Authored By: Devanshu Singh Chandel
Bundelkhand University Jhansi
INTRODUCTION
Everyone in India loves using the word secularism. Politicians throw it around like a magic spell. Courts quote it as if it’s the soul of the Constitution. Parties accuse each other of “pseudo-secularism.” People online use it as an insult or a badge of pride.
The irony is simple: India talks about secularism more than it practices it.
The real question is the one no one asks honestly—is secularism in India an actual constitutional principle we live by, or has it slowly turned into a political slogan used whenever convenient?
I’m not here to pretend the answer is clean. It’s messy. Sometimes India looks secular. Sometimes it looks majoritarian. Sometimes it looks confused. And sometimes, it doesn’t look secular at all. As a law student, when you read the Constitution’s text, case laws, and political events side-by-side, one thing becomes clear: India’s secularism is more fragile and negotiable than we admit.
Let’s break it down without filters
WHAT INDIA’S CONSTITUTION MEANT BY SECULARISM ?
The Constitution never defined “secular.”
The word wasn’t even in the original Constitution. It was added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, but the idea existed since day one.
Indian secularism is not the Western idea of “complete separation between State and religion.” India didn’t want a total wall.
It wanted a flexible boundary.
The Constitution gives:
- freedom of religion (Art. 25–28)
- equal protection regardless of religion (Art. 14, 15)
- freedom of conscience
- state neutrality
But it also allows:
state intervention in religious practices
regulation of temples
religious institutions running educational institutions
government control over religious endowments
So Indian secularism was always a balancing act.
The problem?
A balancing act becomes a convenient tool when politics enters the scene.
THE BASIC STRUCTURE: SECULARISM AS A CORE VALUE
In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court declared secularism part of the Basic Structure. Meaning: No government can legally dismantle secularism—even if it wins a huge majority. But courts can declare something a “basic feature.”
They cannot make people or governments behave accordingly.
India’s challenge isn’t defining secularism.
The challenge is living up to the definition.
THE GAP BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL SECULARISM AND POLITICAL REALITY Let’s be blunt.
- Every political party selectively uses secularism
Congress calls itself secular but played soft-majority politics for decades.
BJP openly campaigns on religious symbolism.
Regional parties switch their secular identity depending on election season.
Political secularism in India is like a switch—on during elections, off during governance.
2. The State interferes in Hindu institutions more than others
Hindu temples are heavily regulated by state governments.
In some states, temple revenue is controlled by government-appointed boards.
Meanwhile: Churches and mosques often run their institutions with greater autonomy. So the “equal distance” theory collapses in practice.
- Minority rights are often politicised
Articles 29 and 30 protect minority educational institutions.
These are valid rights, but political parties treat them as bargaining chips.
Secularism becomes a tool:
- to accuse
- to defend
- to negotiate
- to manipulate
Not to uphold equality.
- Blasphemy-like politics without an actual blasphemy law
India doesn’t have a direct blasphemy law like Pakistan.
But Section 295A acts like one in practice.
Anything “hurting religious sentiments” becomes a criminal complaint.
Secularism here becomes a joke—because the State protects sentiments, not freedoms.
THE COURTS: SOMETIMES GUARDIANS, SOMETIMES CONFUSED Good moments:
- Bommai case (secularism = basic structure)
- Sabarimala (gender equality over religious practice)
- Triple talaq judgment
Confusing moments:
The “Essential Religious Practices” test
The court decides what is “essential” to a religion.
How is a judge supposed to decide what a religion “requires?”
This is literally the opposite of secularism.
Selective intervention
Courts intervene strongly in some religions and carefully in others.
The inconsistency weakens secular credibility.
THE AYODHYA JUDGMENT AND ITS AFTERMATH
Let’s be real.
The Ayodhya judgment is one of the biggest tests for Indian secularism. The Supreme Court:
- declared demolition illegal
- acknowledged there was no proof of a temple being destroyed
- still handed the disputed land to the Hindu parties
Many legal scholars said:
“It looks like the Court tried to balance law and public sentiment.”
This is the exact tension that exposes India’s secular model:
When law and majoritarian belief conflict, law quietly steps aside.
You can support the judgment or oppose it.
But you cannot deny:
It showed how fragile secular adjudication can be under social pressure.
THE RISE OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE
Indian politics today is openly religious.
There’s no point pretending otherwise.
Temple runs before elections
Political speeches quoting scripture
Leaders wearing religious symbols at rallies
Public funds used for religious pilgrimages
Religious rhetoric dominating campaign slogans
This doesn’t automatically make India non-secular.
But it shows that secularism is not the default mode of governance anymore. Secularism survives on paper.
Its real battle is happening in streets, slogans, and TV debates.
CAN INDIA BE TRULY SECULAR WITH UNIFORM CIVIL CODE DEBATES?
UCC is a constitutional directive.
But whenever the topic comes, it becomes a communal argument—not a legal one. Two problems:
People assume UCC = anti-Muslim
Opponents pretend personal laws are untouchable
A genuinely secular state would either:
reform all personal laws fairly
or
leave all religious personal laws alone
India does neither.
IS SECULARISM STILL A CONSTITUTIONAL IDEAL?
Yes.
India’s Constitution is committed to secularism.
Courts have reaffirmed it many times.
But the real issue is not constitutional commitment.
The issue is political will.
Secularism survives in judgments, books, and speeches.
It struggles in implementation.
India is secular in theory.
In practice, it is selectively secular.
The State stays neutral until neutrality becomes inconvenient.
IS SECULARISM NOW A POLITICAL SLOGAN?
Let’s be honest.
Yes.
A lot of the time, secularism is weaponised.
Not practiced.
Political parties treat secularism like a filter:
praise their own actions
accuse opponents
control narratives
appeal to different vote banks
For the public, secularism has become emotional.
For politicians, it is a strategy.
For courts, it is a duty with limits.
For the Constitution, it is a promise.
THE CORE TRUTH: INDIA IS NEITHER FULLY SECULAR NOR FULLY NON-SECULAR
India is not France or the US.
India is not Pakistan or Afghanistan either.
It occupies a complicated middle space:
a religious society
with a secular Constitution
governed by political parties who use religion
judged by courts who try to stay balanced
and interpreted by citizens who disagree on everything
Indian secularism is a negotiation—not a fixed principle.
That’s the reality.
CONCLUSION
So what is Indian secularism today?
A constitutional ideal?
Yes.
A political slogan?
Also yes.
The Constitution built a secular framework that could have worked beautifully if the State stayed neutral. But neutrality is expensive. Politicians avoid it. Courts struggle with it. Society doesn’t always want it. India’s secularism survives, but it survives in patches.
Sometimes strong, sometimes weak, sometimes invisible.
And unless governments, courts, and citizens start treating secularism as a principle instead of a tool, this debate will continue forever—loud, emotional, and unresolved.
