In the Indian Army, faith fosters a higher cause

Secular practices in the Army seek to eliminate religious differences with a smart integration of diverse traditions.

The recent decision of the Delhi High Court, upholding the dismissal of Lt Samuel Kamalesan, has ignited a debate on the role of religion in the Indian Army. Lt Kamalesan refused to participate in regimental religious parades, stating his religious freedom, as well as his respect for the sentiments of his troops. While a section of intelligentsia questions the decision on the Constitutional value of secularism, the Court upholds the institutional values and long-standing traditions of the Armed Forces. This case presents an opportunity to examine why the notion of secularism in its abstract Western sense, does not align with the traditions of the Indian Army which stands as a sui generis model of a secular institution by itself. The Indian Army’s relationship with religion is not an anomaly, but a carefully evolved phenomenon over centuries. Right from the colonial era to the 1971 war, its approach to religion is demonstrated by a remarkable track record of maintaining unity among soldiers from diverse backgrounds.

The Delhi High Court’s observation that “the standard of discipline required for the Armed Forces is different” and “the motivation that is to be instilled in the troops may necessitate actions beyond ordinary civilian standards”, reflects a profound understanding of military psychology. Military combat is not a mere physical confrontation, but a battle for a higher cause where psycho-emotional factors are the key to victory. It is here that religious war cries and rituals serve a critical psychological purpose that secular alternatives cannot substitute. When a Garhwal Rifles soldier shouts “Badri Vishal Lal Ki Jai”; he is not merely invoking a deity, but is connecting with a centuries-old warrior tradition. So is the case with the Sikh Regiment’s motto “Nishchay Kar Apni Jeet Karon” – an excerpt from Guru Gobind Singh’s prayer which also means ‘determination is key to victory’. This transcendental motivation is crucial in making a soldier fight for a cause higher than his self.

The Court notes that these religious practices “serve a purely motivational function, intended to foster solidarity and unity amongst the troops”. This understanding recognises that in the crucible of combat, abstract neutrality cannot provide the same psychological anchor as deeply held religious beliefs. For the same reason, the modification, restriction, or abrogation of Fundamental Rights for the Armed Forces has been allowed under Article 33 of the Constitution.

Western secularism, particularly as practised in countries such as France and the United States, operates on the principle of strict separation of religion from State institutions. Of course, with certain contradictions, this model assumes that irreligiosity prevents conflict. In contrast to the same, the Constitution of India does not seek to eliminate religion from public life, but rather ‘enables’ the freedom of religion with the impartiality of the State towards religion. Applying the former approach against the latter, particularly to India, would go counter-operative to the nature of military service and the psycho-emotional foundation of courage in combat.

The Western models do not tend to harness religion as a source of collective strength, but India does. We must remind ourselves that the strongest military uprising in the history of India – the Mutiny of 1857 – started with a violation of faith as its background. Hence, applying strict Western principles to the Indian military by encouraging resistance to religious practices would create a vacuum that secular nationalism alone cannot fulfill.

A unique secular model

Military leadership requires officers to put the morale of their troops above personal religious conscience. This is the reason why the traditions of the Indian Army adhere to the principle – ‘My religion is my soldier’s religion’. A notable instance of the same is Field Marshal Manekshaw’s acceptance of the nickname ‘Sam Bahadur’ given by his troops, as a gesture of him being a part of the Gorkha Regiment. Such gestures symbolise cultural cohesion, not coercion. Placing your men above your individual preferences defines military leadership. On this note, the court’s decision in this case represents a mature understanding of military traditions and necessities.

The court recognised that while religious freedom is important, it cannot override the imperative of military discipline and a unit’s cohesion. The judgement acknowledges that “the Armed Forces comprise personnel of all religions, castes, creeds, regions, and faiths” but emphasised that “they are united by their uniform rather than divided by their religion”. This unity is achieved not by suppressing faith but by channelising it towards a higher national cause.

The Indian Army represents a unique model of secularism. This model seeks to eliminate religious differences by orchestrating them into a symphony of national defence. The Army’s approach proves that secularism need not be the abandonment of religious tradition, but the intelligent integration of diverse traditions towards the common good. This is a sophisticated and effective form of secularism. In this regard, the court’s decision represents a victory for institutional wisdom over individual preference, and for military effectiveness over abstract principles.

Very rightly, as per the court, the Army remains “united by uniform”, precisely because it allows a soldier to bring his complete self, including his faith and identity to the service of the nation. This is not a failure of secularism or Constitutional values but their highest and most mature form of expression.

(The writers are assistant professors at the School of Law, Christ Deemed to be University, Bengaluru)