Context

• Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan’s dismissal from the Indian Army for refusing to enter the sanctum of his regiment’s temple or gurdwara during ritual worship presents a clash between individual conscience and institutional cohesion.
• The Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the Army’s decision, interpreting his refusal as disobedience of a lawful command rather than an exercise of religious freedom.
• Their reasoning rested on military necessity, discipline, and the constitutional authority under Article 33, which allows the restriction of fundamental rights for the armed forces.

When Restraint Becomes Silence

• While judicial deference to military expertise is common, it is not absolute.
• The courts have previously reshaped military norms in cases involving women officers, recruitment, pensions, and promotion policies when equality demanded intervention.
• The question here was modest: whether a sincere religious objection could be accommodated without weakening discipline.
• The principle from Bijoe Emmanuel, that respectful dissent need not be punished, offered a constitutional framework.
• A proportionality test could have examined whether compelling entry into the sanctum was essential to cohesion.
• The judiciary chose restraint, but restraint left the deeper dilemma unresolved.

The Army’s Ethos and the Fragility of Trust

• Ritual as Unity
  • The Army argued that participation in ceremonial practices enhances morale, trust, and troop bonding, especially in fixed-class regiments where officers must be fully accepted by the soldiers they lead into combat.
  • Rituals, though rooted in faith, function as secular instruments of cohesion. Kamalesan’s refusal, however respectful, was seen as distancing.
  • This interpretation guided the disciplinary action.
• An Institution Proud of Inclusivity
  • The Army’s record of religious diversity and equal opportunity is longstanding. From UN missions to disaster relief, it has integrated soldiers of all faiths.
  • The prominence of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi during Operation Sindoor exemplifies its efforts to highlight women and officers from varied backgrounds.
  • This tradition of inclusivity makes the Kamalesan episode particularly unsettling, for it suggests a moment when an institution known for flexibility chose rigidity instead.
• A Modest Request, A Missed Opportunity
  • Kamalesan attended the parades, followed all customs, removed his shoes, tied the turban, and stood with his troops.
  • His single request was not to enter the sanctum during active worship, a line many Protestant Christians cannot cross.
  • This was a chance for the Army to employ its characteristic pragmatism.
  • The example of Eric Liddell in Chariots of Fire, whose Olympic team reshuffled events to honour his belief, shows how institutions can bend without breaking.
  • A small accommodation would have preserved both discipline and dignity.

The Costs: Personal, Institutional, and Symbolic

• More Than a Lost Officer
  • The dismissal cost the Army more than one career.
  • It risks sending an unintended signal to minority soldiers that sincere conscience-based boundaries may carry no institutional weight, even when expressed respectfully.
  • India’s military unity has never rested on majoritarian comfort but on deep interfaith trust forged in war and counterinsurgency.
  • Any perception that religious lines may be crossed under compulsion threatens that trust.
• Messages Beyond Intention
  • Neither the courts nor the Army may have intended exclusion, but institutional messages do not depend solely on intention.
  • In diverse militaries, perception shapes morale as much as policy. A feeling of vulnerability among minority soldiers, even slight, can erode the confidence that underpins cohesion.

Leadership, Rigidity, and the Drift of Institutions

• Avoiding the Path of Prejudice
  • While not equivalent to the Dreyfus affair, this episode carries a cautionary note.
  • Strong institutions can drift toward rigidity one small step at a time, mistaking uniformity for unity.
  • Victor Hugo’s warning that armies lose strength when they lose their sense of justice remains relevant.
  • The Indian Army’s credibility rests on rising above religious and political divides. Any shift toward coercive uniformity risks diminishing that credibility.
• A Failure of Command, Not of Commitment
  • The troubling aspect is not the legal judgment but that the issue reached a courtroom at all.
  • A matter solvable by empathetic leadership and a single directive hardened into a disciplinary conflict.
  • The Army has long balanced tradition with modernity and authority with fairness; here, that balance slipped.

Conclusion

• When duty meets conscience, the challenge is not choosing between them but enabling them to coexist.
• A small accommodation would have reinforced the principle that every soldier, of every faith, stands equal in uniform.
• As Justice Chinnappa Reddy wrote, our Constitution practises tolerance. Institutions honour that ideal not through enforced uniformity but through discerning when uniformity is not required.