Citizens' right to be communal but the State's duty is to be secular

Hans India

20 hours ago

The Indian Constitution enshrines secularism as a cornerstone of political governance, mandating state neutrality in religious matters, while guaranteeing citizens the right to express communal identities. Yet, a paradox has emerged: the state engages in practices favouring Muslims and Christians, while citizens, particularly Hindus, face pressure to suppress their collective religious expressions.
This article argues that Indian secularism has strayed from its constitutional moorings, undermining citizens' communal rights, especially of Hindus. By dissecting communalism and secularism, analysing constitutional provisions, and exposing state violations, it defends communalism as a legitimate constitutional right and calls for restoring the state's secular mandate to nurture India's pluralistic ethos.
Communalism and secularism:
Communalism and secularism, often misunderstood in Indian discourse, diverge from their original meanings. Communalism, from the Latin communis (shared), denotes collective religious or cultural activities that foster solidarity and cultural continuity, serving as both a unifying and divisive force, and a natural expression of human social bonds.
Secularism, from saecularis (worldly), mandates state neutrality in governance, ensuring equidistance from all religions without favour or discrimination, and excluding religious considerations from public policy.
These concepts are complementary: communalism reflects citizens' rights to collective religious expression, while secularism obliges the state to remain impartial.
In India, communalism is stigmatised as divisive, particularly for Hindus, while secularism is distorted as appeasement of Muslims and Christians and deliberately misconstrued as a mandate for citizens—especially Hindus—to suppress their religious and communal identities. This wilful distortion disrupts the constitutional balance between citizens' communal rights and the state's secular obligations, precipitating a crisis for the Hindu religion and civilisation.
Constitutional framework-A blueprint for balance:
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution declares India a 'sovereign socialist secular democratic republic,' emphasizing the state's commitment to impartiality in religious matters while guaranteeing citizens 'liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship.'
This foundational statement sets the tone: the state must remain secular, while citizens are free to engage in communal activities promoting their religious and cultural identities.
Citizens' rights to communalism: Articles 25 and 26 explicitly protect citizens' rights to communal expression. The former ensures freedom of religion, both individually and collectively, subject to reasonable restrictions. Article 26 allows religious denominations to establish and manage their own institutions, conduct religious affairs, and maintain charitable organizations. These constitutional provisions enshrine communal activities as fundamental rights.
State's duty is to be secular: Conversely, Articles 14, 15, 16 and 27 mandate state neutrality. Article 14 ensures equality before the law, Article 15 prohibits discrimination based on religion, Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity in public employment, while Article 27 bars the use of public funds to promote any religion or interests of any religious group. Together, these articles establish that the state must treat all religious communities impartially, refraining from policies that favour one religious group over another. This framework creates a clear division of roles: citizens are free to express their communal identities, while the state is obligated to uphold secular governance.
State's communal practices-A betrayal of secularism:
Despite this constitutional clarity, the Indian state has deviated from its secular mandate, engaging in practices that favour specific religious communities—particularly Muslims and Christians—while discriminating against Hindus. This betrayal manifests in several ways, undermining the principles of equality and neutrality enshrined in the Constitution.
Religion-based welfare schemes: One of the most glaring violations is the allocation of public funds, drawn from taxpayers of all faiths to welfare schemes targeting specific religious communities, namely Muslims and Christians. Yet, no equivalent schemes are designed for Hindus based on their religious identity.
This selective allocation violates Article 27, which prohibits the use of public funds to promote any religion or religious group, and Article 14, which mandates equality before the law.
Over the past decade, central and state governments have allocated approximately Rs one lakh crore towards welfare schemes targeting Muslims and Christians, to the exclusion of Hindus. These schemes are justified as addressing socio-economic disparities among minorities, but this rationale does not withstand scrutiny. Socio-economic challenges affect all communities, including Hindus.
A secular state should aid all citizens in need based on economic criteria, not religious identity. By tying benefits to religion, the state violates its secular mandate, fostering resentment among Hindus, who feel unfairly excluded and question whether their only fault is being Hindu.
Control of Hindu temples: The state's control over Hindu temples exemplifies its anti-secular bias. Over two lakh temples across India are managed or controlled by state governments, while mosques and churches operate with complete autonomy, free from similar interference. This disparity violates Article 26, which grants all religious communities equal rights to manage their institutions. How can a state that selectively controls Hindu religious bodies claim to uphold secularism?
Biases in education and public discourse: The public education system exacerbates this imbalance by perpetuating anti-Hindu biases. Textbooks often portray Hindu practices as regressive or superstitious, while presenting the practices of other communities as culturally progressive or inclusive. This selective framing violates Article 28, which mandates that publicly funded education remain free of religious bias. Beyond education, media and political narratives frequently stigmatise Hindu communal expression as divisive or backward, while celebrating similar expressions by Muslims and Christians as being vibrant or progressive. These double standards erode the constitutional protection of Hindu communal rights under Articles 25 and 26.
This practice of favouring Muslims and Christians while discriminating against Hindus under the guise of neutral governance, which erodes the Constitution's guarantee of equality and fuels resentment, is denounced as pseudo-secularism.
Mischaracterisation of communalism:
The stigmatisation of communalism in Indian discourse is a legacy of historical distortions, particularly tied to the 1947 Partition, which, driven by demands for a separate Islamic state, was marked by unprecedented violence and displacement of Hindus. Yet, post-independence narratives have often shifted blame to Hindus, fostering a pervasive anti-Hindu bias in public discourse and governance. This policy of favouring Muslims and Christians while discriminating against Hindus under the guise of neutral governance pressures Hindus to suppress their religious identities and communal rights in the name of secularism, as if only Hindus bear the responsibility to uphold it, while Muslims and Christians reap its benefits at Hindus' expense.
Religion is inherently communal, fostering collective expression that is not divisive unless the religion itself promotes division, as often seen in Abrahamic faiths but not in indigenous Indian religions. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution explicitly protect these communal expressions, recognising religion as both a personal and public endeavour and expression. Mischaracterizing communalism as synonymous with violence or divisiveness distorts its constitutional rights.
Religion is inherently communal, fostering collective expression that is not divisive unless the religion itself promotes division, as often seen in Abrahamic faiths but not in indigenous Indian religions. Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution explicitly protect these communal expressions, recognising religion as both a personal and public endeavour. Mischaracterizing communalism as synonymous with violence or divisiveness distorts its constitutional legitimacy and undermines the Constitution's pluralistic vision.
Policy recommendations:
To restore constitutional balance, the state must: eliminate religion-based welfare schemes, allocating resources based on socio-economic need; relinquish control over temples, enacting legislation for transparent, community-led management of all religious institutions with dispute resolution mechanisms; and celebrate communal activities across faiths without stigmatisation.
The judiciary and civil society must uphold these principles, ensuring a pluralistic society where citizens freely exercise communal rights, and the state remains steadfastly secular.
Conclusion:
India's Constitution envisions a pluralistic society where citizens freely express communal identities, and the state upholds impartial governance.
Yet, discriminatory policies favouring Muslims and Christians, and state control of only Hindu religious institutions have disrupted this balance. By eliminating religion-based public expenditure and policies, ensuring autonomy for all religious institutions, and fostering unbiased discourse, India can restore its secular mandate.
The judiciary and civil society must champion equality, nurturing a society where communal rights thrive under a truly secular state.
(The author is a retired IPS officer and former Director, CBI. Views are personal)