Introduction
In this article I will try to examine the evolving and contentious relationship between religion and state in contemporary India, with a focused critique of the governance patterns associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological affiliate, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Situating the analysis within India’s constitutional design and its distinctive model of secularism, here we explore how political instrumentalization of faith, legal reforms and litigation, changes in institutional oversight of religious affairs, and the proliferation of anti-conversion laws have affected minority rights, civic pluralism, and democratic norms. The recent case of Sabarimala (Kerala), the politics surrounding the Places of Worship Act and Ayodhya, anti-conversion statutes (2022–2025), and the Citizenship Amendment debates — are proof enough to demonstrate shifts in state-religion dynamics. The BJP-RSS governance configuration has pursued a strategy blending normative Hindu majoritarian claims with state policy, thereby stretching constitutional secularism toward a majoritarian variant. This article concludes with prescriptions for restoring constitutional balance: legal and institutional safeguards, civil society strategies, judicial vigilance, and civic education to re-embed pluralism in public life.
The Sacred and the State
India’s constitutional vision of secularism was never about banishing religion from public life—it was about ensuring the equal dignity of all faiths while keeping governance impartial. Yet, seventy-five years since Independence, the uneasy intersection of faith and politics continues to define our national discourse. From the Sabarimala controversy in Kerala to the Ram Temple consecration in Ayodhya, from the hijab debates in Karnataka to the political rhetoric around “Sanatan Dharma,” religion has remained both a moral compass and a political weapon.
The question, then, is not whether religion and
politics intersect—they always have—but how India, as a democratic and plural
nation, can maintain its constitutional balance between faith and governance
without tilting toward either theocracy or godless secularism. The current
political moment, marked by religious symbolism and electoral expediency,
demands a renewed reflection on this equilibrium.
Faith in the Political Arena: The Sabarimala Case Revisited
When the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government in Kerala, long identified with rationalism and Marxist secularism, organized the Global Ayyappa Sangamam in 2025, it reignited an old debate: can a government that once upheld women’s right to enter Sabarimala now use the same shrine for political rapprochement with the Hindu electorate?
The Sabarimala controversy, which began with the
Supreme Court’s 2018 verdict allowing women of menstruating age to enter the
temple, had already polarized Kerala society. The LDF’s earlier stance in
enforcing the verdict, despite protests, cost it dearly in the 2019 general
elections. The 2025 event seemed like an attempt at “faithful correction”—a bid
to mend ties with religious communities. Yet, it also exposed the
contradictions of Indian secular politics: a rationalist government performing
a public act of devotion, and religious groups engaging with the State for
political ends.
Soon after the event, a scandal erupted—gold plating
from Sabarimala’s temple idols went missing. Allegations of theft,
mismanagement, and cover-up followed. The optics of faith-politics convergence
crumbled under administrative failure. What began as an outreach turned into a
cautionary tale of how deeply faith and governance are entangled in India, even
within parties ideologically committed to secularism (U. Hiran, The Hindu,
October 13, 2025).
Constitutional Provisions and Intent towards Indian Secularism
The Indian Constitution does not use the single word “secular” in the original draft; the Preamble later came to include the term by the 42nd Amendment (1976). The Constitution’s architecture—Articles 25–28 (religious freedom clauses), Article 14 (equality before law), and Directive Principles—establishes a framework intended to secure freedom of conscience and religion, while empowering the State to regulate religious practices in the interest of public order, morality, health, and social welfare. The Constituent Assembly debated alternatives—explicitly religious invocations or rigid secularism—and chose instead a nuanced frame of secularism that recognized India’s religio-social embeddedness.
This “principled engagement” permitted state
regulation of socio-religious institutions (e.g., Hindu personal law reforms)
while affirming religion-neutral civil rights. By design, India’s model
anticipated judicial and administrative involvement in adjudicating conflicts
between religious claims and constitutional rights; as experiences since
Independence demonstrate, these institutions have been repeatedly called to
balance competing claims.
The Indian Model of Secularism: Not Separation but Engagement
Unlike the Western model that separates Church and State, India’s secularism is one of principled engagement. As Shishir Tripathi notes, our founding fathers rejected both a theocratic state and a godless republic. Instead, they envisioned a nation of sarva dharma sambhav—equal respect for all religions. Yet, from the late twentieth century into the twenty-first, the public role of religion in politics has intensified. Since 2014, political transformations led by the BJP, allied politically and ideationally with the RSS, have amplified debates about whether India’s public life is being reshaped by majoritarian religious claims. The BJP-RSS configuration has affected state–religion relations, and evaluates institutional and social responses to these transformations.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad attending the inauguration of
the rebuilt Somnath Temple in 1951 against Nehru’s wishes encapsulates the
paradox. The President acted as a believer; the Prime Minister, as a
constitutional secularist. India’s founders understood that religion could not
be confined to private life in a civilization where temples, mosques, and
gurdwaras are as public as Parliament itself.
K. M. Munshi’s words still resonate: “A secular
State is not a Godless State. Any State that seeks to outlaw God will very soon
come to an end.” India’s secularism was designed not to erase religion from
public space but to prevent the dominance of one religion over others. It is a
secularism of negotiation, not exclusion.
Yet, the balance has often been strained. Political
mobilization around religion—from the Babri Masjid demolition to present-day
polarization over “love jihad” and conversion laws—has distorted the original
spirit of this plural secularism.
Policy Instruments and Symbolic Governance
Under BJP governance, two strategies have been salient. First, symbolic governance: the state sponsors or legitimizes projects with cultural-religious salience (temple reconstructions, public festivals, massive consecration ceremonies) to create a narrative of civilizational restoration. Second, institutional reorientation: key appointments, legal initiatives, and administrative recompositions are aligned to accommodate or promote a majoritarian sensibility. These strategies produce both electoral dividends and social anxieties: they consolidate a majority base while producing apprehension among minorities about differential treatment and political exclusion. Scholarly commentary has argued the result is a democratic model wherein majoritarian cultural narratives gain institutional backing.
Judiciary and the Sacred: When Law Becomes Theologian
The judiciary, too, has been forced into the domain of the sacred. In the Shah Bano case (1985), the Supreme Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under the secular Criminal Procedure Code, prompting a backlash from religious groups and a political reversal through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The Court has since walked a tightrope, mediating
between constitutional morality and faith-based customs. From declaring instant
triple talaq unconstitutional to ruling on women’s entry into temples and
mosques, it has often functioned as the interpreter of what constitutes
“essential religious practice.”
But when courts define theology, and governments
implement verdicts selectively, the constitutional principle of neutrality is
compromised. The State becomes both the guardian and the regulator of
religion—a paradox of India’s secular structure.
The Political Temptation: Religion as Electoral Capital
Faith has always carried political currency in India, but its monetization in electoral politics today is unprecedented. From temple inaugurations broadcast live on national television to campaign speeches invoking gods and scriptures, the boundary between devotion and propaganda has blurred.
While religion once provided moral language to
politics—Gandhi’s Ram Rajya being an ethical metaphor—it has now become
an instrument of polarization. The proliferation of “faith-based populism” is
not unique to the ruling party; opposition parties too, fearing electoral
marginalization, have adopted “soft Hindutva” strategies to reclaim lost
constituencies.
This instrumentalization of religion risks
transforming India’s plural religiosity into a monolithic identity politics –
trying best to turn India into a Hindu Rashtra. When political power sanctifies
faith for votes, it is neither religion nor politics that wins—it is cynicism
out of syncretism.
Faith, Freedom, and the Fragile Compact
The Indian Constitution enshrines freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion (Article 25). Yet, this freedom is subject to “public order, morality, and health.” The challenge lies in interpreting these limits without infringing upon faith.
Anti-conversion laws, currently enforced in several
states, exemplify this dilemma. While they claim to prevent coercion, they
often end up curbing legitimate expressions of belief, targeting minorities
under the guise of regulation, even making all effort in banning the Arogya Prayer
Sabha (healing prayer meet) bringing it also under the Anti-Conversion law.
The tension between freedom and control mirrors the broader anxiety of a state
caught between its secular identity and its populist impulses.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act,
1991, intended to preserve the religious character of sites as they existed
in 1947, stands as a legislative attempt to safeguard secular equilibrium. Yet,
calls to review it in the wake of the Ayodhya verdict and new claims over
Gyanvapi and Mathura highlight how fragile this equilibrium remains.
The Theology of Power: Lessons from Jesus and the Prophets
The politics of faith must ultimately return to its moral core. In the Gospels, Jesus confronted political and religious powers alike with disarming humility and divine clarity. When asked about paying taxes to Caesar, His response—“Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21)—remains the most succinct articulation of the right relationship between faith and state.
Jesus refused political kingship (John 6:15),
declined to wield the sword (Matthew 26:52), and rebuked religious hypocrisy.
His kingdom was “not of this world” (John 18:36), yet His mission profoundly
influenced it. By standing with the marginalized and challenging corruption, He
modeled an engaged but non-partisan spirituality.
In India’s multi-religious setting, such a model is
not only theological but political wisdom. Faith must act as conscience, not as
campaign. It should inspire ethical governance, not sanctify political power.
The Syncretic Heritage: India’s Civilizational Balance
For centuries, India has thrived on religious syncretism—from Akbar’s Din-i Ilahi to the Bhakti-Sufi movements that blurred sectarian lines. Saints like Kabir and Nanak envisioned a spiritual democracy long before the word entered politics.
This composite culture—what Nehru called the
“Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb”—embodied coexistence. Even the Constitution’s framers
drew from this ethos, embedding secularism not as a Western import but as a
continuation of India’s plural civilizational heritage.
Yet today, this syncretic spirit faces an existential challenge. The
conflation of religious nationalism with patriotism promoted by the RSS risks
erasing the diverse religious and cultural identities that have sustained
Indian democracy.
Restoring this balance requires more than legal
safeguards—it demands cultural reawakening. Schools, universities, and media
must revive interfaith education and civic ethics rooted in constitutional
values.
Global Parallels: Religion in the Public Sphere
Globally, the intersection of religion and politics is not unique to India. In the United States, evangelical Christianity heavily influences politics; in Europe, secularism contends with resurgent Christian identity debates. African democracies grapple with Pentecostal (Charismatic) political activism, while Middle Eastern theocracies redefine governance through religious law.
Hadija Nantale’s research on the global intersection
of faith and politics observes that religious leaders often shape political
ideologies and governance structures through moral authority and mobilization
(Nantale, Research Invention Journal of Current Issues in Arts and
Management, 2024). Her insight holds true for India: religious institutions
here are not peripheral—they are central to social organization.
The challenge, then, is not to eliminate their
influence but to channel it toward peacebuilding, justice, and harmony. Faith
communities can be allies of democracy if they resist the seduction of power.
Civil Society, Media, and Counter-Mobilization
Countervailing forces — human-rights groups, minority organizations, scholarly bodies, and portions of the media — have mobilized to resist institutional biases. Mass protests, strategic litigation, and advocacy campaigns (both domestic and transnational) have kept constitutional principles in public salience. The media ecosystem, while providing investigative oversight in cases like Sabarimala, is itself polarized; broadcast and social media platforms often amplify partisan narratives. The net effect is an intensified public sphere where competing normative frames (constitutional secularism vs. majoritarian cultural politics) play out in contested forums.
The Road Ahead: Restoring Constitutional Equilibrium
Reclaiming the balance between faith and politics requires a threefold response—ethical, institutional, and cultural:
1. Ethical renewal: Political
leaders must draw moral strength from faith without instrumentalizing it.
Religious leaders, in turn, must uphold the prophetic duty to question power,
not to endorse it.
2. Legal Safeguards
and Standardization of Enforcement: Anti-conversion statutes require narrow and precise
definitions to prevent misuse; the Union should consider model legislation
standards or constitutional review to ensure compliance with Article 25–28.
3. Institutional
clarity and transparency: The State must maintain neutrality in matters of
religion—neither privileging nor penalizing any faith. Devaswom boards, waqf
councils, and Church bodies must operate transparently, free from political
control.
4. Civic Education
and Cultural literacy: Citizens must be educated in constitutional values.
Religious literacy should form part of civic education—not to proselytize, but
to cultivate understanding.
5. Media
Responsibility and Platform Regulation: Encourage ethical
journalism; regulate digital misinformation that fuels communal tensions while
respecting free speech.
6. Political Norms
and Inter-party Agreements: Cross-party pacts to depoliticize certain religious
sites and to commit to neutral administration could reduce political
exploitation of faith sites.
The Supreme Court’s role as constitutional guardian remains crucial too.
Its independence and interpretative restraint are the final bulwarks against
majoritarian capture of religion or state.
Conclusion: The Spirit of the Constitution
India’s secularism, born from both spiritual pluralism and constitutional wisdom, was never about denying faith but about ensuring justice through it. The challenge today is to protect this delicate architecture from the encroachment of political opportunism.
Faith can elevate politics when it speaks truth to
power; politics can dignify faith when it safeguards freedom and equality. But
when either dominates the other, both are corrupted.
In this secular dilemma, the words of Mahatma Gandhi
offer enduring guidance: “Those who say religion has nothing to do with
politics do not know what religion means.” For Gandhi, politics was the
means to serve humanity, and religion the soul that gave it purpose.
To balance this intersection is not merely a political task—it is India’s civilizational responsibility. Only when the State governs with neutrality and the faithful act with integrity can the Republic remain both sacred and free. This constitutional equilibrium is not a matter of silencing faith; it is a matter of reasserting the rule of law, impartial institutions, and a civic culture that honors pluralism. India’s plural republic rests on an uneasy but resilient constitutional compromise: nurturing a public space where multiple faiths coexist while securing civic equality. The path forward requires institutional reforms, social awakening, and ethical political leadership committed to the Republic’s foundational promise.
