The Dowry Prohibition Act (1961): Aimed at preventing dowry-related harassment and
promoting gender equality. However, Article 44’s directive for a uniform civil code remains a
contentious issue aimed at achieving greater legal uniformity across religions.

These laws reflect an effort to harmonize personal laws with broader principles of justice and
equality while maintaining respect for individual religious practices. However, Article 44’s
calls for the state to endeavour to secure for all citizens a uniform civil code throughout the
territory of India and it remains a contentious issue aimed at achieving greater legal
uniformity across religions.7 UCC promotes equality before the law by ensuring that all
citizens are subject to the same legal framework irrespective of their religious beliefs, it
upholds the principles of secularism and justice. Also foster a sense of national identity by
transcending religious divides. In a diverse country like India, having a single set of laws can
promote social harmony and reduce divisions based on religion. On one hand, secularism
promotes individual rights irrespective of religion; on the other hand, it must respect
collective cultural identities. This duality complicates discussions around laws like the UCC,
which aim for uniformity but may inadvertently undermine specific cultural practices

7
The Constitution of India, art. 44.

9
 2. Key Supreme Court judgments that have shaped the understanding and
application of secularism in relation to religious practices and freedoms.

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been instrumental in interpreting
and applying the principles of secularism through various landmark judgments. These rulings
have not only clarified the scope of secularism but have also addressed the complexities
arising from India's pluralistic society, where multiple religions coexist.

One of the most significant judgments regarding secularism is the Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala8 case, delivered on April 24, 1973, by a narrow majority of 7-6, where the
Supreme Court established that secularism is part of the "basic structure" of the Constitution
and those basic features are inviolable and cannot be amended or abrogated. The Court ruled
that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but it cannot alter its basic
structure, which includes secularism. The judgment emphasized that secularism is not merely
a political principle but a fundamental aspect of Indian identity and it also reinforced that any
law or amendment infringing upon secular principles could be struck down by the judiciary.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 9 dealt with the issue of freedom of religion and
expression. In 1985, three students from a government school in Kerala refused to sing the
national anthem on religious grounds. Their silence during the anthem led to disciplinary
measures, including expulsion. The parents and students contended that their right to freedom
of religion and expression was being violated, as their religion forbade participation in the
anthem. The case centered on whether the expulsion of three students from a Kerala school,
based on their refusal to sing the national anthem due to religious beliefs, was valid under the
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and the Kerala Education Act and Rules.
Additionally, it raised questions about whether the expulsion violated their fundamental rights
under Articles 19(1) and 25 of the Indian Constitution. While the High Court dismissed the
petition, citing strict compliance with departmental circulars related to student conduct, the
case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of India. The Court found that the expulsion was
arbitrary and violated the students' Fundamental Right to Freedom of Conscience and
Religion, emphasizing that this right extends to both holding and expressing religious beliefs.
It also held that school rules and departmental instructions could not override the

8
AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461
9
1987 AIR 748

10
constitutional protections granted under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25(1), which require any
restrictions to be based on statutory law, not mere executive orders.

The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College vs State of Gujarat10 In this case, St. Xavier's College
contested provisions of the Gujarat University Act, 1972, arguing that the legislation
infringed upon the autonomy of minority educational institutions, particularly in matters
related to the appointment and dismissal of teachers and the admission of minority
students. The college objected to several requirements of the Act, including the inclusion of
university nominees in the governing and selection bodies of all colleges, the conversion of
affiliated colleges into constituent colleges, the necessity of obtaining the Vice Chancellor's
approval for disciplinary actions against teaching staff, and the arbitration of disputes
between staff and management by the Vice Chancellor. It was argued by the petitioners that
these provisions violated the rights of minority institutions as protected under Article 30 of
the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer
educational institutions. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the protection granted to minorities
under Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution, emphasizing that these provisions were designed
to ensure equality between minority and majority communities. It was held by the Court that
any legislative or administrative action that infringes upon the autonomy of minority
institutions would be considered a breach of constitutional rights and would be subject to
judicial review and potential annulment. The Court further asserted that, secularism in
constitution neither means anti-God nor pro-God. It ensures that nobody shall be
discriminated against, based on religion. Secularism, therefore, eliminates the concept of God
in matters of the State.

Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. & Ors 11 was a landmark judgment that reaffirmed the
constitutional rights of individuals in India with regards to personal autonomy, liberty, and
freedom of choice. Hadiya, a 24-year-old medical student, had converted to Islam and
married Shafin Jahan, which led to her father, K.M. Ashokan, filing a writ of habeas corpus
before the High Court of Kerala, alleging forceful conversion. The High Court initially
annulled the marriage, citing concerns about Hadiya's vulnerability and potential
exploitation, and exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure her welfare. However, the
Supreme Court ultimately overturned the High Court's decision, ruling that it had exceeded

10
AIR (SC) 1389
11
2018 SCC OnLine SC 201

11
its scope by annulling the marriage under the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court
emphasized that the parens patriae jurisdiction should only be exercised for the benefit of
the individual in need of protection, not for others. Moreover, the court reaffirmed that the
right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,
which protects life and personal liberty. The judgment highlighted that personal autonomy
and liberty are essential aspects of the Constitution, and that individual choices regarding
faith, marriage, and partners are supreme and cannot be dictated by the state or law. This
ruling has significant implications for the protection of individual rights and freedoms in
India.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India12 (Triple Talaq case) decided in 2017, marked a significant
milestone in India's legal history, as it challenged the constitutionality of "triple talaq," a
practice permitting instant divorce among Muslims. Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman from
Uttarakhand, petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that triple talaq violated her
fundamental rights as a citizen, citing discrimination, arbitrariness, and disregard for gender
justice and equality principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court's
five-judge bench ultimately ruled in favour of Bano, declaring triple talaq unconstitutional
and illegal. The court held that the practice was arbitrary and not essential to Islamic law,
noting its prohibition in most Islamic countries. The judgment emphasized that personal
laws must pass the test of constitutional validity and gender justice, with Article 25(2)
allowing the Supreme Court to strike down practices violating fundamental rights. This
landmark decision was celebrated as a victory for women's rights and gender justice in India,
paving the way for a more inclusive society where citizens of all faiths are equal before the
law.

Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh 13, (1977). A Roman Catholic Priest Reverend
Stainislaus, in Madhya Pradesh. He was accused of violating the provisions of the Madhya
Pradesh Dharma Swatantrya Adhiniyam (Freedom of Religion Act), 1968, which prohibited
forced religious conversions. However he then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the
Act violates his Fundamental Right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Indian
Constitution. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that propagating one's religion is a fundamental
right under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring freedom of conscience and the
12
AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4609
13
1 S.C.C. 677

12
right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality, and health.
Crucially, the Court distinguished between "propagation" and "conversion," ruling that while
individuals have the right to propagate their religion, converting others by force, fraud, or
allurement is not an absolute right. This distinction has been used to justify anti-conversion
laws, aiming to prevent forced and fraudulent conversions and protect vulnerable individuals
from coercion. Since this case, several Indian states have enacted laws regulating or
prohibiting religious conversion, citing concerns of forced conversion. However, these laws
face legal challenges for potentially infringing on fundamental rights, including freedom of
religion, speech, privacy, equality, and life and liberty. The Supreme Court emphasized that
laws restricting religious freedom must be scrutinized against constitutional standards of
reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality. Notably, the 1968 Madhya Pradesh Freedom
of Religion Act's provisions differ from the current 2021 law, rendering this judgment's
applicability as a precedent questionable.

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Mohd. Aslam vs Union Of India14 The case dealt with land
acquisition for building a mosque at Ayodhya to build a temple by the Uttar Pradesh’s BJP
government. and it raised questions about religious sentiments versus state interests. The
stand of the UP Government in the suits was that the place was used as a mosque till 1949
and The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 which was promulgated by the
President on 7th January, 1993 and allows them to acquire it. Muslim community in its
defences stated that of adverse possession for over 400 years since 1528 AD when the
mosque was constructed on that site by Mir Baqi, without providing for an alternate dispute
resolution mechanism, and thereby it deprives the Muslim community of the judicial remedy
to which it is entitled in the constitutional scheme under the rule of law. Supreme Court held
that the Act favour one religious community and disfavour another; the purpose of the
Reference is, therefore, opposed to secularism and so struck down as being unconstitutional.
SC also reinforced that governance must prioritize public welfare over specific religious
interests.

14
AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 605

13
 3. The Erosion of Indian Secularism and the Impact of Hindu Nationalism
and Political Party Involvement

To understand the contemporary secularism in India it has become important to study the
political parties that holds religious influence over the people, especially a political party like
BJP, because the party's policies and ideology directly challenge the foundational principles
of a secular state. The BJP's promotion of Hindutva not only influences legislation but also
reshapes societal attitudes towards religion and governance. Consequently, analysing the BJP
provides critical insights into how secularism is being redefined in modern India amidst
rising religious nationalism.

The political landscape of India has been significantly influenced by Hindu nationalism,
particularly as propagated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological parent
organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This ideology advances the notion of
India as fundamentally a Hindu nation, thereby challenging the secular foundations of Indian
democracy. The origins of Hindu nationalism are traceable to the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, with the establishment of organizations such as the RSS, which promoted a unified
Hindu identity. The ideology gained political momentum after 1991, leading to the rise of the
BJP. Secularism has often been portrayed by the party as "pseudo-secularism," implying that
it disproportionately benefits minority communities over the Hindu majority. As a result,
national identity has been redefined, aligning more closely with Hindu cultural and religious
values.

The BJP began to have electoral success in 1989, when it capitalized on anti-Muslim feeling
by calling for the building of a Hindu temple in an area in Ayodhya considered sacred by
Hindus but at that time occupied by the Babri Masjid. By 1991 the BJP had considerably
increased its political appeal, capturing 117 seats in the Lok Sabha and taking power in four
states.

The BJP has effectively utilized Hindu nationalism to consolidate power. Its key strategies
include:

Polarization of Electorate: The BJP has successfully constructed a pan-Hindu vote bank by
appealing to religious sentiments. This strategy was evident in the 2014, 2019 and even the
2024 Lok Sabha elections, where issues like national security and cultural identity
overshadowed economic concerns. The BJP has capitalized on historical grievances and

14
religious sentiments, notably through the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, which sought to
construct a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. This movement galvanized Hindu support
and became a rallying point for the party, reinforcing its image as the protector of Hindu
interests.

Targeted Outreach: The BJP has strategically reached out to different caste groups within the
Hindu community, including OBCs and Dalits, by promoting policies that cater to their
specific needs while simultaneously emphasizing a broader Hindu unity. This approach has
been effective in regions where caste divisions traditionally fragmented the Hindu vote. 15

The BJP's ideology, rooted in Hindutva, emphasizes national unity or sangathan

(organization/unity), which they see as essential to reviving the nation after centuries of
foreign domination—first by Muslim rulers and later by European colonial powers. For the
BJP, this revival involves a sense of cultural unity, centered around Hindu identity.

57% of Indian adults (where 64% of them are Hindus) view being a Hindu as integral to
being truly an Indian16. This perception complicates efforts to maintain a secular national
identity. The increasingly precarious situation of India’s large Muslim minority is the most
visible consequence of the BJP’s nation-building strategy. While animosity towards Muslims
is not new, it has grown significantly over the past 35 years along with the BJP’s expansion.
The BJP's approach often involves scapegoating religious minorities, particularly Muslims,
which fosters a sense of unity among Hindus by creating an "us vs. them" narrative. This
strategy not only consolidates Hindu votes but also reinforces the idea that true Indianness is
synonymous with being Hindu. The portrayal of Muslims as a threat to national integrity has
further entrenched these beliefs within society. The juxtaposition of these sentiments
illustrates an evolving landscape where traditional secular values are increasingly challenged
by majoritarian ideologies.

Legislative Changes: The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the abrogation of Article
370 are examples of legislation that reflect Hindu nationalist priorities. Enacted in December
2019, the CAA amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to provide a pathway to Indian
citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who fled
religious persecution before December 31, 2014. The specified religious communities include

15
Anurag Varma, “Why undivided Hindu vote is crucial for BJP’s 2024 campaign” The Hindu, Available at:
[Link]
campaign/ (Last Visited: 9/10/24)
16
Pew Research Centre, “Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation”, (June 29, 2021).

15
Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. The Act has been criticized for its
exclusion of Muslims, which many argue undermines India's secular ethos by linking
citizenship to religious identity for the first time. The CAA has faced condemnation from
various human rights organizations and international bodies. Amnesty International has
described it as a "bigoted law" that contradicts India's commitments to international human
rights standards17. The exclusionary nature of the CAA raises concerns about its compatibility
with global norms regarding equality and non-discrimination.

On February 22, 2020, peaceful protesters gathered near the Jaffrabad Metro station in
northeastern New Delhi to oppose the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The following
day, BJP leader Kapil Mishra gave a controversial speech, warning that protesters would be
forcibly removed if the police did not take action within three days. His speech intensified
tensions, resulting in violent riots soon after. The violence left at least 50 people dead, mostly
Muslims, and hundreds injured. Armed mobs attacked Muslim communities, and disturbing
footage showed police brutality, including forcing detainees to sing the national anthem while
being assaulted, one of whom later died18. Mishra's remarks were widely condemned for
provoking violence. He remained unapologetic, stating he would act the same in the future.
The riots highlighted deep concerns over law enforcement's role in communal violence and
the lack of accountability. Mishra’s actions reflected a broader pattern of politicians using
communal divisions for political gains, exacerbating societal polarization. These events
underscored the complex intersection of politics, hindutva, and identity in India.

Since its enactment in December 2019, The Act has faced extensive legal challenges, with
over 200 petitions filed against it and is still pending. The Supreme Court's ongoing
deliberations on these matters will be pivotal in determining the future of India's democratic
principles and its commitment to inclusivity. As India navigates these challenges, it must
reconcile its rich diversity with its constitutional values to uphold the rights of all citizens,
ensuring that its identity as a secular nation remains intact amidst rising nationalism.

17
Amnesty International India, “Citizenship Amendment Act is a blow to Indian constitutional values and
international standards” (March 14, 2024).

18
Amnesty International, “India: Protestors arrested for opposing bigoted law”, (May 5, 2020)

16
 4. India's model of secularism compared to Western paradigms, focusing on
its unique socio-cultural context.

India's religious diversity is a defining characteristic of its social fabric, encompassing major
faiths such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism. This rich
tapestry of beliefs necessitates a model of secularism that accommodates and respects various
religious identities rather than imposing a rigid separation between religion and state. In
contrast, many Western nations have historically been influenced by one or two dominant
religions, primarily Christianity, which has allowed for a more straightforward application of
secular principles that often focus on individual rights rather than collective religious
identities.

On November 15, 1948, Prof. K.T. Shah proposed including 'secular' in the Preamble,
underscoring its importance in defining India's identity as a nation. 19 However, it wasn't until
the 42nd Amendment in 1976, during the Emergency period under Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi, that "secular" was formally added to the Preamble. This amendment aimed to
reinforce India's commitment to secularism and socialism as foundational principles of
governance, reflecting a political context that sought to address concerns about minority
rights and social justice at that time.

Secularism in France:

France's has a strict interpretation of secularism, “Laïcité”. The principle was formally
established with the Law on the Separation of Churches and State, enacted on December
9, 1905. This framework establishes the separation of religion from government, Key aspects
include:

 State Neutrality: The French state must remain neutral regarding religious beliefs
and cannot endorse or fund any religion.

 Public Sphere: Religious symbols are largely banned from public institutions,
including schools. For instance, recent legislation prohibits wearing conspicuous
religious symbols, such as hijabs or crosses, in public schools.

19
Constituent Assembly Debates on November 15, 1948. 7.53.24, available at:
[Link] (last visited on October 09, 2024)

17
French courts uphold laïcité by enforcing laws that maintain this separation. The Conseil
d'État (Council of State) has ruled on various cases concerning religious expression in public
life, emphasizing that public order and secular principles must be maintained over individual
religious rights. The strict application of laïcité often leads to tensions regarding individual
freedoms versus collective secular values. For example, cases involving the wearing of
religious attire in public schools have sparked debates about cultural identity and integration.

However, to solve this, the 2004 Law on Secularity and Conspicuous Religious Symbols in
Schools is a significant piece of legislation in France that formally prohibits the wearing of
conspicuous religious symbols that are easily noticeable and intended to demonstrate
religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools.

The anti-separatism bill, officially titled "Law Confirming Respect for the Principles of the
Republic," was enacted in France in July 2021. The law enacts stricter regulations on
religious associations, particularly those receiving foreign funding. These organizations are
now required to provide detailed financial reports to ensure transparency and compliance
with French laws20. This measure aims to prevent foreign influence over religious groups in
France. Additionally, authorities are given the power to temporarily close places of worship if
they are suspected of inciting violence or hatred, or if their activities violate public order and
republican principles.21

Homeschooling is also tightly regulated under the law. Families who wish to homeschool
must now obtain special authorization from the government. This regulation ensures that
homeschooling is not used as a way to isolate children from the secular education system.
The new rules exclude religious reasons from allowable circumstances for homeschooling,
further emphasizing state control over educational content and maintaining secular standards
in education.22

The balance between upholding secular principles and respecting the rights of diverse
religious communities remains a critical challenge for French society moving forward. The

20
Rachel Donadio, “Why Is France So Afraid of God?” The Atlantic, Available at:
[Link] (last visited:
October 10, 2024)
21
Cailey Griffin, “Why Has France’s Islamist Separatism Bill Caused Such Controversy?”, Foreign Policy, Available
at: [Link] (last
visited: October 10, 2024).
22
Fatima Khemilat, “France’s new ‘separatism’ law stigmatises minorities and could backfire badly”, the
conversation, Available at: [Link]
and-could-backfire-badly-162705 (last visited: October 10, 2024).

18
ongoing debates surrounding this legislation reflect broader questions about how nations can
effectively manage diversity while remaining true to their foundational values.

Secularism in USA:

In the United States, secularism is primarily derived from the Establishment Clause and Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution23:

 Establishment Clause: Prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion or

favoring one religion over another.

 Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely
without government interference.

In 1962, Engel v. Vitale24, ruled that state-sponsored prayer in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause. Justice Hugo Black emphasized that the government should not
involve itself in religious affairs, stating that any form of prayer in public schools flouts the
Constitution's purpose to prevent government interference with religion. This ruling
reinforced the principle that public schools must remain neutral in matters of religion, setting
a precedent for future cases involving religious expressions in public institutions. It
underscored the importance of maintaining a wall of separation between church and state,
which has become a cornerstone of American secularism.

However, in 1990, Employment Division v. Smith 25, the Supreme Court clarified that neutral
laws that incidentally restrict religious practices do not violate the Free Exercise Clause
unless they target specific religions. Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from their jobs
for using peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, as part of a Native American religious ceremony.
When they applied for unemployment benefits, their claims were denied based on their
dismissal for misconduct. The Court ruled that Oregon's law prohibiting peyote use was valid
and did not violate Smith's rights under the Free Exercise Clause. This decision emphasized
that individuals cannot claim exemptions from neutral laws simply because those laws
conflict with their religious beliefs. It marked a shift towards allowing states to impose
restrictions on religious practices as long as those restrictions are applied uniformly.

23
Constitution of the United States, Amendment I, 1791.
24
370 U.S. 421
25
494 U.S. 872

19
Secularism in the United States ensure that government does not interfere with individual
religious practices while preventing any one religion from dominating public life. This model
prioritizes individual rights and freedoms, reflecting a commitment to pluralism within a
diverse society

The comparison of secularism in India, France, and the United States reveals significant
differences shaped by historical contexts, cultural values, and legal frameworks:

 India's inclusive approach seeks to balance respect for diverse religions with the
protection of minority rights.

 France's strict separation prioritizes a secular public sphere but raises concerns
about potential discrimination against minorities.

 The United States' emphasis on individual rights maintains a wall between church
and state while allowing for personal expressions of faith.

Each model presents unique challenges and benefits regarding social cohesion, individual
freedoms, and cultural identity, highlighting the complexities inherent in navigating
secularism within diverse societies. As these nations continue to evolve, ongoing dialogues
about the role of religion in public life will remain crucial for fostering understanding and
respect among different communities.

20
 CHAPTER – 3

Conclusion:

Secularism is a foundational principle in the Indian Constitution, enshrined in the Preamble

and various articles that guarantee freedom of religion and prohibit discrimination. The
Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting and upholding these principles
through landmark judgments. However, the rise of Hindu nationalism, particularly the
influence of the BJP and its Hindutva ideology, has posed significant challenges to India's
secular framework. The BJP has used strategies like polarizing the electorate, targeted
outreach to Hindu communities, and legislative changes (e.g., the Citizenship Amendment
Act) to advance a Hindu-centric vision of India, undermining the country's secular identity.

The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been marked by strategic electoral
polarization, where religious sentiments have been mobilized to create a pan-Hindu vote
bank, often overshadowing pressing economic issues. Legislative changes like the CAA and
the abrogation of Article 370 reflect a shift towards policies that prioritize Hindu nationalist
agendas, raising critical concerns about equality, citizenship rights, and the secular fabric of
India. The Supreme Court's ongoing examination of these laws will be crucial in determining
their constitutionality and their impact on India's commitment to secularism and inclusivity.
As India grapples with these challenges, it faces the imperative to uphold its foundational
democratic values while navigating the complexities of identity politics in an increasingly
polarized environment. The outcomes of these debates will shape not only the future of
citizenship and rights in India but also its identity as a pluralistic society committed to justice
and equality for all.

Secularism manifests differently in India, France, and the United States, shaped by each
country's historical context, cultural values, and legal frameworks. In India, secularism is
characterized by sarva dharma sambhava (equal respect for all religions), allowing for state
engagement with diverse faiths while protecting minority rights through constitutional
provisions. The Indian judiciary interprets secularism flexibly, balancing individual freedoms
with communal harmony. In contrast, France's laïcité enforces a strict separation between
church and state, prohibiting religious symbols in public institutions to maintain a secular
public sphere. This approach has faced criticism for potentially marginalizing minority
communities. The U.S. model emphasizes individual rights through the First Amendment,

21
ensuring that government remains neutral in religious matters while protecting personal
expressions of faith.

Addressing the challenges of secularism and religious nationalism in India requires a

multifaceted approach. Strengthening constitutional protections is essential to ensure that all
laws and policies reflect equal rights for every religious community. Promoting interfaith
dialogue can foster understanding and social cohesion among diverse groups, helping to
mitigate tensions. The implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) should be expedited
to establish a common legal framework that promotes gender equality and justice across all
religions. Judicial oversight must be enhanced to protect minority rights and maintain the
secular fabric of the nation. Additionally, educational programs should be developed to instil
secular values and respect for diversity among citizens. Finally, there should be a concerted
effort to support minority rights through stronger legal frameworks that ensure their
representation in governance and public life.

22