Here's a funny thing about majoritarianism that pretends to be progressive. The definition of a religion is determined to be everything that the majority is not.
So covering the head or face is considered a religious practice because it is not a practice members of the majority religion engage in. Sitting down for prayer five times a day is considered a religious practice because members of the majority religion don't do it. Having a religious book is considered a defining characteristic of a religion because the majority religion doesn't have one holy book.
In all these ways, members of the majority religion get to pretend that they are opposed to "religion" itself. Funnily enough, religion never gets defined as something that has an in-built discriminatory system of castes, or as something in which characters from millennia old stories are worshipped as gods.
Religion isn't defined as something that involves lighting lamps to mark auspicious occasions or place totems near workplaces and study desks and government offices.
The truth of the matter is that this is a game played with definitions. Why is Hijab religious but sindoor not? Why is a picture of a deity in a government office not religious but namaz on the roads religious? It's because religion is being deliberately defined in one very specific way. A way according to which only Islam ends up being a religion.