The meaning of secularism within India’s republic is often debated, especially amid recent controversies where the line between state and faith appears blurred by official participation in major religious events—whether it is the central government’s visible role in the consecration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya or its commemoration of poignant Sikh milestones like the 350th martyrdom anniversary of Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur. In these moments, the concept of secularism is tested not only in government corridors but also in workplaces, uniforms, and courtrooms.
Uniform and conscience: Lt Samuel Kamalesan case
The Supreme Court’s Tuesday verdict upholding the termination of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan underscores the unique challenge faced by individuals serving in disciplined, institutional structures like the Indian Armed Forces. Kamalesan, a Protestant Christian and a troop leader in the Indian Army’s 3rd Cavalry Regiment, was dismissed for refusing to enter the sanctum sanctorum of his regiment’s temple, despite otherwise showing respect and accompanying his troops to these religious parades.
His stance, articulated through his counsel, rested on a sincere interpretation of the First Commandment—“You shall have no other gods before me”—and his belief that actively entering another faith’s sacred space crossed a line of personal conscience. The Army, and ultimately the Supreme Court, saw this not as an act of individual faith but as an unacceptable deviation from regimental discipline and collective esprit de corps. The Court made clear that military service involves sacrificing a measure of individual liberty for unit cohesion, and that the Indian Army’s definition of secularism requires equal participation in diverse religious observances for the sake of morale and unity.
Yet the issue is not just about military law. It points to a core dilemma: Should secularism banish public expressions of faith, or should it engineer a broader space for mutual respect? And what constitutes a violation—insisting on ritual conformity, or punishing private conscience?
Also read: After Ayodhya, Indian secularism must stay vigilant, not give in to religious obscurantism
Principle and conscience: Justice Kurian Joseph case
To fully interpret India’s secular fabric, it helps to revisit another prominent episode from the judiciary. In 2015, Justice Kurian Joseph, a devout Syro-Malabar Catholic, wrote to then-Chief Justice of India HL Dattu expressing pain at the scheduling of the Chief Justices’ Conference—and an official dinner with Prime Minister Narendra Modi—on Good Friday, an important holy day for Christians. Justice Joseph politely declined, explaining that his absence was a mark of respect, not confrontation, and he appealed for official India to show equal sensitivity to all major faiths when setting national calendars for key events.
His protest triggered strong reactions. Critics, including a retired Supreme Court judge, accused him of prioritising communal identity over institutional duty and pointed out that state functions have frequently coincided with religious festivals of all communities. Others, however, saw Justice Kurian’s position not as a demand for public orthodoxy but as a plea for an inclusive secularism, one that accommodates difference and recognises Indians’ multiple identities.
Indian secularism: State action and individual conscience
India’s secularism is neither the French model of total laïcité nor the strict separationist Anglo-American variant. As both these cases reveal, Indian secularism is dialogic, porous, and pragmatic. The state need not be blind to faith; rather, the courts and government must ensure equal dignity and respect for every belief.
This spirit is evident even when the government participates in high-profile religious events—be it the inauguration of the Ram Mandir or the veneration of Sikh Gurus. The Constitution’s original Preamble did not contain the word “secular,” but its structure and ethos reflected secular ideals from the start. The explicit insertion of “secular” by the 42nd Amendment during the Emergency simply formalised what Dr BR Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly already intended. Notably, after the Emergency, the 44th Amendment removed several controversial provisions, but the word “secular” was retained—a political and legal signal that the principle had become basic and non-negotiable.
Also read: Indian secularism still has a future if followers stop blame game with RSS: Rajmohan Gandhi
Flexibility, not rigidity: The true strength of Indian secularism
The point is not that public life must be sanitised of all faith, or that individuals must suppress their conscience. Rather, the genius of the Indian project lies in this balancing act: event commemorations, temple inaugurations, and multi-faith parades can coexist with the strict protection of every citizen’s right to belief and dissent.
Secularism here does not mean excluding religion from the public sphere, nor does it force anyone to “convert” or violate their values. Instead, it insists that all beliefs are equally worthy of respect, and that the diversity of convictions should not become grounds for exclusion or discrimination. In this model, flexibility is a virtue—allowing space for both collective ritual and individual conscience, for state-led commemoration and principled dissent. Therein lies the true strength and promise of the Indian secular republic.
KBS Sidhu is a former IAS officer who retired as Special Chief Secretary, Punjab. He tweets @kbssidhu1961. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)