Unit 6: Religion and Politics

I. Orientation

Indian constitutional government addresses religion through a commitment to equality, freedom of conscience, and democratic citizenship rather than through the establishment of an official religion. The Constitution came into force on 26 January 1950; the word “secular” was added expressly to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, although secular principles were present from the beginning.

• Constitutional foundation: Articles 14, 15, and 16 guarantee equality and prohibit discrimination; Articles 25–28 protect religious freedom; Articles 29–30 protect cultural and educational rights of minorities.
• Meaning of secularism: The state does not identify itself with one religion, while it may intervene in religious practices to protect equality, reform, public order, and social justice.
• Democratic assumption: Religious communities possess rights, but individual citizenship remains the basis of political membership.
• Historical setting: Partition in 1947, mass displacement, and communal violence made religious conflict a central concern of constitution-making.
• Key distinction: Religion as personal faith or social identity differs from communalism, which turns religious identity into a political claim of collective antagonism.
• Governing tension: The state must balance religious freedom, minority protection, gender and caste equality, public order, and national unity.

II. Debate of secularism in India — Constitutional model and competing interpretations

Secularism in India is debated because the Constitution combines religious liberty with state intervention and affirmative protection, rather than following a strict separation between religion and public institutions.

A. Debate of secularism in India

The debate concerns what “secular” government should mean in a religiously diverse society and whether Indian secularism treats all faiths equally in practice.

• Equal respect: The state is expected to protect Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, and other communities without declaring a state religion. Article 25 begins with freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practise, and propagate religion.
• Principled intervention: Indian secularism permits regulation of secular activities associated with religion. For example, laws may address temple administration, untouchability, discriminatory exclusion, or unequal personal practices.
• Minority safeguards: Articles 29 and 30 allow minorities to conserve their culture and establish and administer educational institutions. These provisions respond directly to fears that numerical majorities could erase minority identities.
• Reformist dimension: Article 25(2) permits the state to make laws for social welfare and reform and to open Hindu religious institutions to all classes and sections. This connects secularism with the abolition of caste exclusion.
• Competing interpretations:
  1. Liberal-pluralist view: Secularism protects individual freedom and equal citizenship; public policy should not favour any religious community.
  2. Community-sensitive view: Formal equality is insufficient where communities have unequal power; minority protections and group rights are necessary for substantive equality.
  3. Majoritarian critique: Some critics argue that selective state intervention or community-specific policies produce “pseudo-secularism,” while critics of majoritarian politics argue that this language can conceal unequal treatment of minorities.
• Judicial position: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court treated secularism as part of the Constitution’s basic structure. A government that systematically violates secular principles may therefore face constitutional scrutiny.
• Political controversy: Disputes over personal laws, religious conversion, temple and mosque administration, school curricula, and minority institutions show that secularism is both a legal principle and a contested political practice.
• Analytical limitation: “Equal treatment” cannot mean ignoring social inequalities; otherwise numerical majority power may become the practical definition of neutrality.

III. Problem of communalism in India — Religious identity as political antagonism

Communalism is a political ideology that treats a religious community as a unified political interest and represents other communities as competitors, enemies, or threats.

A. Problem of communalism in India

The central problem is the conversion of religious difference into organised hostility, weakening constitutional citizenship and democratic trust.

• Identity construction: Communal politics selects symbols, historical memories, places of worship, food practices, and demographic statistics to create a sense of collective insecurity. Claims about “majority danger” or “minority appeasement” are common political forms.
• Historical roots: Colonial administration reinforced community categories through censuses, separate electorates, and representative arrangements. The Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan and the Congress–League conflict contributed to the conditions of Partition.
• Structural causes:
  • Economic competition: Scarce jobs, urban land, business opportunities, and public benefits can be interpreted through religious identity.
  • Political mobilisation: Leaders may use religious slogans, processions, rumours, or selective historical narratives to consolidate votes.
  • Social segregation: Separate neighbourhoods and limited inter-community contact allow stereotypes to grow.
  • Institutional weakness: Delayed policing, partisan administration, and poor prosecution can make violence appear profitable.
• Forms of communalism:
  1. Everyday prejudice: Stereotypes, social exclusion, hate speech, and discrimination in housing or employment.
  2. Organised mobilisation: Religious processions, campaigns, electoral polarisation, and demands for exclusive cultural control.
  3. Communal violence: Riots, targeted attacks, sexual violence, arson, displacement, and destruction of religious sites.
  4. Institutional communalism: Bias in policing, administration, media representation, or relief and rehabilitation.
• Distinction from legitimate religious politics: Citizens may peacefully express religious values or demand policies consistent with their beliefs. Communalism begins when political claims deny equal citizenship, promote hostility, or justify coercion against another community.
• Consequences for vulnerable groups: Women, children, migrants, workers, and poor households often suffer the greatest loss of homes, livelihoods, schooling, and security.
• Constitutional response: Articles 15 and 16 prohibit religious discrimination, Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and election law restricts appeals for votes on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language.
• Limitation of legal remedies: Laws cannot by themselves remove prejudice; enforcement depends on impartial police action, credible investigations, responsible media, and political accountability.

IV. Major communal clashes in India — Patterns, turning points, and state response

Major communal clashes reveal how local disputes can become mass violence when political mobilisation, rumours, administrative failure, and organised attacks interact.

A. Major communal clashes in India

These episodes should be studied as historical processes rather than isolated “riots,” because they involve mobilisation, state response, displacement, and long-term memory.

• Partition violence, 1947: The division of British India produced massacres and the displacement of approximately 10–15 million people across the new borders. It established the founding fear that religious majoritarianism could destroy a common political community.
• Jabalpur, 1961: Violence around industrial and commercial competition illustrated how local economic tensions could acquire communal form in the early Republic.
• Ahmedabad, 1969: Large-scale Hindu–Muslim violence exposed the role of rumours, neighbourhood segregation, and inadequate policing; official inquiries examined administrative failures.
• Nellie, Assam, 1983: Thousands of Bengali-speaking Muslims were killed during a period of intense conflict over migration, citizenship, and electoral participation. The episode demonstrated how ethnicity, language, migration, and religion can overlap.
• Anti-Sikh violence, 1984: Following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s assassination by her Sikh bodyguards on 31 October 1984, organised attacks occurred in Delhi and elsewhere. Sikh homes, businesses, and places of worship were targeted; questions of political complicity and delayed justice remained central.
• Bhagalpur, 1989: Violence in Bihar involved killings, destruction, and displacement, showing the connection between local mobilisation and wider national tensions over the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid dispute.
• Ayodhya and Mumbai, 1992–93: The demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 was followed by communal violence in several places. Mumbai witnessed major riots in December 1992 and January 1993, followed by serial bomb blasts in March 1993.
• Gujarat, 2002: After the burning of a train coach at Godhra on 27 February, widespread violence affected Muslims and also injured or killed Hindus. Investigations, commissions, court proceedings, and debates over administrative responsibility shaped the political aftermath.
• Kandhamal, 2008: Violence in Odisha affected Christians, especially through attacks on homes, churches, and institutions, illustrating that communal conflict is not confined to Hindu–Muslim relations.
• Delhi, 2020: Communal violence during protests and counter-protests over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act caused deaths, injuries, property destruction, and displacement, demonstrating the contemporary role of polarised media and digital rumours.
• Recurring pattern: Violence often escalates when provocative speeches, processions, rumours, economic boycotts, and partisan policing converge. Curfews may stop immediate violence but cannot replace prosecution and rehabilitation.
• Democratic lesson: Fact-finding commissions, judicial review, compensation, witness protection, and impartial prosecution are essential because impunity encourages repetition.

V. Impact of communalism on Indian political system — Institutions, parties, and citizenship

Communalism affects not only inter-community relations but also the operation of elections, parties, federalism, administration, civil liberties, and constitutional democracy.

A. Impact of communalism on Indian political system

Its broad impact is to shift politics from policy-based competition toward identity-based polarisation, making equal citizenship more difficult to sustain.

• Electoral mobilisation: Parties may seek consolidated religious voting blocs through symbolic issues, religious events, candidate selection, and campaign rhetoric. This can make elections competitive while narrowing the range of policy debate.
• Party-system effects: Communal polarisation can strengthen parties that claim to represent a particular community and pressure other parties to adopt majoritarian or appeasement-oriented strategies.
• Majority–minority relations: Minorities may experience insecurity, under-representation, or pressure to vote defensively. Majorities may also be mobilised through claims that national culture is under threat.
• Federal tensions: Communal conflicts frequently cross state borders through migration, media, and political campaigns. The Union may need to coordinate with states on policing, relief, intelligence, and prosecution, creating disputes over constitutional responsibility.
• Administrative neutrality: If police or district officials are seen as partisan, public confidence in the rule of law declines. Article 14’s promise of equality becomes practically empty when similar offences receive unequal treatment.
• Civil liberties: Curfews, internet restrictions, preventive detention, and limits on assembly may be used during crises. Such measures can be justified for public order but require legality, necessity, proportionality, and judicial oversight.
• Judicial and constitutional consequences: Secularism, equality, dignity, and life are connected constitutional commitments. Courts may review discriminatory state action, but litigation cannot fully repair lost lives, homes, or communal trust.
• Media and digital politics: Television debates, edited videos, and social-media messages can circulate rumours faster than officials can verify them. Digital platforms may intensify emotional identity politics through targeted messages and repeated misinformation.
• Developmental costs: Violence destroys shops, homes, schools, factories, and informal employment. Displaced families may enter segregated settlements, reducing access to credit, education, and public services.
• National integration: Communalism weakens the idea that citizenship, rather than religious membership, determines political rights. It can transform constitutional patriotism into a test of cultural conformity.
• Institutional safeguards:
  • Election regulation: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 addresses corrupt electoral practices involving appeals to religious identity.
  • Rule-of-law measures: Prompt registration of cases, independent investigation, prosecution of organisers, and equal compensation reduce impunity.
  • Political responsibility: Parties and candidates must reject hate speech, disclose inflammatory campaigning, and discipline members who incite violence.
  • Social measures: Integrated schooling, non-discriminatory housing, local peace committees, and reliable public information reduce segregation and rumour-driven escalation.
• Core democratic test: A secular constitutional system is judged not only by formal declarations but by whether every person can vote, work, worship, speak, and seek state protection without fear of religious retaliation.