The Absurdity of Indian Secularism

Questions and Struggles of being a Gen Z Hindu in India

The Misuse and Selective Application of Secularism in India

Secularism, by definition, is a principle of governance, not an individual belief system. Unlike ideologies such as socialism, communism, or liberalism—each of which dictates a personal or collective philosophy—secularism defines the relationship between the state and religion. Calling oneself secular makes as little sense as calling oneself Machiavellian; it misattributes a governmental policy to an individual's personal identity.

Interestingly, in Western democracies, citizens rarely, if ever, refer to themselves as "seculars." They may support secular governance, but they do not wear the term as a personal label. In India, however, it is often wielded as a mark of ideological superiority by self-proclaimed intellectuals who apply it selectively—exposing an inherent bias.

Selective Outrage and the Double Standards of Secularism

The biggest inconsistency in Indian secularism lies in its application, which shifts depending on the religion in question. Consider how Hindu religious practices are perceived when undertaken by public figures. If the Chief Justice of India performs a puja at home or the Prime Minister attends the Ram Mandir inauguration¹, it is labeled "communal" or "a threat to secularism." Yet, when government officials and a sitting Prime Minister like Manmohan Singh² participates in Iftar parties during Ramadan, it is called a gesture of inclusivity. When politicians attend Christmas Mass or host Christmas celebrations³ in government spaces, it is categorized as a cultural event. The same media and intellectual circles that claim to champion secularism are conspicuously silent in these instances.

This selective scrutiny becomes even more evident when compared to Western democracies like the United States. American presidents regularly attend church services, take oaths on the Bible, and participate in religious events like the National Prayer Breakfast⁴ or the White House Christmas tree lighting⁵. Yet, they are never accused of violating secularism. If true secularism means a strict separation of religion and state, why is this not seen as a breach? The answer is simple: in the West, secularism is understood as neutrality, not an outright rejection of religious engagement in public life. In India, however, the label "secular" is used politically—to demonize one religion while excusing others.

Ambedkar’s Views: A Conveniently Ignored Truth

A striking irony in this entire discourse is how self-proclaimed secularists invoke Ambedkarism whenever it suits their agenda, yet completely ignore Ambedkar’s actual views on secularism. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, did not see the need to explicitly include the word secular in the Preamble. Why? Because secularism was already embedded in the Constitution’s core principles. Articles 25-28 ensured freedom of religion, while Article 15 prohibited discrimination based on faith. The Indian state, by design, was already neutral in religious matters—without needing an explicit declaration.

More importantly, Ambedkar’s secularism was fundamentally different from the version championed today. He did not advocate for an absolute separation of religion and state, but rather a system where the state ensured social reform while treating all religions equally. His vision of secularism was based on justice, not selective outrage. Yet, today’s so-called secularists conveniently distort his legacy, using it as a rhetorical weapon while disregarding his actual stance.

The Forced Insertion of ‘Secular’ in 1976: A Political Move

If India was already secular in spirit, why was the word secular forcefully injected into the Preamble in 1976 through the 42nd Amendment? The answer is straightforward: it was not a democratic decision made through open debate. It was a political move by the Indira Gandhi government during the Emergency—a period when civil liberties were suspended. The amendment was used to brand political opponents as "anti-secular" and consolidate power. It was never about strengthening secularism; it was about manipulating the narrative for political convenience.

Even after its inclusion, the application of secularism remained inconsistent. The selective interpretation of secularism was evident in a recent BBC interview with Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud. The interviewer implied that the CJI’s faith had influenced his verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi case, referencing his statement that his personal beliefs gave him strength. His response was fitting: The Indian Constitution does not require an individual to be an atheist to hold office—only that their personal beliefs must not affect their reasoning.

This distinction is often overlooked. In Western democracies, a leader or judge openly practicing their faith is considered normal. In India, similar actions are selectively scrutinized—but only when they involve Hinduism.

The Reality: Secularism as a Political Weapon

The hypocrisy surrounding secularism in India undermines its very foundation. If secularism were truly about neutrality, all religions should be treated equally—either all public religious expressions by politicians should be discouraged, or none should be selectively condemned. Yet, the reality is that Hindu traditions are disproportionately labeled as "communal," while other religious observances are celebrated as symbols of diversity.

Thus, the so-called "seculars" in India are not defenders of secularism but manipulators of it. If they truly believed in secular principles, their outrage would be consistent across all religious expressions. Until that happens, what we see in India is not secularism but a politically motivated and selectively applied ideology.

The Contradictions of Indian Secularism: A One-Way Street?

Secularism, in its purest form, means the state maintains neutrality in religious matters—neither favoring nor interfering in any faith. However, in India, secularism has taken on a paradoxical definition. The state stays away from some religions while actively intervening in others. This selective secularism raises a fundamental question: Is secularism meant to ensure fairness, or has it become a tool for selective control and appeasement?

---

You’re Secular When It Comes to Hindu Temples…

1. Taking Over Temple Property

   • State governments in India control thousands of Hindu temples under the Endowments Act. They manage temple finances, appoint officials, and even divert temple donations for non-religious purposes.

   • However, churches and mosques remain independent—their wealth and administration untouched by government control.

2. Government Control Over Hindu Temples

   • In states like Tamil Nadu⁶ and Karnataka, temple trusts are directly controlled by the state, even though the government is supposed to be secular.

   • The Tirupati Temple, one of the richest in the world, must contribute a portion of its earnings to state funds, but no such rules apply to mosques or churches.

3. Hindu Religious Texts Are Kept Out of Schools

   • Despite being integral to Indian heritage, the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads are seen as “religious” and are kept out of government schools.[Article 28]

   • But Quranic and Biblical studies are freely allowed in minority-run institutions.[Article 30, even government funded schools]

4. Hindu Institutions Alone Face RTE Regulations

   • Under the Right to Education (RTE) Act, only Hindu-run private schools are forced to reserve 25% seats for economically weaker sections.⁷

   • Minority institutions (Christian, Muslim, etc.) are exempt from this rule, allowing them to function without interference.

---

You’re Also Secular When It Comes to Protecting Certain Privileges…

1. Waqf Boards Control Huge Landholdings Without State Interference

   • The Waqf Board controls lakhs acres of land across India, often exempt from standard land laws and taxes.

   • No Hindu temple or religious trust enjoys such sweeping autonomy.

2. Minority Institutions Are Exempt from RTE and Other Laws

   • While Hindu-run schools must adhere to strict government regulations, Christian and Muslim institutions are allowed to run freely, selecting students and teachers as they wish.

3. Religious Personal Laws Exist for Some, Not for Others

   • The Hindu Marriage Act governs Hindus under a unified legal system.

   • Meanwhile, Muslims have separate personal laws, including those governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

---

So, What Does Indian Secularism Really Mean?

• If controlling Hindu temples is secular, then why is not controlling mosques and churches also secular?

• If regulating Hindu educational institutions is secular, then why is allowing minorities to bypass these rules also secular?

• If keeping the Bhagavad Gita out of schools is secular, then why is allowing Quranic and Biblical studies in minority schools also secular?

India’s version of secularism is not equal treatment of all religions—it is a system where the state selectively interferes in one religion while giving others a free pass.

The Sabarimala temple issue shows how Hinduism gets picked on today. In 2018, the Supreme Court allowed women aged 10-50 inside, ending a tradition tied to Lord Ayyappa’s celibacy. Although the entire order was taken up to higher scrutiny by the highest court itself It’s still a big deal in 2025—every pilgrimage season, TV and X go wild, calling it Hindu sexism. It’s just one temple, though—women pray at millions of others, like Tirupati or Vaishno Devi. But people slap a reformist lens on Hindu customs, zooming in on Sabarimala like it needs fixing, with police pushing entry and news piling on, as if secularism’s there to overhaul Hinduism alone.

Then there’s the hijab fight. In 2022, Karnataka banned it in schools, and in 2025, girls still push back, cheered online as “their right.” And observe very keenly here there is no reformist lens here? No. In the very same reformist lens put on your eyes why don’t you question : why should women be pushed behind a screen/veil? No one’s digging into why women don’t pray with men at mosques during Eid—any live video shows the split clear as day. That stays quiet, though. Hindu practices get the reformist spotlight, dissected and debated, while other faiths’ ways—like hijab or mosque rules—slide by. In today’s loud news world, Hinduism’s always the one up for correction, and that’s the unevenness that sticks out.

Let’s face a bitter truth: Hindus in India are beginning to need police or Army protection just to celebrate their own festivals in our very own nation. In Sambhal, Holi 2025 saw heavy police deployment to maintain order. The Amarnath Yatra, a sacred pilgrimage on Indian soil, requires thousands of soldiers every year for safety. Then there’s the Reasi attack—nine pilgrims gunned down in June 2024, just as 'All Eyes on Rafah' dominated global headlines. Where was 'All Eyes on Reasi'? Crickets. Maybe Hindu lives, brown lives, are just disposable in the grand scheme.

Ram Navami processions demand security escorts, and in Kashmir, celebrating any Hindu festival means relying on the Army. And what’s the West Bengal Chief Minister’s genius take on stone-pelting during these events? ‘Don’t venture into Muslim areas.’ Seriously? What even is a ‘Muslim area’ in a secular country? Oh, right—I forgot, we’re so secular that Hindus need permission slips and riot gear just to celebrate in their own nation. Hilarious, isn’t it?

And to those smug types who cheer Hindus organizing beef festivals just to rile people up—claiming it’s ‘freedom of expression’—I challenge you: head to the Middle East and throw a pork festival. Let’s see how long your ‘freedom’ lasts before it’s clear you’re not principled, just picking on one group you love to hate.

It gets worse. Kashmiri Pandits were driven from their homes in the 1990s—hundreds of thousands exiled, murdered, or displaced in a genocide while this so-called secular state sat on its hands, paralyzed by political correctness.

I had to put this to shame everyone here, this is peddled openly on Wikipedia:

The descriptions of the violence as "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" in some Hindu nationalist publications or among suspicions voiced by some exiled Pandits are widely considered inaccurate and aggressive by scholars.

(I wonder who these scholars are, The next thing you know is that they be saying Kashmiri genocide never happened :)

Across the border, Hindus in Pakistan endure relentless persecution—abductions, forced conversions, and worse—shrinking them to just 2% of the population. [And what’s with dragging India’s ‘scheduled caste’ and ‘scheduled tribe’ labels into this? Those terms don’t even exist there—stop stretching your categories beyond borders, like seriously?!]

In Bangladesh, Durga Puja pandals were torched in 2024, and systematic killings of Hindus continue, barely making a blip on the world’s radar. Yet, in India—the one country where Hindus have a homeland—secularism seems to mean stepmotherly treatment. Temples are controlled, festivals policed, and our voices guilt-tripped into silence. What an irony, right, Krishna? If this is fairness, why does it feel like Hindus are the only ones bending over backwards to prove it?

And don’t get me started on how they shred every Hindu custom to pieces. Karwa Chauth? Slammed as oppressive to women, while fasting for a month gets a free pass, no health concerns there, right?

Holi? Save water, they scream. Diwali? Stop air pollution—ban crackers! Abhishek with milk on murtis? Wasteful—feed the poor instead! But where’s the outrage for Christmas or New Year’s? No calls for an 'eco-friendly Christmas' while millions of pine trees are chopped for decorations. No ‘animal-friendly Eid’ campaigns to rethink mass sacrifices. Funny how the eco-warriors and reformists go silent when it’s not a Hindu festival in the crosshairs. If this is secularism, why’s it only Hindu traditions that need fixing?

The funniest thing about India’s oh-so-civilized, learned circles? A good Muslim follows the Quran, a good Christian clings to the Bible—praise all around. But a ‘good Hindu’? Oh no, they must scoff, ‘Religion’s oppressive, I hate mine, you’re all so cool!’ That’s the gold standard for a ‘learned’ Hindu, right, dear enlightened intellectuals?

---

The Way Forward: True Secularism or Continued Hypocrisy?

Secularism should mean equal treatment for all—either the state stays out of all religions, or it applies the same laws to everyone. If temples must be government-controlled, then so should mosques and churches. If RTE applies to Hindu-run schools, it should apply to all. If personal laws exist for some, they should exist for all—or for none.

True secularism means justice, fairness, and equal rights—not selective interference in the name of neutrality. The question remains: Will India ever adopt a truly secular approach, or will the imbalance continue under the garb of ‘tolerance’ and ‘inclusivity’?

I want to highlight a hypocrisy I’ve noticed. When I, as a Hindu, take pride in my faith, people are quick to remind me of the caste system, sati, and other regressive practices. I acknowledge these issues, and I believe in reform where necessary. But let’s extend this scrutiny equally—

When a Christian speaks about love and faith, no one brings up the church’s historical opposition to abortion, access to critical modern healthcare, or the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
When a white person preaches inclusivity and diversity, no one instantly reminds them of centuries of Black enslavement and apartheid.
When a Muslim says “Allahu Akbar” to praise his God, no one recalls the millions of innocents killed by extremists shouting the same words.

I am an unapologetic Hindu, and nothing will change that. Yes, my faith has its flaws, but we have survived because we adapted. While the Greek, Roman, Mediterranean, Egyptian, Nordic, and Indigenous American civilizations faded away, we endured. Why? Because we evolved. We had reformers like Buddha, Shankaracharya, Mahavira, and Guru Nanak, all shaping our collective ethos. We survived brutal Islamic conquests. We endured the harshest British colonization. Do you really think we will fall to propaganda? We are built different—we are here to stay.

I wear my identity with pride. Hinduism may not be my only identity—I am a student, a reader, a writer—but it is an integral part of who I am. I have seen people openly take pride in their faiths, yet when I do the same, I am guilt-tripped into believing it's regressive. But I refuse to seek validation for what I believe in. I am just one among millions of Indians first, and then a Hindu.

I will never attack another's faith, but I will also never tolerate baseless and illogical claims about mine. My faith teaches tolerance, but it also teaches me to stand up for what I believe is right. I have had friends who looked down on me for reading the Gita, chanting the Vishnu Sahasranama, visiting temples, or wearing a tilak. But I stood firm, and eventually, they stopped.

To all my fellow Indians, and Hindus in particular—it's absolutely okay to wear your identity with pride while acknowledging its flaws. We grow by embracing both our strengths and our shortcomings.

Jai Shri Ram!

If secularism means fairness, why’s it a one-way street in India—equal rules for all religions, or is this imbalance the cost of ‘tolerance’? Your take?

I’m ready for a flood of opinions—bring it on!
P.S. No rage bait, please—I’m past that noise :)

Thanks for reading! First stab at spilling my political thoughts, but I’m here to level up.

Catch you next time,

#SpreadingSmiles
Aryan

P.S.: To my regular readers—I know this might seem out of left field, but it’s just another side of me. I stand firm on every word in this post. Thanks for sticking with it, and heads-up: expect more like this down the road. We’re veering a bit from our usual blog topics, and I appreciate you rolling with it. In a civilized society, two conflicting thoughts can coexist peacefully—let’s keep that vibe alive.

Edit: A Call for True Accountability
The blood spilled in Murshidabad and Pahalgam screams what my article’s been saying: fake secularism buries Hindu pain. In Pahalgam, April 2025, 26 Indians—24 Hindus, one Christian, one Muslim—were slaughtered by Lashkar-e-Taiba’s TRF for not reciting the kalma or passing circumcision checks. Innocent souls, gunned down in a Hindu-majority nation for their faith. Murshidabad saw Hindu homes looted, temples vandalized post-Friday prayers (April 2025). This isn’t new—Wandhama (1998, 23 Hindus killed), Nadimarg (2003, 24 Pandits massacred), Reasi (2024, nine pilgrims shot)—all targeted Hindus.

Yet, “secularism” muzzles us, refusing to name perpetrators or the separatists bleeding Bharat. Call a spade a spade: this is anti-Hindu violence, not “tourist attacks.” I’m not inciting anything—I’m demanding equal accountability. Every crisis, Hindu or not, deserves the same voice. If you still think I’m the problem, look at the bodies piling up and ask why your “tolerance” shields the guilty. Secularism that kills isn’t neutral—it’s complicity.

---

Loved this post? Share it with your friends and family who might want to read this! Maybe this would begin a conversation that you wanted to start, just a small effort from my side compiling all the facts and observations.

Loved my work?

Don’t forget to subscribe to keep up with all my pieces!

1. https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/ram-temple-inauguration-the-most-dire-threat-yet-to-indias-secular-ideal

2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/pm-manmohan-singh-hosts-iftar/story-SW4YEOg8J7NT7rFNdsahLN.html

3. https://www.christiantoday.co.in/news/prime-minister-attends-parliamentarians-christmas-celebration.html

4. https://npbfoundation.com/

5. https://www.thenationaltree.org/

6. https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/tamil-nadu/1959/1959TN22.pdf

The biggest Irony is that the Deputy Chief minister of a state who calls Sanatana Dharma a dengue Malaria, and needs to be eliminated, vanquished still controls the largest number of Hindu temples, irony is not lost.

7. Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act): Section 12(1)(c) mandates 25% reservation for economically weaker sections in private unaided schools, but minority institutions are exempt under Article 30