By Sardar Khan Niazi

India’s claim to secularism, once its most distinctive constitutional promise, is today under unprecedented strain. What was envisioned by the founders as a pluralist republic — home to multiple faiths, languages and identities — is steadily being reshaped into a majoritarian state where citizenship and belonging are increasingly filtered through religious identity. The erosion has not been sudden. It has unfolded incrementally, through legal changes, political rhetoric, institutional capture, and social normalization of exclusion. Yet taken together, these shifts point to a fundamental transformation of the Indian republic — one that departs sharply from the secular ideals enshrined in its Constitution. At the heart of this change lies the ascendancy of Hindu nationalism. The ruling ideology no longer treats secularism as neutrality among religions, but instead recasts India as a civilizational Hindu state in which minorities are tolerated conditionally rather than protected equally. This reframing has altered both governance and public discourse. One of the most visible manifestations of this shift is the selective application of law. Policies such as the Citizenship Amendment Act introduce religious criteria into citizenship for the first time, undermining the constitutional principle of equality before law. Similarly, the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomous status without meaningful consultation signaled a willingness to override federal and democratic norms in the pursuit of ideological goals. Equally troubling is the shrinking space for dissent. Journalists, academics, activists and opposition figures increasingly face legal harassment under sweeping national security and anti-terror laws. These instruments, originally intended to combat genuine threats, are now routinely deployed against critics of the state. The result is a chilling effect on free expression — a cornerstone of any secular democracy. Minority communities, particularly Muslims, bear the brunt of this transformation. Vigilante violence under the guise of cow protection, targeted demolitions of Muslim-owned properties following communal unrest, and the routine portrayal of Muslims as demographic or security threats have fostered an atmosphere of fear and alienation. What is most alarming is not merely the occurrence of such acts, but the normalization and occasional official endorsement of them. Institutions that once served as safeguards against majoritarian excess have also weakened. The judiciary, while still independent in form, appears increasingly cautious in confronting executive overreach, especially on matters involving minority rights. Regulatory bodies, universities, and cultural institutions show similar patterns of ideological conformity, raising concerns about the long-term health of India’s democratic architecture. Supporters of the current trajectory argue that India is merely reclaiming its cultural roots and correcting what they perceive as decades of pseudo-secularism. Yet this narrative overlooks a crucial distinction: cultural pride need not come at the expense of constitutional equality. A state that privileges one religious identity inevitably marginalizes others, regardless of rhetorical assurances. The consequences of this shift extend beyond India’s borders. As the world’s largest democracy, India’s internal choices carry global significance. Its moral authority in advocating democratic values diminishes when minorities feel insecure and dissent is constrained. Moreover, regional stability suffers when domestic polarization spills into foreign policy posturing and communal narratives. History offers sobering lessons about the fragility of plural societies. Once eroded, it is difficult to restore. India today stands at a crossroads. The question is not whether religious identity has a place in public life — it always has — but whether the state can remain impartial among its citizens. The continued dilution of secularism risks transforming India from a republic of equals into a hierarchy of belonging. Reversing this trajectory will require more than electoral change. It demands a recommitment to constitutional values, institutional independence, and the moral courage to defend pluralism even when it is politically inconvenient. Without this, secular India may survive in name, but not in substance.