Conscience v. unit cohesion

Should a military officer who is an adherent of one faith group be dismissed for declining to participate in his unit's religious activity when the unit is formally identified with a different faith group. In Kamalesan v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court upheld such a dismissal. According to this Supreme Court Observer account:

On 25 November, the Supreme Court disposed of the challenge against his dismissal and endorsed the Army’s views that his conduct amounted to serious indiscipline inconsistent with leadership responsibilities. 

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that an officer who leads troops cannot selectively opt out of regimental practices. Responding to his plea that his right under Article 25 had been violated, the Bench observed that not every religious sentiment or practice is an “essential” feature warranting constitutional protection. “You have to respect the collective sentiment of your command as a group leader and lead by example. You are insulting your own group when you refuse to perform rituals,” the Bench told him.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kamalesan, urged the Court to apply a proportionality standard. He argued that the officer had served for six years without blemish, faced no court martial or other complaints, and was now being deprived of pension and gratuity for a single refusal rooted in conscience.

He also stressed that the case raised important questions on secularism within the Armed Forces and warranted a full hearing with notice to the Union. The Bench was not persuaded. At one stage, the Chief Justice remarked that the officer was a “misfit” for the Army and described his conduct as “gross indiscipline”.

If the Editor may be permitted a personal observation, the remark quoted immediately above is not only shockingly intemperate but preposterous 

Retired Indian Army Lieutenant General Philip Campose considers the case here. Excerpt:

I believe the military’s secularism, as truly practised, transcends narrow arguments over faith. It places institutional unity, operational effectiveness and regimental cohesion above individual commitments pertaining to personal faith.

The Army’s regimental sarv dharm sthals, temples, gurudwaras, mosques and churches exist not for propagating religion or doctrinal supremacy but for spiritual solace, morale, solidarity and the forging of trust between men who might otherwise have little in common beyond the uniform. In that context, to treat religion rigidly as purely individual and refuse to share in the rituals of one’s men undermines that unity. It reduces faith to dogma rather than allowing it to become a bridge.

When a non Sikh officer stands in a Sikh gurdwara with his troops or a Hindu, Sikh or Muslim officer participates in a Christian prayer, it becomes a powerful testament to what the Army truly is, a living embodiment of unity in diversity. That is the secularism that needs to be cherished, not indifference, but inclusion, mutual respect and collective identity.

For all men and women in our forces who follow varied faiths, the Kamalesan case should be viewed not as a warning against believing but as a lesson in understanding secularism and religious harmony in the Indian context and the nature of service in the Indian military. When you don the uniform, you pledge loyalty not just to God but to the men you lead and to the flag that binds you. When you visit places of worship of other faiths in line with your military duties, you are not placing ‘other gods’ before your own. You still retain loyalty to your own faith. That loyalty may demand sacrifice even over personal religious preferences. But that is not sacrilege. It is the highest expression of faith, when belief does not become a barrier but a bond between you and your men, between faiths, between hearts.

Any officer who cannot make that sacrifice, who places interpretations of his personal faith over collective duty, may appear to remain true to his creed. But he may find himself unfit for the unique secular ethos of the Indian Army.