The recent incident at Assam University, where authorities denied permission for an Iftar gathering while routinely approving Hindu festivals such as Saraswati Puja and Holi, underscores a systemic contradiction plaguing India’s secular framework. This pattern of unequal treatment, masked by institutional claims of religious neutrality, is not an isolated lapse but a reflection of a deeper ideological bias that conflates Hindu traditions with “Indian culture” while marginalizing minority practices as sectarian. The university’s defense that it cannot endorse “religious” events rings hollow when juxtaposed against its active facilitation of Hindu rituals rebranded as “cultural” or “educational” activities. This duality, replicated across educational institutions, government bodies, and public spaces, reveals how secularism has been weaponized to normalize majoritarian preferences while eroding the constitutional guarantee of equal respect for all faiths.
To grasp the full dimensions of this crisis, one must examine India’s historical relationship with secularism. Unlike western models that advocate strict church-state separation, Indian secularism emerged as a pluralistic compromise, aiming to protect minority rights in a Hindu-majority society post-Partition. However, over decades, this delicate balance has been distorted by political forces seeking to redefine national identity through a Hindu cultural lens. Festivals like Holi and Saraswati Puja, while undeniably religious in origin, have been systematically recast as “shared heritage,” enabling institutions to celebrate them without appearing partisan. Meanwhile, Muslim, Christian, or Sikh observances, despite their equally deep roots in India’s history, remain categorized as exclusionary “religious” acts. This semantic sleight-of-hand, as seen in Assam University’s justification, allows systemic discrimination to flourish under the guise of neutrality.
The ramifications extend far beyond festival permissions. In Karnataka, the hijab ban in educational institutions framed as enforcing “uniformity” exposes how secularism is twisted to police minority identity. Similarly, the restriction of Muslim Friday prayers in public spaces—a practice tolerated for decades—is now deemed “non-secular,” even as Hindu temple rituals on government premises face no such scrutiny. These decisions, often justified through circular logic (“Hindu practices are cultural, thus secular”), institutionalize a hierarchy of citizenship. The message is unambiguous: majority traditions represent the nation’s ethos, while minority expressions threaten social cohesion.
Such selective secularism violates Article 14’s equality clause and Article 15’s prohibition of religious discrimination. The Supreme Court’s 1994 S.R. Bommai judgment [(1994) 3 SCC 1] explicitly warned against using secularism to suppress minority rights, stating that religion cannot be mixed with political activities. Yet institutions routinely disregard this principle. For instance, Saraswati Puja in schools, a worship ritual for a Hindu deity, is defended as “fostering knowledge,” while Christmas carols or Quran recitations are barred as “proselytization.” This inconsistency betrays not administrative pragmatism but a tacit endorsement of Hindutva’s cultural nationalism, which equates Indianness with Hindu symbolism.
The psychological toll on minorities is profound. When a Muslim student sees her Eid celebration restricted as “divisive” while Diwali fireworks illuminate government offices, it reinforces her status as a second-class citizen. A large number of minority students in BJP-ruled states feel pressured to hide religious identity markers. This alienation fuels communal distrust and erodes the pluralist social fabric enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble.
Security concerns, often cited to restrict minority events, further expose institutional bias. While Kumbh Melas attracting millions are managed as logistical challenges, small Iftar gatherings are deemed “law-and-order risks.” Authorities in Uttar Pradesh, for example, permitted the 2021 Kanwar Yatra amid pandemic surges but banned Muharram processions citing COVID protocols. Such disproportionate scrutiny stems not from evidence but stereotypes casting Muslim gatherings as inherently volatile which is a prejudice reinforced by media narratives and political rhetoric.
Addressing this crisis requires redefining secularism through an equity lens. Institutions must adopt transparent, uniform criteria for event approvals, distinguishing between worship and cultural celebration without favoring any faith. If Saraswati Puja is permitted as an academic tradition, then Eid or Guru Nanak Jayanti observances emphasizing charity or community service should receive equal accommodation. Legislative measures may be considered for preventing discrimination and atrocities against minorities penalizing religious bias in public spaces. Courts must revisit narrow interpretations of secularism, as in the hijab case, and reaffirm the right to religious expression under Articles 25-28.
Ultimately, India’s secular ideal cannot survive as a veneer for majoritarianism. It demands acknowledging that Hindu festivals, while culturally significant, are not politically neutral in a multifaith society. True secularism isn’t achieved by erasing religion from public life but by ensuring no community feels targeted or excluded. As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar warned, constitutional morality must prevail over populist majoritarianism. Only when a Dalit student’s Buddha Jayanti, a tribal scholar’s Sarhul festival, and a Muslim professor’s Iftar are treated with the same respect as Holi can India claim to honor its founding pledge of “fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual.” Until then, the selective celebration of festivals will remain not merely administrative hypocrisy but a betrayal of the republic’s soul.
