Religion has long played a significant role in shaping societies, influencing culture, traditions, moral values, and community life. For many people, faith provides a sense of identity, purpose, and belonging, and religious institutions have made lasting contributions through education, healthcare, charitable work, and community service. At the same time, history demonstrates that religion has also been a source of conflict and division, particularly when religious beliefs become intertwined with political power. Throughout history, religious ideas and institutions have at times been used to justify wars, persecution, discrimination, and unequal treatment of minority communities. Women have often faced restrictions on their rights and opportunities based on religious or patriarchal interpretations, while LGBTQ+ individuals have frequently encountered exclusion, criminalization, or social stigma justified on religious grounds.
These experiences illustrate why democratic societies continue to grapple with a fundamental constitutional question: how can governments protect every person's freedom of belief while ensuring that no belief system is given legal or political preference over others?
When religion becomes closely connected with government authority and political power, difficult constitutional questions arise. How can democratic governments protect every person's freedom of conscience and belief while ensuring equal treatment under the law? At what point does religious expression become political influence, and when does that influence risk undermining governmental neutrality?
These questions continue to shape constitutional debates in both India and the United States. In the United States, President Donald Trump's 2025 Executive Order on Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias sparked debate over whether the government was protecting religious liberty or appearing to favor one faith. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's participation in the Ram Mandir inauguration and the prominent role of religious identity during the 2024 general election renewed discussion about the relationship between Hindu nationalism, political leadership, and India's constitutional commitment to secularism. Although the two countries have different histories and constitutional structures, both illustrate the ongoing challenge democracies face when religion, political identity, and government authority become closely intertwined.
Shared Histories, Different Constitutional Paths
India and the United States may appear very different, but they share important historical and legal connections. Both countries were influenced by the British legal tradition, and principles such as common law, judicial review, and constitutional governance developed, in part, through that shared legal heritage. At the same time, both nations have experienced long histories of inequality and struggles over power. India continues to grapple with the legacy of British colonial rule and the caste system, while the United States continues to confront the enduring effects of slavery, racial discrimination, and segregation. In both countries, women were historically denied equal legal, political, and economic rights, and many minority communities faced systemic exclusion and discrimination.
These histories demonstrate that constitutional systems do not develop in isolation; they evolve in response to social conflict, political change, and demands for equality. The continuing influence of colonialism, caste, race, gender inequality, and religious divisions helps explain why debates over religion and government remain so significant today. These historical experiences continue to shape public policy, influence political discourse, and affect the lives of religious minorities, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and those who hold no religious beliefs, illustrating that the impact of history extends well beyond the past.
Although both nations inherited aspects of British legal traditions, they developed different constitutional approaches to religion. The United States generally emphasizes limiting government involvement in religion through the First Amendment, while India adopted a model of secularism that allows state engagement with religion while requiring equal respect for all faiths.
Religion and Government in the United States
The relationship between religion and government has been a central constitutional concern since the founding of the United States. Many of the Framers were influenced by Europe's history of religious wars, state-sponsored churches, and the persecution of religious minorities. Their experience convinced them that government should neither control religion nor allow religion to control government. The First Amendment reflects this principle through two complementary protections. The Free Exercise Clause safeguards every individual's right to practice a religion—or not practice one at all—while the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing, endorsing, or favoring a particular religion. Together, these provisions seek to ensure that citizenship, legal rights, and participation in public life do not depend on a person's religious beliefs or lack of religious belief.
The Constitution’s commitment to religious neutrality also appears in Article VI, which provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This provision was significant because some governments at the time required public officials to affirm religious beliefs before holding office. By prohibiting religious tests, the Constitution established that public service would not depend on an individual's faith or lack of faith. Although Article VI is less frequently discussed today, it reflects a fundamental principle of constitutional equality: government positions should be open to qualified individuals regardless of their religious beliefs or non-religious convictions.
Together, the First Amendment and Article VI demonstrate that constitutional religious neutrality protects both sides of the relationship between religion and government. The government may not establish or favor a religion, but it also may not exclude individuals from public participation because of their religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs.
These constitutional principles remain at the center of modern political debate. In February 2025, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias, directing the Department of Justice to establish a task force to investigate allegations of anti-Christian discrimination within the federal government. Supporters argued that the order was necessary to protect religious liberty and ensure that Christians received the same constitutional protections against discrimination as members of other faiths.
Critics, however, questioned both the factual basis and the constitutional implications of the order. Some argued that there was little evidence of widespread anti-Christian discrimination within the federal government to justify creating a task force focused exclusively on Christians. Others contended that even if religious discrimination should be addressed, a government initiative centered on a single faith risked creating the appearance that Christianity was receiving special governmental recognition or protection. The debate therefore extended beyond the Executive Order itself to a broader constitutional question: how can the government protect the rights of religious believers while maintaining neutrality toward all faiths and those who hold no religious beliefs?
Religion, Identity, and Politics in India
India faces a different, yet closely related, constitutional challenge. Religion has long been intertwined with the country's cultural identity, history, and political movements Supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi argue that his government has reaffirmed India's civilizational and spiritual heritage. They point to initiatives such as the construction and inauguration of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya as correcting a historical injustice and recognizing the cultural significance of Hindu traditions. Ayodhya is traditionally regarded by many Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram and has been the center of a longstanding religious and legal dispute.
The dispute involved the site where the Babri Masjid mosque, built in the sixteenth century, once stood and was contested by Hindu and Muslim communities for decades. In 2019, the Supreme Court of India awarded the disputed land for the construction of the Ram Temple while directing that an alternative site be provided for a mosque. Supporters viewed the decision as recognition of Hindu religious and historical claims, while critics raised concerns about the relationship between religious identity, historical grievances, and constitutional secularism.
At the same time, India's Constitution establishes important safeguards to protect equality and freedom of conscience. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 25 protects the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. Although the word "secular" was formally added to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, the Constitution has long been interpreted as requiring the state to treat all religions equally and to avoid favoring one faith over another.
The relationship between religion and politics became especially prominent during India's 2024 general election. Critics argued that some of Prime Minister Modi's campaign speeches and references to Muslims and opposition policies contributed to religious polarization and blurred the line between religious identity and electoral politics. Supporters responded that his remarks addressed issues of national security, governance, and cultural identity rather than promoting religious discrimination or undermining constitutional values.
These debates raise constitutional questions remarkably similar to those confronting the United States. To what extent should political leaders invoke religious identity in public discourse? When does acknowledging a nation's religious or cultural heritage become governmental endorsement of a particular faith? And how can democratic governments protect every person's freedom of conscience while ensuring that religion is not used to divide citizens or confer political advantage? Although India's model of secularism differs from that of the United States, both democracies continue to struggle with the challenge of balancing religious liberty, equality, and governmental neutrality.
The Founders’ Concerns and Modern Religious Politics
The American founders were deeply concerned that government power becoming too closely connected with religion could threaten both individual liberty and social stability. American history reflected these concerns. Early colonies, including the Massachusetts Bay Colony, often operated with close relationships between government and religious authority. Religious minorities, including Catholics, Quakers, and others, experienced discrimination and persecution in some colonial societies. These experiences influenced the Framers' decision to create constitutional protections preventing the government from establishing, endorsing, or favoring a particular religion.
The principle of separation between church and state was not intended to eliminate religion from society or public discussion. Rather, it was designed to prevent government from using its authority to privilege one belief system over another and to protect both religious minorities and individuals who do not follow any religion. This history raises a broader constitutional question shared by both India and the United States: when political power becomes closely connected with religious identity, does it risk creating divisions among citizens that constitutional systems were designed to prevent?
India's experience provides a different historical perspective. The Partition of India in 1947 demonstrated the powerful relationship between religion, political identity, and national boundaries. The creation of Pakistan, followed later by the independence of Bangladesh in 1971, reflected the continuing complexity of religious identity and political belonging in South Asia. The consequences of Partition continue to influence India-Pakistan relations, including ongoing tensions involving nationalism, security, citizenship, and the treatment of religious communities.
Although the histories of India and the United States are not identical, both demonstrate the challenges that arise when religious identity becomes closely connected with political power. The constitutional question is not whether individuals should be allowed to hold religious beliefs or express those beliefs in society. Rather, the challenge is ensuring that government authority is not used to favor one belief system, exclude minority communities, or deny equal rights to those with different beliefs or no religious beliefs at all.
Equality, Neutrality, and Accommodation
A central constitutional challenge in democratic societies is balancing equality, governmental neutrality, and accommodation. Equality requires that all individuals receive equal protection under the law. Neutrality requires that government avoid favoring or disfavoring particular belief systems. Accommodation recognizes that protecting individual freedom of conscience may sometimes require allowing reasonable differences in how people practice their beliefs.
In the United States, Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447 (2023), addressed the balance between religious accommodation and workplace obligations. The case involved Gerald Groff, a Christian employee of the United States Postal Service, who requested not to work on Sundays because of his religious observance. The Supreme Court held that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for religious practices unless doing so would result in substantial increased costs to the employer's business.
The case illustrates the difficulty of balancing individual beliefs with the interests of others in a diverse society. Opponents of Groff's requested accommodation argued that allowing him to avoid Sunday shifts placed additional burdens on other employees, who were then required to work Sundays more frequently despite not wanting those assignments. However, the Supreme Court concluded that such burdens did not automatically justify denying religious accommodation under Title VII.
India faces similar constitutional questions involving equality and freedom of conscience. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law, while Article 25 protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), the Supreme Court considered whether a divorced Muslim woman could receive maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a secular provision designed to prevent individuals from becoming destitute. Shah Bano's former husband argued that his obligations were governed by Muslim personal law and that his responsibility ended after the iddat period following divorce. The Supreme Court held that Section 125 applied and that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance beyond the iddat period if she was unable to support herself.
The decision created significant debate over the relationship between secular law, personal religious laws, gender equality, and individual rights. Supporters viewed the decision as protecting the dignity and economic security of divorced women, while critics argued that it interfered with religious personal law and community autonomy.
These examples demonstrate that constitutional democracies must constantly balance competing values. The central issue is not whether religion itself should receive special protection, but whether every individual should have the freedom to follow, change, express, or reject a belief system without government interference or discrimination. Protecting freedom of conscience protects both religious believers and those who hold different beliefs or no religious beliefs at all.
Looking at Policy from Every Angle
A central lesson in public policy is that government actions must be examined from multiple perspectives. A policy should not be evaluated only by its stated purpose or by the intentions of the leaders who create it. A complete analysis requires examining the historical circumstances that led to the policy, the problem it was designed to address, who benefits from the policy, who may bear its costs, and how the same government power could be interpreted, expanded, or used in the future.
A policy created to protect a particular community or address a specific concern today may operate differently under future leaders with different priorities. Government authority designed as a safeguard can become problematic if adequate constitutional limits are not maintained. Constitutional protections function as safeguards by establishing principles that cannot simply change with shifting political priorities or temporary majorities. This is especially important because fundamental rights, including the rights of minorities and individuals with unpopular beliefs, should not depend solely on majority approval.
A central challenge in constitutional democracies is determining how legal protections should operate when they conflict with other important public interests. Rights and protections are often created to safeguard individual freedoms, but they must also be evaluated by considering their practical consequences, including who benefits, who may bear the burdens, and what limitations may be necessary to prevent harm.
Religious freedom provides an example of this ongoing constitutional balance. Protections for religious belief and practice are designed to prevent government interference with individual conscience and to preserve religious autonomy. At the same time, constitutional systems must consider how these protections interact with other public interests, including equality, individual rights, and the protection of vulnerable communities. The challenge is not whether religious freedom should exist, but how it should be applied in a manner that respects both individual liberty and constitutional principles of equal protection.
Constitutional debates involving religious autonomy demonstrate the difficulty of balancing competing values in a democratic society. Religious protections are intended to preserve individual conscience, prevent government interference with religious belief and practice, and allow communities to maintain their traditions. However, these protections must also be evaluated in light of their practical consequences and their relationship with other constitutional interests, including equality, individual rights, and the protection of vulnerable individuals. The central question is not only why legal protection exists, but also how that protection operates in practice, who benefits from it, who may bear its consequences, and what limits may be necessary to preserve individual rights and prevent harm.
India provides another example through Rev. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), which involved challenges to the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws enacted by the states of Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. These laws were adopted in response to concerns about religious conversions obtained through force, fraud, or improper inducement and established penalties for such conduct. The petitioner argued that these restrictions violated Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the laws and clarified that the right to propagate religion does not include a fundamental right to convert another person. The Court explained that “propagate” means to spread or explain one’s religious beliefs, but that Article 25 protects the freedom of conscience of all individuals. According to the Court, religious freedom includes the right of every person to make their own choices regarding belief, and one person’s freedom cannot extend to interfering with another person’s freedom of conscience.
Supporters of anti-conversion laws argue that such regulations are necessary to prevent coercion, fraud, and exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Critics, however, argue that broadly interpreted anti-conversion laws may restrict voluntary religious choices, discourage religious expression, or allow government authority to interfere with personal decisions about belief. The case illustrates the broader constitutional challenge faced by democratic societies: how to prevent coercion while protecting every individual’s right to believe, change beliefs, or reject religious beliefs altogether.
These examples demonstrate why constitutional democracies must evaluate government actions not only by their stated goals but also by their potential consequences. Constitutional limits exist to ensure that government power remains accountable and that individual freedoms are protected not only under current leaders but also under future governments with different priorities.
Colonialism, Power, and Continuing Questions
The relationship between religion and politics is also connected to broader histories of power, colonialism, and social hierarchy. These histories influence how societies understand identity, citizenship, belonging, and the distribution of political power. In India, British colonial rule shaped how religious communities were categorized, governed, and politically represented. Colonial policies contributed to the development of religious divisions that later influenced debates over national identity and contributed to the Partition of India in 1947. The effects of Partition continue to shape discussions about citizenship, religious identity, and the relationship between religion and political power in the region.
The United States has its own history of inequality, including slavery, racial segregation, and discrimination against minority communities. These experiences influenced the development of constitutional protections designed to promote equal rights and prevent government from granting special legal status to one group over another. Both India and the United States also have histories in which women faced significant social and legal limitations. In India, patriarchal structures affected women’s access to education, property rights, and independence. In the United States, women historically faced restrictions on voting rights, property ownership, and participation in public life.
These examples demonstrate that questions of equality are connected not only to religion but also to broader systems of power and hierarchy. Religion has often been intertwined with these systems because religious identity can influence social structures, political movements, and ideas about authority and belonging. At the same time, religion has also served as a source of community, social support, and movements for equality. The constitutional challenge is therefore not simply the presence of religion in society, but how religious identity interacts with political power and whether government institutions treat individuals equally regardless of their beliefs.
Debates about religion and politics are therefore not only about current leaders or individual policies. They reflect deeper questions about power: Who has the authority to define national identity? How should governments respect cultural and religious traditions while ensuring that no individual receives greater legal or political status because of their beliefs?
Democratic societies continue to face the challenge of protecting every person’s right to believe, practice, change, or reject religious beliefs while maintaining equality and constitutional neutrality.
Overall
Religion will continue to influence democratic societies because it remains an important part of many people’s identities, communities, and personal values. Throughout history, religion has inspired acts of compassion, charity, and social reform. However, history also demonstrates that when religious identity becomes closely connected with political authority, it can become a source of conflict, division, and struggles for power. Events such as the Crusades and the Inquisition illustrate how religious authority combined with political power can contribute to persecution and social control.
The purpose of constitutional protections is not to weaken religion or remove faith from public life. Rather, constitutional systems seek to ensure that government authority does not favor one belief system over another or interfere with an individual’s freedom to believe, practice, change, or reject beliefs. The central concern is not the existence of religion in society, but the use of governmental power in ways that may advantage one group or disadvantage others. The experiences of India and the United States demonstrate that constitutional questions about religion are ultimately questions about power, equality, and individual rights. Political authority must be evaluated not only by its stated purpose but also by historical examples of how similar powers have been used and how they may be applied by future leaders.
In both countries, debates involving Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump demonstrate how religious identity can become connected with political movements and questions of national identity. These debates raise a broader constitutional concern: whether religion is being used as a genuine expression of belief or as a political tool to strengthen authority, divide communities, or consolidate power. Constitutional democracy requires maintaining limits on government power while ensuring that every individual retains the freedom to determine their own beliefs and identity. The challenge is not eliminating religion from society but ensuring that political power is not used to undermine equality, individual liberty, or the rights of those who hold different beliefs or no religious beliefs.
Sagarika Nandi
Legal Intern, Secular Communities for Arizona
LL.M. Candidate, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University
