Communalism and the secular state in practice

Detail

1. Religion in politics: when it is fine

• Religion in politics is not wrong in itself. Religion can guide public life, as long as the state and every party treat all religions equally.
• Three examples of legitimate religion in politics:
• Gandhi: for him, religion meant ethics: moral values such as truth and non-violence that should guide politics. It did not mean one particular faith.
• Human-rights groups: they say minorities suffer most in communal riots, so they ask the state to protect minorities.

• The women's movement: it says family laws (personal laws on marriage, divorce and inheritance) of all religions are unfair to women. It asks the state to reform them.

• The test: expressing religious ideas, beliefs and values in politics is acceptable. Using religion to set one group against another is not.

2. When religion becomes communal

• Communalism (also called communal politics) means treating religion as the basis of the nation. The problem starts when religion is used in exclusive and partisan ways:
• Exclusive means it shuts other groups out.

• Partisan means it takes one side.

• It becomes communal when:

• one religion is presented as superior to the others;
• one group's demands are framed against another religious group;

• state power is used to help one religious group dominate the rest.

• Northern Ireland example: a Protestant majority used state power against Catholics. This shows how a state taken over by one religious group divides its citizens.

• What communal thinking assumes:
• Followers of one religion form one community, with the same basic interests.
• Followers of different religions cannot live as equal citizens.

• So one community must dominate the others, or they must split into separate nations.

• Why this is wrong:

• People have many identities, such as caste, class, region, language and gender. Religion is only one of them.
• Every community has many voices. Members of one religion often disagree among themselves on interests and beliefs.

3. Four forms of communalism

Form	What it looks like
1. Everyday beliefs	Prejudice (judging a group without knowing it), stereotypes (fixed, unfair images of a group) and the belief that one's own religion is superior
2. Quest for political dominance	Majoritarian dominance: the majority community wants political power over the others. Separatism: a minority community wants a separate political unit or state
3. Political mobilisation on religious lines	Using sacred symbols, religious leaders, emotional appeals and plain fear to bring followers of one religion together in politics
4. Communal violence	Riots and massacres. The worst were the Partition riots (1947), and large-scale violence has happened again since then

• Later inter-religious violence in India (Class 11, Secularism):
• the anti-Sikh violence in Delhi (1984);
• the forced exit of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley (from 1989–90);
• the Gujarat violence (2002), in which mostly Muslims were killed.
• These show that both majorities and minorities can be victims. They also show that the state itself can fail to stay neutral.

4. The secular state: necessary but not sufficient

• Secular state (as NCERT explains it): a state with no official religion. Indian secularism has these features:
• No official religion for India. India has no state religion like Buddhism in Sri Lanka or Islam in Pakistan.
• Freedom to profess, practise and spread any religion, or none at all (Arts. 25–28).
• No discrimination on grounds of religion (Arts. 14, 15, 16).

• The state may step into religious matters to make sure communities are treated equally, for example by abolishing untouchability (Art. 17).

• 'Secular' was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment, 1976.

• In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that secularism is part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy).

• A state government that acts against secularism can be dismissed under Article 356 (President's rule: the Union takes over the running of a state).

• A secular Constitution is necessary but not sufficient:

• Prejudice must also be fought in everyday life.

• Religious mobilisation must be resisted in politics.

• Religious demography, Census 2011:

Religion	Share of population (2011)
Hindus	79.8%
Muslims	14.2%
Christians	2.3%
Sikhs	1.7%
Buddhists	0.7%
Jains	0.4%

• Communal propaganda often claims that a minority will soon "outnumber" the majority.
• The Sachar Committee (2006) estimated that the Muslim share would rise only by about 3–4 percentage points over 50 years.

• So the religious balance will not change dramatically.

• The Census 2027 will give new data on religion. That data has not been released yet (verify current).

5. Legal tools against communalism

(a) Election law: Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951

• Corrupt practice means an illegal act during an election campaign. If a candidate is proved to have committed one in an election petition, the court can declare their election void (cancelled) under s. 100.
• s. 123(3): it is a corrupt practice for a candidate, their agent, or anyone acting with their consent to appeal to voters to vote, or not to vote, on grounds of:
• religion, race, caste, community or language; or

• religious symbols, or national symbols such as the national flag or national emblem [5][6].

• s. 123(3A): it is a corrupt practice to promote enmity or hatred between classes of citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, to help a candidate win.

• An amendment widened s. 123(3) and added this new corrupt practice. Its stated aim was to curb communal and separatist tendencies [6].

• s. 125: promoting enmity between classes in connection with an election is also a criminal offence.

• Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017):
• This was a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court. It interpreted s. 123(3) [6].
• The Court held that the section bars appeals based on the religion, caste and so on of both the candidate and the voters. It read the law in an "electorate-centric" way (focused on voters), not a "candidate-centric" way [6].

• The Court said s. 123(3) serves secular democracy. Elections must stay free from appeals to religion, race, caste, community or language [6].

• Model Code of Conduct (MCC): a set of rules for parties and candidates, issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI).

• It bans appeals to caste or communal feelings.
• It bans the use of places of worship (temples, mosques, churches) for election propaganda.
• The MCC is not a law passed by Parliament. The ECI enforces it through its powers under Article 324.

(b) Criminal law: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

• The BNS replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. It came into force on 1 July 2024 [3][4].

BNS section	Offence	Old IPC section
s. 196	Promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and so on, and acts that harm harmony [4]	153A
s. 197	Imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration (claims that a group cannot be loyal to the Constitution or should be denied rights) [4]	153B
s. 299	Deliberate and malicious acts meant to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or beliefs [4]	295A
s. 103(2)	Mob lynching: murder by a group of five or more people acting together on grounds of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any similar ground [3]	No direct IPC equivalent

• s. 103(2) makes mob lynching a separate offence for the first time [3].
• Punishment: every member of the group gets death or life imprisonment, and also a fine [3].

(c) Courts

• Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (17 July 2018): the Supreme Court said rising intolerance and mob violence cannot become "the normal way of life" [7].
• It gave a three-pronged set of guidelines [7]:
  • Preventive: states must identify districts where lynching may happen, and appoint a senior police officer as nodal officer in every district.
  • Remedial: states must set up a compensation scheme for lynching victims, with interim relief within 30 days.
  • Punitive: lynching cases go to designated or fast-track courts, and those convicted should ordinarily get the maximum sentence.

• In July 2018, the Union government set up a high-level committee chaired by the Union Home Secretary to check mob lynching [10].

• Hate-speech judgment: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 943 of 2021, decided 29 April 2026 [8]:

• The petitioners argued that the law had a gap on hate speech. The Court said this argument is "misconceived". Existing criminal law already covers acts that promote enmity, outrage religious feelings or disturb public peace [8].
• The real problem is "deficits in … consistent and effective enforcement", not missing laws. Courts cannot take over the job of the legislature [8].
• The police must register an FIR (First Information Report, the written complaint that starts a criminal case) once a cognizable offence is disclosed. A cognizable offence is a serious offence where police can arrest without a warrant. This duty was settled in Lalita Kumari [8].
• If police refuse, people have remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 [8]:
  • approach the Superintendent of Police (s. 173(4));
  • ask the Magistrate to order an investigation (s. 175(3));
  • file a complaint (s. 223).
• Prior government sanction (BNSS ss. 217 and 218) is needed only when a court takes cognizance (formally takes up the case). It is not needed to register an FIR or start an investigation [8].
• The Court left any new law to Parliament. It pointed to the Law Commission's 267th Report (23 March 2017) on hate speech [8].
• (See political-theory-liberty-rights for the free-speech side.)

(d) Institutions

• Communal Violence Bill, 2011 (Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill): it was drafted to make officials accountable for failing to stop communal violence. It was never enacted (lapsed).
• National Integration Council (NIC): a forum of national leaders on communal harmony and national unity.
• A Working Group of the NIC studied the reports of commissions of inquiry into communal riots [9].

6. Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

• Purpose: to stop old disputes over places of worship from being reopened. It does this by freezing their religious character.
• s. 3: bar on conversion. No person can convert a place of worship of one religious denomination, or a section of it, into a place of worship of:
• a different section of the same denomination; or

• a different denomination [2].

• s. 4: freeze date of 15 August 1947.

• The religious character of every place of worship stays as it was on 15 August 1947 [2].

• Suits (court cases) on this question that were pending when the Act started abated, which means they ended automatically. New suits are barred [2].

• Exemptions:

• s. 5: the Ram Janmabhoomi–Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya.

• Ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act, 1958.

• M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019), the Ayodhya judgment by a five-judge bench:

• It said the Act protects the secular features of the Indian polity, which are part of the basic structure.

• It said the Act enforces non-retrogression: the state must not go back on its duty to treat all faiths equally.

• Pending challenge:

• Petitions by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and others (from 2020) say the Act is unconstitutional. They argue that it bars the courts and takes away the remedies of religious groups.

• Order of 12 December 2024: until the Court decides, the Supreme Court:

  • barred the registration of new suits;
  • barred effective interim or final orders, including orders for surveys, in pending suits over mosques and shrines such as Gyanvapi (Varanasi), Shahi Idgah (Mathura) and Shahi Jama Masjid (Sambhal) (verify current).

• The Ayodhya chronology is in recent-developments; communal politics and caste are in gender-religion-caste.

Prelims Hooks

• RPA s. 123(3) = appeal on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, or use of religious or national symbols → corrupt practice → election can be declared void. s. 123(3A) = promoting enmity or hatred for electoral gain.
• Abhiram Singh (2017), 7-judge bench → s. 123(3) bars appeals based on the religion of the voters too, not just the candidate ("electorate-centric").
• BNS s. 103(2) → mob lynching by 5 or more people on grounds such as caste, community or belief → death or life imprisonment plus fine. This is the first time lynching is a separate offence.
• Match the old and new sections: BNS 196 = IPC 153A (promoting enmity); BNS 197 = IPC 153B (prejudicial to national integration); BNS 299 = IPC 295A (outraging religious feelings).
• Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) → preventive, remedial and punitive guidelines on lynching; a nodal officer in every district; fast-track courts.
• Places of Worship Act 1991: freeze date is 15 August 1947, not 26 January 1950. s. 3 bars conversion. s. 5 exempts Ayodhya. AMASR Act 1958 monuments are also excluded.
• Trap: the Model Code of Conduct has no statutory basis. It rests on ECI powers under Art. 324.
• Census 2011: Muslims 14.2%, Christians 2.3%, Sikhs 1.7%. Sikhs (1.7%) outnumber Buddhists (0.7%) and Jains (0.4%).
• April 2026 hate-speech judgment → existing law is adequate; the gap is in enforcement. Police must register an FIR, and no prior sanction is needed at the FIR stage.

Mains Points

• The secular Constitution is necessary but not sufficient.
• India has strong laws: the RPA, the BNS, the Places of Worship Act and the Tehseen guidelines.
• Yet communal mobilisation continues.
• The Supreme Court (April 2026) placed the problem in uneven enforcement, not in missing laws.

• Reforms:

  • police accountability;
  • independent FIR registration;
  • time-bound trials in hate-speech and lynching cases;
  • action on the Law Commission's 267th Report (2017).

• Electoral regulation of religion:

• s. 123(3) and Abhiram Singh keep elections secular, but they are applied only after the result, through slow election petitions.
• The MCC has no legal force.

• Possible fixes:

  • give the MCC statutory backing;
  • set time limits for election petitions;
  • give the ECI power to act against parties, not just candidates.

• Places of Worship Act debate:

• For: it ensures non-retrogression and communal peace (M. Siddiq, 2019), and stops endless disputes over history.
• Against: critics say it bars judicial remedies and fixes an arbitrary cut-off date.

• The December 2024 halt on new suits and surveys shows how history-based disputes can unsettle fraternity (a sense of brotherhood among all citizens, named in the Preamble).

• Answering communal fears with data:

• Census 2011 and the Sachar Committee projections answer "demographic threat" claims.
• Communalism also rests on false ideas of one shared community interest. It can be countered by stressing multiple identities and diversity within each community.