Indian Constitution and the Sikh Identity Dilemma

Why Article 25(2)(b) Still Haunts the Quest for Religious Clarity and Equality

Introduction

The Constitution of India is celebrated for its commitment to religious freedom, equality, and pluralism. Yet, within its liberal framework lies a clause that has long caused unease within the Sikh community—Article 25(2)(b). By clubbing Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists with Hindus for specific legal purposes, this provision has raised enduring concerns about the constitutional positioning of Sikhism. Though the original intent may have been administrative or reformist, its implications continue to spark critical questions around religious identity, autonomy, and constitutional recognition.

What Does Article 25(2)(b) Say?

Article 25 guarantees every citizen the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate their religion. However, clause (2)(b) authorizes the State to enact laws enabling social reform, including granting all classes and castes access to Hindu religious institutions. Crucially, the Explanation to this clause states that “Hindus” shall be deemed to include Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists for these purposes.

While intended to foster inclusivity within Hindu temples, this phrasing has led many Sikhs to feel their distinct religious identity is being blurred or subsumed within a broader Hindu framework—despite Sikhism’s separate origin, theology, scriptures, and practices.

Why Were Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists Included—But Not Others?

The inclusion of Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists was driven by the goal of eradicating caste-based exclusions from Hindu religious spaces. Since Islam and Christianity do not organize worship around caste, they were excluded from this reformist clause.

However, this inclusion has had unintended consequences. Sikhism, which explicitly rejects caste and emerged as a distinct spiritual response to ritualistic orthodoxy, found itself entangled in constitutional language that appeared to classify it within the Hindu fold. This has perpetuated the misconception that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism—a view strongly contested by the Sikh community.

Ambedkar’s Role and the Sikh Paradox

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Constitution, crafted Article 25(2)(b) as part of a broader mission to reform Hindu social structures. During the Constituent Assembly debates, he clarified that the inclusion of Sikhs under “Hindus” was solely for the purpose of temple entry and not intended to redefine religious identities.

Nevertheless, the constitutional language has left behind ambiguity. For many Sikhs, it feels paradoxical: a Constitution that guarantees religious freedom also seems to compromise their distinctiveness.

Voices of Dissent and Sikh Assertion

This clause did not go unchallenged. Sardar Hukam Singh, a Sikh member of the Constituent Assembly and later Speaker of the Lok Sabha, voiced firm opposition to the conflation of Sikhism with Hinduism. Outside the Assembly, leaders like Master Tara Singh and Bhupinder Singh Mann continuously asserted Sikhism’s independent religious status.

Over the years, institutions like the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and the Akal Takht have passed resolutions calling for the removal or amendment of Article 25(2)(b) to constitutionally affirm Sikhism as a distinct faith.

Parkash Singh Badal’s Protest

Veteran Akali leader and former Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal also made a symbolic protest against Article 25. In February 1984, Badal and other Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leaders were arrested after publicly burning copies of the Constitution that contained this clause—demonstrating their objection to the inclusion of Sikhs under Hinduism.

Despite its strong rhetoric, the SAD did not pursue an amendment during its tenure as a coalition partner in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). It was not until 2018 that the party formally revived the issue by submitting a memorandum to the central government demanding constitutional clarity.

Why It Still Matters

Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak Dev Ji, is a unique spiritual tradition with its own theology, scripture, and religious institutions. The legacy of Article 25(2)(b) continues to impact matters related to minority rights, personal law, religious education, and the governance of Sikh institutions.

This is not merely a symbolic concern—it is a fundamental issue of self-definition, especially in a climate where identity politics and majoritarian narratives increasingly shape public discourse.

Conclusion

Though Article 25(2)(b) may have been crafted with progressive intentions—to foster social reform within Hindu temples—its language has created confusion, grievance, and a sense of constitutional ambiguity for the Sikh community. Despite Dr. Ambedkar’s clarification, the formulation has fueled the very perception it sought to avoid.

In keeping with the spirit of the Constitution—equal respect for all faiths—it is time to revisit this clause and provide unequivocal recognition of Sikhism as an independent religion. Amending this ambiguity is essential not only for constitutional clarity but also to dispel lingering doubts among Sikhs about the recognition and future of their religious identity.

If you’ve read this far, please consider sharing.
Feedback welcome at: mann.gurpartap@gmail.com