Christian Persecution: Between God and Government — Where Should Worship Allegiance Lie?

By Citizen Bolaji O. Akinyemi.

The Supreme Court of India, on November 25, 2025, upheld the dismissal of a Christian Army officer, Major Samuel Kamalesan, for refusing a mandatory religious ritual associated with his unit’s Hindu regimental temple. The Court held that by declining to enter the inner sanctum to participate in pooja, the officer acted out a “private understanding” of his religion in defiance of military discipline. This refusal, according to the Court, insulted his troops, contravened secular military ethos, and weakened unit cohesion.

The decision provokes moral, constitutional, and global scrutiny. At the heart of it lies a profound question: Should national duty become an altar for compelled religious participation? Or should secular nations protect the right of conscience, even within the uniform?

India, like many nations, claims to be secular. Yet when the same secular state compels a soldier to participate in devotional rites to a deity he does not worship, a contradiction emerges: the state dethrones its neutrality and enthrones a national god.

The Legal Reasoning: A Troubling Precedent

The honorable Chief Justice Surya Kant, joined by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, assertively dismissed the plea. They argued that:

An officer cannot hold a private understanding of his religion in uniform.

Refusal to participate in regimental devotional practices constitutes the “grossest kind of indiscipline”.

Essential religious rights under Article 25 do not extend to every sentiment.

A pastor had reportedly advised Kamalesan that his participation was permissible. The Court cited this to suggest that the officer acted stubbornly against his own religious leader’s guidance.

Yet the legal foundation of the argument collapses under one question: Is a believer’s conscience subject to the interpretation of a clergyman or to the sacred text that shapes the belief itself? If a leader, not scripture, defines an individual’s faith obligation, then religion becomes clerical dictatorship, not liberty of conscience.

 

Biblical Insight Misapplied.
The Pastor Was Not Necessarily Wrong, but Not Entirely Right

The pastor’s advice echoes a scenario in 2 Kings 5:18, where Naaman, a military commander, receives pardon from God to bow in the temple of Rimmon only out of duty to his king. Here lies a spiritual principle: God understands the burdens of duty where there is no intention of worship. Is Pooja a form of worship of Hindu or not?

However, biblical revelation is progressive. The New Testament provides a fuller light through the Apostle Paul, himself a trained legal mind akin to a Senior Advocate of his era. In Acts 17:23–32, speaking to the Athenians surrounded by idols, Paul shattered state-sanctioned religion and liberated humanity from geographical godhood:

“For in Him we live, and move, and have our being…” (Acts 17:28)

 

He quotes poets, not priests. Law, not sentiment. Reason, not ritual. Paul establishes that God is not tied to temples, national shrines, or obligatory ceremonies. Worship is personal, never enforced by state identity. God is intimate, not institutional.

Thus, the Court, the State, and the pastor in this case erred. They ignored Paul’s central emphasis:

“…that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him…” (Acts 17:27)
(Emphasis: FEEL)

 

Worship is a feeling of devotion, not a forced participation. A connection of our spirit man with the Spirit that God is. That in itself is the essence of Worship; for God is the Spirit and all who will worship him, must do so, in Spirit and in truth.

 

The Constitutional Paradox of Secular States

A truly secular state does not compel prayers, rituals, or temple entry. It protects the personal space where conscience kneels; whether before Allah, Christ, Krishna, or none at all.

If national duty requires participation in religious acts, then the state is no longer secular. It becomes a theocratic nation masquerading in democratic robes.

The Indian Army argued that soldiers draw morale from devotional practices to a deity, and that officers must join these rituals to maintain unity. But unity built on imposed ritual is nothing more than militarized superstition. It undermines equality rather than strengthens allegiance.

A nation may have a constitution, but when its soldiers’ spirits are chained to a deity, then the deity, not the constitution, is the true commander-in-chief.

 

A Call for Global Intervention

In the spirit of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of belief and conscience, this case must not end where the Court ended it. I call on the:

United Nations

United States Department of State

International Religious Freedom Alliance

European Union Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion

to demand a reconsideration of this judgment, not to exempt one officer, but to protect the future of conscience in every uniform.

If a Hindu soldier cannot be forced into a mosque, a Muslim soldier cannot be forced into a church, then a Christian soldier should not be forced into the sanctum of a temple in the name of national duty.

 

For the Safety of Nations: Abolish State-Linked Worship

Nations must free themselves from religious entanglements if they are to avoid civil strife. The world must consider:

Abolishing national temples, chapels, and mosques in state institutions

Ending compulsory religious rituals in military units and remove all religious symbols from military emblems.

Prohibiting devotional symbols as instruments of command

A nation is itself a god to many, and its constitution its sacred text. But when governments demand worship, whether directly or indirectly, they trespass into the territory of the soul, where no state has jurisdiction.

Let every citizen in government keep their God where God belongs: within conscience, not in command. Only then will the world be safe from the chaos that religion has become in civic space.

 

Conclusion: Worship Allegiance Belongs to God Alone

Major Kamalesan may have been dismissed by a court of law, but he echoes a truth older than India, stronger than armies, and higher than the flags we salute:

Conscience bows only to God.

 

The case must be reopened not only for the sake of one Christian officer in India, but for the future of every believer and non-believer drafted under a flag that must not become a religion.

Photo Credit: Adobe Stock