DISCIPLINE, FAITH AND UNITY: WHY THE INDIAN MILITARY IS SECULAR

Militaries worldwide draw on their own history, mythology and geography when naming units and campaigns. What matters is not whether a name has mythological or cultural roots, but whether it is coupled with discriminatory treatment of personnel.

- MAJOR GENERAL R.P.S. BHADAURIA (RETD)

A malicious perception is being created that India’s armed forces are drifting towards majoritarian religious dominance and that the handling of Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan’s case exposes a basic institutional fault line.

A closer reading of the law, military practice and judicial reasoning suggests otherwise. The facts do not sustain the charge of systematic communal bias; rather, the criticism rests on selective readings of evidence and a misunderstanding of how secularism operates within a disciplined, multi-faith force.

DISCIPLINE, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE ARMED FORCES

Constitutionally, military personnel do not stand in the same position as civilians. The Constitution permits Parliament to restrict certain fundamental rights of members of the armed forces, police and intelligence agencies in the interests of discipline, public order and national security. Courts have repeatedly upheld this distinction, recognising that a combat organisation requires limits on personal autonomy which would be impermissible in civilian life.

This has direct consequences for religious expression. Soldiers and officers retain their faith, but the manner of its outward practice is subject to service regulations and operational needs. Commanders are empowered to curb individual assertions of conscience if these threaten unit cohesion, disrupt routines, or conflict with longstanding regimental traditions that serve a unifying function. Judicial decisions have consistently affirmed that, in a fighting force, unity of command and shared purpose take precedence over maximum accommodation of personal preference.