A comparative study of religious freedom between secular and religious constitutional orders in South Asia
In the mosaic of South Asia, where ancient traditions meet modern statecraft, the definition of religious freedom is as varied as the region’s geography. Across the seven nations of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, constitutional protections for faith reflect a delicate tug-of-war between secular ideals and the push for national identity, according to University of Hull.
According to constitutional experts and recent legal assessments, these frameworks range from the Maldives’ absolute commitment to a single faith to India’s “Dharma-based” pluralism. While every nation in the region offers some textual guarantee of “freedom of conscience,” the fine print often reveals a complex landscape of state-sponsored religions and anti-conversion laws, says constitutional experts.
The secular experiment: India and Nepal
India stands as the region’s most prominent secular actor, though the interpretation of that secularism is evolving, according to Human Rights Watch. According to the Indian Constitution, Articles 25 through 28 provide the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate religion. However, this is not an absolute right. As noted in recent legal debates surrounding the Maharashtra Freedom of Religion Bill, the state retains the power to regulate “secular activities” associated with religious practice and to intervene on grounds of public order, morality and health.
Rajeev Bhargava, an Indian political theorist said, “Indian secularism is not the strict separation seen in Western models but a system of ‘principled distance,’ where the state may intervene in religion to uphold equality and reform.” Despite this pluralistic framework, he pointed the rising tide of state-level anti-conversion laws. Reports from The Hindu note that such laws “mandate prior notice to the district magistrate before conversion,” a requirement critics argue “could violate fundamental rights and impact personal freedom.”
Nepal, once the world’s only Hindu kingdom, transitioned to a secular republic with the adoption of the Constitution of Nepal. Under Article 26, “every person who has faith in religion shall have the freedom to profess, practice and protect his or her religion.” However, this freedom is explicitly limited by the same provision, which states that “no person shall … convert another person from one religion to another,” effectively prohibiting proselytization, says Human Rights Watch.
As noted by David N. Gellner, anthropologist of Nepal and South Asia, Nepal’s form of secularism is “not a separation of religion and state but a reconfiguration of their relationship,” where the state continues to regulate religious practice. Similarly, United States Commission on International Religious Freedom states that Nepal’s anti-conversion laws have been used in ways that “restrict the ability of individuals to freely change their religion,” raising concerns that such provisions may criminalize certain forms of religious outreach.
The “State Heritage” model: Bhutan and Sri Lanka
According to their respective constitutions, Bhutan’s and Sri Lanka’s religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, yet one faith is explicitly elevated as central to national identity. The Constitution of Bhutan declares Mahayana Buddhism as the nation’s “spiritual heritage,” while also affirming under Article 7(4) that citizens have the right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” At the same time, the Constitution provides that religious institutions and personalities shall “promote the spiritual heritage of the country,” reflecting the state’s active role in preserving Buddhist traditions.
As noted by Open Doors in its World Watch List reporting, “this framework contributes to a climate where ‘converts to Christianity are watched with suspicion,’ and Christian communities face structural limitations, including restrictions on building churches.” Scholars such as Matthew J. Walton argued that in Buddhist-majority states, constitutional protection of religion often coexists with efforts to preserve a dominant religious identity, creating inherent tension for minority groups.
Sri Lanka, on the other hand, reflects a similar model through what is often called the “foremost place” doctrine. The Constitution of Sri Lanka states that the Republic shall “give to Buddhism the foremost place” and obligates the state to “protect and foster the Buddha Sasana,” while also guaranteeing freedom of religion to all citizens. Asanga Welikala, from Edinburgh Law School said, “Interpreting this provision, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has consistently upheld a protective stance toward Buddhism.”
In a 2018 determination on proposed anti-conversion legislation, the Court held that inducements tied to religious conversion—such as material or financial benefits—could constitute an “infringement of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion” of vulnerable individuals, Welikala said. “Sri Lanka’s constitutional order represents ‘a form of asymmetrical secularism,’ where formal religious freedom exists alongside a privileged status for Buddhism.”
The Islamic republics: Pakistan and Bangladesh
Pakistan and Bangladesh present two different interpretations of how Islam interacts with the state, said Ayesha Jalal, a Pakistani-American historian. “Pakistan’s constitution explicitly establishes Islam as the state religion and requires that all existing laws shall be brought into conformity with the injunctions of Islam,” Jalal said. According to the U.S. Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Reports, the Pakistani framework creates a Federal Shariat Court to ensure no law is repugnant to Islam. “While the constitution protects the rights of minorities to ‘profess, practice, and propagate,’ these rights are often superseded by blasphemy laws that, according to human rights advocates, are frequently used to target religious minorities,” says the website.
Bangladesh, conversely, maintains a unique secularism with a state religion model, Jalal said. “While the constitution was amended to restore secularism as a core principle, Islam remains the state religion,” she added. According to Article 41 of the Bangladesh Constitution, every citizen has "the right to profess, practice or propagate any religion and religious communities have the right to manage their own institutions." This dual identity often creates what observers call a constitutional paradox between the state’s secular mandate and its Islamic identity,” Jalal said.
The exclusionary model: The Maldives
According to Ministry of Islamic Affairs, the Maldives represents the most restrictive end of the spectrum. According to the Maldivian Constitution, being a citizen is legally synonymous with being a Muslim.
The World Watch List 2026 country dossier on the Maldives notes that “the Maldivian Constitution does not permit citizens to have any other religion than Islam.” Furthermore, Article 36(c) mandates that “education shall strive to inculcate obedience to Islam.” There are no official churches, and the propagation of any non-Islamic faith is a criminal offense. According to the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, “apostates cannot be tolerated,” and religious freedom for non-Muslims is effectively non-existent for citizens.
The so-called “South Asian model” of religious freedom is rarely characterized by a strict separation of religion and state, said Rajeev Bhargava, a constitutional scholar. Rather, as comparative constitutional scholarship notes, it reflects a “complex accommodation” in which states regulate, recognize and at times privilege religion as part of nation-building and public order.
In this context, religion functions not only as private belief but also as a public institution embedded in constitutional identity and governance, he said. “South Asian secularism is better understood as ‘principled distance,’ where the state engages with religion in uneven but structured ways rather than maintaining strict neutrality,” he said. Within this framework, he added the central constitutional tension remains whether state engagement with religion protects pluralism or reinforces majority identity.