K.S. Eshwarappa, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament from Karnataka, declared that several temples nationwide will be “reclaimed.” He stated that 36,000 temples were reportedly razed and mosques were constructed in their place, framing it as a matter of religious disputes. Eshwarappa strongly opposed the building of mosques on sites he believed to be Hindu temples. It is essential to recognise the distinction between a community and its culture. According to Bhikhu Parekh’s categorization of “content” and “character” as the community’s own, there are good cultural practices and bad cultural practices.
Emerging Religious Disputes
Community rights are now a part of the Constitution of India‘s Fundamental Rights section, notwithstanding the Assembly’s divided history on the subject. The Fundamental Rights of the Individual were positioned inside community rights through the Assembly’s method of coinciding communal rights. Nevertheless, it should be emphasised that the notion of placing individual rights and community rights in the same section of the Indian Constitution was contested. “There is the unwholesome, and to some extent, a degrading habit of thinking always in terms of communities and never in terms of citizens,” said G. B. Pant, a Congress party member, in January 1947 while speaking in the assembly.
To be sure, communities are made up of people, and every system put in place to ensure development and advancement revolves around the person. Every good leader and administrator should make it their mission to ensure that every citizen is able to live their best life. So, let us not lose sight of the fact that each individual citizen is important. The Constituent Assembly of India in 1947 emphasised that society’s foundation and pinnacle lie in the citizen, whose significance, dignity, and sanctity must always be remembered. A future Indian society that prioritises the citizen as an individual rather than a member of a group based on a certain identity is highlighted in Pant’s reply as a viable alternative.
The Religious Disputes in Modern Time
The current social cohesiveness framework in India prioritises cultural heritage as a communal entitlement. Furthermore, the religious rituals of both majority and minority groups reveal elements of hatred. The existing system for promoting social cohesiveness disregards the effect that cultural practices within communities have on people. Schedule caste and members of tribal groups, as well as women from various faith groups, continue to endure appalling living conditions. Consider Shah Bano‘s fight for Muslim community justice in light of the recent ruling that declared the norm of banning access to menopausal women at the Sabarimala Temple illegal.
The preexisting social cohesiveness may have mitigated group tensions, but the fight for individual rights vs. community-centred claims has gone unsolved. The world’s longest handwritten legal document, the Indian Constitution, has subtly played a key role in fostering the world’s largest and most promising democracy for over 70 years. While the title of greatest democracy has been uncontested throughout its history, the idea of being promising is cast into doubt because oppressed individuals from many communities continue to be marginalised. Nevertheless, the success is subtle.
When citizens and the government have differences, Locke’s idea of a social contract stresses the importance of talking things out and having rational debates. By embracing Locke’s stated concepts of religious tolerance, separation of powers, and preservation of individual rights, India may address religious concerns and foster peaceful coexistence among many religious communities. In addition, the instances of extreme groups attempting to “reclaim” temples highlight the importance of a more thorough public understanding and dialogue.
Conflicts at holy sites like Telangana’s Jogulamba Temple and Hazrat Shah Ali Dargah have happened time and time again, indicating the need for existing measures to prevent the political misuse of religious sentiments. By referencing Locke’s notions on the social compact and the state’s responsibility to guard individuals’ rights, it may be highlighted that there is a need for authorities to preserve order and prevent the abuse of religious beliefs.
Historical Complexities: Roots of Religious Disputes
India’s leaders put national unity ahead of ethnic conflict after the country got its freedom. This idea, which tried to support cultural variety, was based on the ideas of secularism and tolerance. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, wanted a government that was democratic, egalitarian, and open to all residents so that India wouldn’t be limited to one racial or religion group.
The main goal of Hindu nationalism has always been to get rid of diversity by creating a single story that everyone agrees on. The Hindu religion we know today may have its roots in this movement, which began in the early years of British colonisation. This thought was pushed to the edges of society in the 1900s, but it has become popular in the 2000s and is now present in every part of Indian culture.
In the past few years, groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which is often seen as the movement’s main leader, have helped Hindu nationalism grow. With the RSS and groups that are connected to it on board, the BJP has built a strong alliance that has changed the political scene and helped them in big ways. This school of thought, which comes from Hindutva, wants to make Hindu culture official in the state. This is different from the liberal plan that has been the norm in Indian politics up until now.
The fall of atheism in modern India has made way for the rise of majoritarianism. The BJP says that the Congress party is trying to use religious appeasement to India’s Muslim majority to keep its political power. India’s commitment to tolerance and “unity in diversity” has been called into question by the fact that different governments have moved away from the country’s secular history. Even though they talked a lot about being atheist and civil nationalists, some Congress Party members used religious feelings for personal gain. It turned into tribal politics in the 1980s, giving in to Hindu and Muslim extremists on the right.
When Religion and Politics Intertwine in the Arena of Law
The efforts paved the way for religion politics to become more popular in India’s public life. The Congress party’s hold on political power was weakened by its failure to take strong action against political violence and its unwillingness to stand up to Hindu-rights groups. India’s economy was shook up a lot by the shift to conservative economics, along with religion politics. It helped growth, but it also made the gaps bigger between country and urban places, as well as between classes and regions.
Role of Politics and Media in Directing Religious Sentiments
The rise of digital media has made problems like high unemployment, deep poverty, and economic injustice stand out more. As it does in other places, India’s angry people about the country’s bad economy have led to dangerous politics, nationalism, and violence against minority groups.
Furthermore, continuous reservations and affirmative action programs have caused animosity among the higher castes. After the Mandal era, they were displaced but made a comeback by joining with other backward castes during the BJP’s ascendancy. Building alliances, particularly in regions such as Uttar Pradesh, strengthened the dominance of the majority in politics.
The Mandal interregnum momentarily overshadowed religious politics, but the BJP’s wins in Uttar Pradesh in 2017 and the 2019 parliamentary elections signalled a revival of majoritarian identity. The notion that caste may encompass Hindutva has been disputed since a notable change in north Indian politics has diminished the influence of backward caste claims. The BJP’s ability to unite lower OBCs and minor Dalit communities under the Hindutva identity indicates a weakening opposition to majoritarian nationalism.
Majoritarian nationalism emphasises the country as the main identity, disregarding factors such as caste or class. The story has struck a chord with the emerging middle class, which is attracted to populist rhetoric that questions the supposed elite. The hostility towards the elite seems to be more strategic than substantial, acting as a way for new leaders to position themselves against the existing power structure.
Ultimately, the present sociopolitical situation in India demonstrates a multifaceted interaction among historical influences, economic changes, and identity-based policies. Majoritarian nationalism, fuelled by Hindu ideology, threatens the core principles of secularism and pluralism. India’s democracy’s survival depends on how the nation reconciles its different identities and maintains its commitment to inclusion and diversity amidst these changes.
Legal Framework: Navigating Complexity in Adjudication
India’s constitutional development since 1950 has maintained a careful equilibrium in safeguarding both individual and collective religious freedoms, all under the structure of a secular government. The 1976 constitutional amendment designated India as ‘secular,’ emphasising the country’s dedication to plurality. Yet, the journey to reach this balance was characterised by heated discussions in the Constituent Assembly, especially about the proposal for a Uniform Civil Code. As a result, the compromise maintained personal laws unchanged, while encouraging the state to strive for consistency as outlined in Article 44.
The Secular Fabric
India follows a plural legal system that safeguards both the profession and practice of faith due to the lack of a ‘Uniform Civil Code’. Articles 14–21 of the Constitution protect individual rights to equality and freedom of speech and prohibit discrimination based on religion. Articles 25 to 27 create a protective structure for religious rights, enabling groups to freely practice, profess, and spread their beliefs while setting up religious institutions. Certain religious groups’ personal affairs are regulated by statutes, such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
There may not be a single civil code in place, but the state has passed secular legislation to accommodate many viewpoints. People of various religions or denominations can be married under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, which eliminates the need for religious rituals. Anyone can take a law to court if it doesn’t follow the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s main job is to understand and protect constitutional principles. It also plays a big part in deciding whether religious laws are in line with the Constitution.
The Court has used the new idea of “essential religious practices” to decide if a religion’s rituals and customs should be protected. There is strong resistance to this method in the scholarly community. Some say it could lead to changes in religion, more court review, or the Court becoming a religious authority. Most of the time, the Court handles religion issues as part of its work on Public Interest Litigations (PIL). Indians can deal with public problems by filing PILs, which make it easier for people to do so without having to go through a lot of red tape. Public interest litigation was first created to help the poor. It has since grown to include letting the court judge how sincere a petitioner’s selflessness is.
Judicial Activism in the Context of Religious Disputes
Because PILs don’t have to meet as many strict requirements, some people are worried that the Court might not be able to handle complicated policy problems. Academics are worried that this method could weaken democracy by favouring rich litigants, which makes people question its political authority. When a case about religious freedom goes to court, the question of who can best represent the core beliefs of a church comes up. Unlike worldly problems, which are generally dismissed, religious ones need careful thought.
In order to give good advice in court cases, you need to prove your legitimacy. This is especially important for faith groups that aren’t well organised. Because of past rulings, the Court needs to think again about the idea of standing in religious settings as it deals with the area where individual and group rights meet. The parts of Indian constitutional law that protect religious freedom are still changing. So, there needs to be a well-thought-out plan to meet the wants of different groups while also stopping their abuse. Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the power to make sure that justice is done for everyone.
Using this power, public interest litigation (PIL) has helped make the legal system easier to use and fix problems that affect everyone’s ability to get justice. Making sure that everyone involved in a case has the chance for due process is important. This demonstrates the need to balance the desire to “do complete justice” with the duty to safeguard fundamental rights. In cases like Shayara Bano, Sabarimala Temple, and Babri Masjid, the Court has often used its own judgement. This has left a tradition that lets majoritarian politics affect legal decisions.
Common Court Cases raise important questions
In Shayara Bano, the Supreme Court didn’t look into constitutional issues. Instead, it looked at whether talaq-e-biddat was in line with Islamic beliefs. In spite of the petitioner’s hopes for a fair decision, the new government made it a crime by passing a strict law. A small group of people think that this rule is unfair to Muslims and goes against their civil rights.
The trouble with the Sabarimala Temple started when the federal government thought that Kerala’s efforts to police the law against admitting people based on their religion were an attack on religious freedom. The Court’s decisions in these cases were influenced more by public opinion, religious views, and specific circumstances than by constitutional principles. This meant that the majority’s politics could affect the decisions.
The long-term effects of these results will influence future lawsuits and policy decisions. The petitioner’s qualifications were questioned, and Chief Justice Dipak Misra referenced the Sabarimala Temple case to argue against granting the request for Muslim women to visit churches. In 2020, the Supreme Court put together a group of nine judges to look into controversial religious and legal problems. These included the Sabarimala Temple and letting women into churches. Some people have questioned whether or not it makes sense to put all of these reasons into one reference.
Using full legal power in these situations makes people very worried about how committed the court is to following the law. In recent cases, like Shayara Bano and Babri Masjid, judges have had more freedom to use their own judgement, which means they are going against the law. In order to fix mistakes, the Sabarimala Temple is thinking about changing the law, even though there may be risks in the future.
Justice Chandrachud stresses how important it is to follow the right steps when changing the constitution to keep things honest and real. From the Supreme Court’s later rulings, it’s clear that this method only works when it focuses on legal concepts instead of a few people’s opinions.
The Court’s flexible approach has enabled the influence of majoritarian politics on decision-making regarding constitutional concepts, rather than prioritising principled judgements to address perceived injustices. These decisions have wide-ranging impacts that extend beyond the legal system, shaping laws, enforcement, and perpetuating societal conflicts. The paper advocates for a reconsideration of the Court’s utilisation of discretionary powers in religious conflicts to establish a more moral and constitutionally sound approach.
Is Political Interference a hindrance to religious disputes resolution?
The BJP’s rise to power and the following religious tensions in India stem from a mix of political conditions, the waning of the Congress Party, and the BJP’s dexterous use of societal splits for political gains. Conducted by the Pew Research Center, the extensive exploration of India’s religious dynamics reveals a link between religiosity, identity, and societal attitudes among its 1.4 billion citizens.
India, has a complex connection between religious beliefs and identity due to its varied population. 84% of adults view religion as “very important,” contributing to the diverse religious landscape of the nation, which includes Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, and other faiths.
The poll reveals that although Indians claim to value religious freedom, there are religious disparities and a resistance to embracing many religions within communities. 64% of Hindus believe that being Hindu is essential for a genuine Indian identity, and 60% of those who share this belief voted for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party.
The poll examines the effects of Modi’s policies, namely those related to Hindu nationalism. The study illuminates the existing emotions in people during heated political issues like the Citizenship Amendment Act. The study highlights a contradictory element of Indian faith, where tolerance and division coexist. Indians prioritise mutual tolerance for different religions but prefer a type of pluralism that allows unique religious groups to preserve their individual identities.
These results emphasise the enduring nature of conventional ideas and behaviours, as 97% of Indians hold a belief in God. Despite economic affluence, religious ceremonies for birth, marriage, and death continue to hold great importance, preserving the significance of religious identity in the country. The poll highlights the impact of religion on other elements of life, such as eating habits, dress choices, and decisions related to marriage. India can contribute to raising a more tolerant and accepting next generation by creating an educational environment that acknowledges the similarities and differences among the world’s main faiths.
How to make people less prejudiced?
When people of different religions work together, it might make them less prejudiced and more empathetic. Community-building projects run by area groups and well-known people could lead to new ideas, partnerships, and points of view. These get-togethers might help clear up misunderstandings, lower bias, and bring people together in the neighbourhood. Everyone needs to understand how the media affects people. A well-informed public could be reached by working to promote fair news, condemn hype, and honour faith variety.
Messages that bring people together, not apart, can be spread by the media. To deal with religious bias and its manifestations, we need better legal systems. It sends a strong message against violence or discrimination based on religion to make sure victims get fair and quick justice. We should work towards strong laws that protect the rights of faith communities. People who are in power have a big effect on everyone else. Supporting rules and words that are welcoming can have a good effect on everyone. Instead of using religion to separate people, politicians should focus on pushing policies that value differences and bring people together. Supporting local projects is important for building understanding and peace between groups.
People of different religions can work together to make their communities better and enjoy what they have in common by taking part in cultural events, fairs, and community projects. Having good procedures for handling crises and mediating disputes can help keep small differences from growing into bigger issues. Mediation professionals know how to settle disagreements, help people talk to each other, and find long-lasting answers.
Preparedness to Battle Separatist Opinions
Quick action can help keep things stable and stop emotions from rising. Often, disagreements about faith and social class touch on each other. Certain economic growth methods could help places where there are religious clashes solve their problems. No matter what religion they follow, everyone should have the same access to these projects’ resources, and efforts should be made to get rid of the unfair situations that cause social unrest.
Getting in touch with other countries and foreign groups could help you figure out the problems and possible answers for managing religious variety. Looking at what other countries have done to solve similar problems can help you come up with good answers. Teachers can change people’s minds by stressing the value of religious freedom, variety, and pride in the school. These efforts might change how people think because they reach a lot of people through a lot of different channels. It put itself out there as a booster of Hindu rights and said that liberal leaders were unfair to Hindus and more interested in minority groups.
Congress’s fall enabled the BJP to forge partnerships with other parties against Congress, resulting in the BJP’s rise to federal power in 1998. The party succeeded in connecting with Hindu emotions and presenting itself as the protector of Hindu rights.
The BJP deliberately used the religious disputes in Ayodhya and Gujarat as part of its election plan. Despite the suspension of several members involved in violence, prominent BJP lawmakers successfully led the campaign against the Babri Masjid. The Gujarat riots in 2002 led to the BJP’s biggest electoral success in state elections that took place just after the carnage. Evidence indicates that BJP members premeditated the controversy before the elections to position themselves as the primary proponents of Hindu concerns.
Contemporary Solutions: Toward Sustainable Resolution
India has mostly stayed calm despite political manoeuvres, thanks to numerous causes. Developing a robust, non-religious national identity throughout the fight for independence and encouraging diverse civic organisations were essential to bringing society together. The widespread dispersion of authority within the governmental framework, along with the presence of dedicated secular administrations in several regions, has helped limit communalist political activities. The federal administration, with the BJP as part of a coalition, was limited in implementing communalist politics to its maximum extent. India’s cohesive civil society, power distribution, and robust secular identity have served as barriers to religious strife.
Examining the current situation and forecasting the future is causing increased animosity among staunchly realistic Hindus against all minority groups. Violent policies are likely to persist in Indian politics as different strategies for exploiting religion continue to be employed. The state-controlled media will emphasise the method of progress and promote Hindutva. Implementing policies that align with public interest and address people’s needs will shape their views. Exercising control over the population secures authority, but true influence is sustained only when the people’s satisfaction is fully achieved. The BJP administration is the only one that would advance the cause of Hindutva on a significant scale through the exploitation of media and religion as its primary method.
The distinction between a community and its culture is fundamental. An essay discussed the differentiation between healthy and bad cultural practices using Bhikhu Parekh’s categorization of ‘content’ and ‘character’ in relation to the community. The Assembly included community rights in the Fundamental Rights section of the constitution, notwithstanding the differing experiences of division and communal violence. The Assembly’s approach aligns communal rights with the individual’s fundamental rights.
Community and Individual Rights: The Perpetual Debate
The inclusion of community and individual rights in the Fundamental Rights section of the Indian Constitution was a subject of considerable debate. In January 1947, G. B. Pant, expressed in the assembly that people tend to think in terms of communities rather than citizens, which he considered unhealthy and rather demeaning. Citizens are the foundation of communities, and the person is at the centre of all methods and gadgets used to achieve growth and advancement.
Every competent administrator and statesman aims to prioritise the well-being and contentment of each individual person. Citizens should be the primary focus. It is crucial to always acknowledge the significance, dignity, and sanctity of the citizen, who serves as both the foundation and the pinnacle of the social hierarchy (Constituent Assembly of India 1947). Pant’s statement proposed a potential alternate path for Indian society, emphasising valuing citizens as individuals rather than as members of identity-based communities.
India’s current social cohesion system prioritises culture as a communal entitlement. Moreover, when examining the religious customs of both majority and minority cultures, one may encounter aspects that are often met with disapproval. The existing social cohesiveness structure does not consider how communities’ cultural practices affect individuals. The living circumstances of Schedule castes, tribes, and women in many religious sects are predominantly dismal. Shah Bano’s struggle for justice among Muslims or the recent verdict that declared the practice of banning menopausal women from attending the Sabarimala Temple unconstitutional are both worth considering.
Solution Oriented Approach and Inclusive Policies
Society, education, and policy-oriented actions must all be part of the solution to the complicated religious problems brought to light in India. Important steps towards more mutual appreciation, acceptance, and inclusion might include the following:
Taking up the Uphill Route Together
Encouraging students of different faiths and backgrounds to study together is an important first step. A school’s influence on changing people’s views and dispelling prejudices is substantial. India can help make the next generation more open and understanding by creating schools that teach about the parallels and differences between the world’s main religions.
By working together, people of different beliefs can overcome prejudice and build a better understanding of one another. It’s possible for community-building projects run by neighbourhood groups and important people to bring about new ideas, teamwork, and creativity. These get-togethers might help clear up misunderstandings, lower bias, and bring people together in the neighbourhood. Everyone needs to understand how the media affects people. We can reach a well-informed public by promoting fair news, condemning sensationalism, and respecting diverse faiths.
Words spread by the media can bring people together instead of separating them. To deal with religious bias in all its forms, we need better legal systems. The fact that victims get fair and quick justice sends a strong message against violence or discrimination based on religion. We should work towards strong laws that protect the rights of faith communities. People who are in charge can have a big effect on most people. Laws and words that are welcoming to everyone can be good for everyone. Instead of using religion to separate people, politicians should focus on pushing policies that value differences and bring people together.
Cohesive Society is the Way Forward
To help communities understand each other and get along, we need to back local efforts. People of different religions can work together to build better communities and enjoy what they have in common by going to cultural events, fairs, and community projects. Having good procedures for handling crises and mediating disputes can help keep small differences from growing into bigger issues. Experts in mediation can help settle disagreements, improve communication, and find long-lasting answers.
Taking action early can help keep things from getting worse and promote long-term security. There are often places where religious and social-class disputes intersect. Certain plans for economic growth could help places where there are religious clashes solve their problems. No matter what religion someone follows, all projects should give everyone the same number of resources and work to get rid of social differences that cause trouble.
We can learn more about the problems with managing religious variety and find answers by getting in touch with other countries and foreign groups. To come up with good answers, it helps to look at what other countries that are having similar problems have done well and not so well. By stressing the value of religious freedom, diversity, and pride in the classroom, teachers can change how people feel about these things. These efforts might change how people think because they reach a lot of people on a lot of different channels.
To carry out these plans, all levels of government must work together with faith and social groups. India has a chance to make a future without religious hatred if it works to fix the problems that lead to it and makes society more accepting. No matter how hard our current social system tries to keep everyone happy, it can’t solve the basic problem of how individual rights conflict with the needs of society as a whole.
India has the world’s largest and most hopeful democracy. For more than 70 years, its Constitution has been its foundation. The document holds the record as the longest handwritten court record ever, spanning almost 300 pages. Though the title of greatest democracy remains uncontested, the potential for advancement is unclear due to the persistent marginalisation of oppressed people from many cultures, making the achievement subtle.
- Ayodhya: How a religious issue became a political hot potato, The Hindu, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/how-a-religious-issue-became-a-political-hot-potato/article61621445.ece.
- Saha, Santosh C., Religious Revivalism Among the Hindus in India: Ideologies of the Fundamentalist Movements in Recent Decades, Indian Journal of Asian Affairs 8/9, no. ½, 35–54, (1995).
- Zoya Hasan, Majoritarianism and the Future of India’s Democracy, Social Scientist 48, no. 1/2 (560-561) 3–16, (2020).
- R. Vakil, Representation and Legitimacy in the Supreme Court: Adjudicating Law and Religion in India, Studies in Indian Politics, 10(1), 48–61, (2022).
- India – United States Department of State, U.S. Department of State (2023), https://www.state.gov/reports/2018-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/.
- Misbah Abidin, Politicization of Religion in Contemporary Media: Highlighting National Politics of Hindus in BJP Government, Modern Diplomacy (2022), https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/02/06/politicization-of-religion-in-contemporary-media-highlighting-national-politics-of-hindus-in-bjp-government/ (last visited Mar 6, 2024).
- O’Reilly, Exploring Religion and Identity Politics in India. The Pew Charitable Trusts, (2022) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/trust/archive/winter-2022/exploring-religion-and-identity-politics-in-india.
- Vikas K. Choudhary, The idea of religious minorities and social cohesion in India’s constitution: Reflections on the Indian experience MDPI (2021), https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/11/910 (last visited Mar 6, 2024).
Submitted by Shibala Singh, a Second Year Law Student pursuing B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) of Batch 2027 from National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of KnowLaw or any of its members. KnowLaw and its affiliates are not responsible for, and do not endorse, any content or opinions shared by the author.