Author: Manaswini Shetty from NIMS University, Rajasthan
To the Point
The politicization of religion in India creates a significant constitutional problem. The lines between the sacred and the secular blur, which harms democratic values. Despite India being a secular republic, religious populism, vote-bank strategies, and communal appeals frequently combine religion and politics. The core principles of the Indian Constitution, particularly equality, liberty, and secularism, are in danger because of this combination. Political leaders exploit religious feelings to gain support based on identity, leading to social division and harming constitutional principles. The people or framers who took part in the making of the Constitution intended for the state to stay separate from religious institutions. However, using religion for political gain disrupts the secular democratic system. The legal and judicial system faces a challenging question: should it regulate such practices without violating religious freedoms, or should it protect political rights, even if that harms community peace? This issue is both a legal and a moral one, continuously threatening India’s unity in its diversity.
Abstract
Religion and politics may be separate in theory, but they often overlap in practice, particularly in India’s diverse society. The idea of a secular state is unmistakably upheld by the preamble and fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution. This implies that no religion should be given preference or subjected to discrimination by the state. Nevertheless, the reality on the ground shows that religion is often politicized. Political parties and leaders use religious identities for electoral advantage. A paradox results from this overlap: although democratic processes permit the liberty of association and expression, including the expression of religion, their politicization frequently breeds intolerance, division, and even violence. When religion is used in campaign speeches or in making laws, it distorts secular principles and undermines constitutional guarantees of equality, fraternity, and non-discrimination. This issue becomes more challenging when courts are called to decide on these matters, balancing religious rights with the need for public order. Therefore, the politicization of religion is not just a political tactic; it poses a constitutional problem that questions the very foundation and spirit of Indian democracy.
Use of Legal Jargon
According to Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, the secularism principle is a part of the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution and cannot be altered, not even by constitutional amendments. Unlike the U.S. model, secularism in India does not imply a total separation of the state from religion. Rather, it entails a healthy distance that permits the state to remain impartial while stepping in to address religious issues for reform. Everyone is free to declare, practice, and spread their faith given that it does not interfere with morality, public order, or health, according to Articles 25 to 28. However, discrimination on the basis of race, caste, sex, religion, or place of birth is prohibited by Article 15. Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) prohibit candidates from using caste, religion, race, community, or language as a means of obtaining votes, deeming such behaviour to be corrupt. The constitutional goal of fostering a diverse and peaceful society is undermined by the widespread practice of combining politics and faith or religion in elections, despite these safeguards. For courts attempting to strike a balance between democratic representation, free political speech, and positive secularism, this situation poses a serious legal challenge. Furthermore, minorities’ rights to culture and education are safeguarded by Articles 29 and 30, despite their secular nature, and are often politicized for electoral purposes. Although the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Model Code of Conduct forbids the abuse of religious sentiments, its application is primarily advisory in nature and has no legal repercussions. Additionally, even though they are not as legally binding as fundamental rights, the concepts of constitutional morality and fraternity act as a guiding principle that emphasize how improper it is to use religious differences for political advantage. The result is a comprehensive legal framework, but the ongoing overlap between political ideologies and religious beliefs is made possible by its uneven enforcement.
The Proof
The politicization of religion is not a novel or isolated phenomenon. In politics, religious symbols are regularly used, leaders make overt appeals to religious feelings, and electoral promises sometimes involve commitments like temple building or addressing and appeasing minority concerns. For example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi movement—which had its origins in religious assertions—became a vehicle for political mobilization. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which combined religious nationalism with political strategy, gained traction as a result. Similar to this, majority communities have become less polarized as a result of assurances of minority-based welfare programs that are viewed as exclusive or biased. Whether Hindu, Muslim, Dalit, or Sikh, the use of religion to increase support has resulted in communitarian politics, in which voters are viewed as members of a religious group rather than as unique individuals. Communal political rhetoric frequently precedes or follows communal riots, like the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, Gujarat (2002), and Delhi (2020). These violent results show that religious politicization causes real social unrest and human suffering in addition to being ideological. Social media narratives, religious processions, and media content are also used as political religious propaganda tools. The increasing pattern of communal voting behaviour are further supported by surveys and scholarly research, which emphasize how religion has evolved from an individual system of beliefs to an electoral tool.
Case Laws
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The Supreme Court ruled in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) that secularism is a fundamental component of the Constitution. The Court ruled that politics and religion cannot coexist, and that any state government that violates this rule faces removal under Article 356. This important case made clear that secular principles must be upheld in respect of both the letter, as well as spirit and that the government cannot enact laws based on religion.
- Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017)
In the 2017 case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 123(3) of the RPA, holding that candidates are prohibited from running for office based on race, religion, belief systems, caste, class, or community of themselves or their supporters. The elections are a secular process, according to the majority ruling, and it is corrupt to try to sway voters with religious arguments. The idea that communal appeals should not taint democracy was upheld in this case.
- St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat (1974)
The 1974 ruling in St. Xavier’s College v. State of Gujarat saw the Supreme Court reiterate its support for the Constitution’s secular framework, defending the independence of minority institutions and elucidating the delicate balance between religious freedom and governmental regulation.
- Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002)
The court distinguished between cultural education and the political exploitation of religion in Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), holding that value education, which includes discussion of all religions, could be allowed in school curricula as long as it is not equivalent to religious indoctrination.
Conclusion
The politicization of religion is a serious constitutional challenge in India. Even with the secular framework of the Indian Constitution and clear judicial precedents, the boundaries between faith and politics are often crossed for electoral gain. This threat extends beyond legal issues; it impacts the unity and social fabric of the nation. Constitutional morality requires a governance model that respects all religions equally while keeping the state separate from religious affairs. Political leaders must be held responsible for communal rhetoric, and legal rules, especially Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the RPA, must be enforced more strictly. The judiciary, media, civil society, and the Election Commission need to work together to ensure that religion stays a personal issue and not a political tool. Ultimately, protecting the essence of secularism is vital for upholding the democratic and diverse spirit of India. The issue may be complex, but the path must be clear: religion should guide personal behaviour, not dictate political outcomes.
FAQs
- In the Indian context, what does the term “politization of religion” mean?
It describes how political groups or candidates use religion to further their ideologies or win votes. This includes promoting communal narratives, lining up political agendas with religious beliefs, or appealing to religious identities in order to win votes.
- Is the Constitution of India secular?
Indeed, India’s Constitution is secular. Articles 25–28 protect liberty of belief and religion, while Article 15 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. The Preamble proclaims the nation of India to be a state that is secular.
- Which laws prohibit the use of religion in the elections?
Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in particular, forbid the candidates from asking for votes on the basis of religion and label religious requests during elections as corrupt practices.
- Is it unlawful to hold religious processions during elections?
In and of themselves, religious processions are not prohibited. They may, however, be prohibited by law and deemed an infringement of the RPA if they are utilized for electoral influence or to incite hatred among communities.
- How can the public combat the politicization of religion?
People can oppose communal narratives, vote for secular, inclusive laws and policies and candidates, report hate speech, and base their votes on developmental goals rather than religious beliefs.
- Is excluding religion from everyday affairs a requirement of secularism?
No. Indian secularism entails the state maintaining a principled distance from all religions and treating them with equal respect; it does not outright forbid religion, but rather makes sure it is not used for governmental or political ends.
