Secularism

Overview

Secularism is the principle that the state should be neutral in matters of religion — neither promoting nor opposing any particular faith. It does not mean that the state is hostile to religion (as critics sometimes claim), nor that citizens must be non-religious. It means that the state's authority is derived from the people, not from divine sanction, and that no religion has privileged access to state power.

The word "secularism" was coined by George Jacob Holyoake in 1851 to describe a social order based on reason and material welfare, independent of religious doctrine. But the idea is much older. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) ended the European Wars of Religion by establishing that the ruler of each state would determine its religion (cuius regio, eius religio). The American and French Revolutions later severed the formal tie between state and church, creating the modern secular state.

India's secularism is distinctive. It is not the American "wall of separation" model, nor the French "laïcité" model. It is what Rajeev Bhargava calls "principled distance" — the state can engage with religion for reform and social justice, but must treat all religions equally. Understanding this model, and the critiques it faces from the right and the left, is essential for any discussion of Indian politics.

Models of Secularism

American Model: The Wall of Separation

• First Amendment (1791): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment Clause forbids state support for religion; the Free Exercise Clause forbids state interference with religious practice.
• Jefferson's letter: Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment built a "wall of separation between Church and State." This metaphor has shaped American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has held that public schools cannot sponsor prayer, the government cannot display religious symbols in public buildings, and public funds cannot directly support religious instruction.
• Neutrality: The state is not anti-religious but religion-neutral. It neither helps nor hinders religion. Religion is a private matter; the public sphere is secular. This is sometimes called "exclusive neutrality" — the state excludes religion from public institutions.
• Critique: Critics argue that the wall of separation is impossible and undesirable. Religious values shape public morality; excluding them entirely is not neutral but favors secular worldviews. The "culture wars" in the USA — over abortion, school prayer, and religious exemptions — reflect this tension.

French Model: Laïcité

• Historical roots: The 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and State ended state funding for religious institutions and removed religious symbols from public buildings. This was a reaction against the Catholic Church's political power in France.
• Assertive secularism: Unlike the American model, which is passive (the state simply ignores religion), French laïcité is active. The state excludes religion from public spaces to protect the republic from religious influence. This is "assertive" or "positive" secularism — it does not merely tolerate religion; it confines it to the private sphere.
• Controversies: The 2004 law banning conspicuous religious symbols (headscarves, turbans, large crosses) in public schools was defended as protecting secular public space. Critics, including many Muslims, saw it as discriminatory — targeting minority religious practices while Christian cultural symbols (Christmas trees, Easter) remain normalized. The 2010 ban on full-face veils in public spaces and the 2016 "burkini ban" on some beaches intensified the debate.
• Debate: Is laïcité neutral, or does it impose a particular (French, republican, historically Christian) conception of the public sphere? The tension between French universalism and multiculturalism is a central issue in European politics.

Indian Model: Principled Distance

• Constitutional text: The Preamble (as amended by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) declares India a "secular" republic. Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion. Article 26 guarantees the right to manage religious affairs. Article 27 prohibits the state from compelling any person to pay taxes for the promotion of any particular religion. Article 28 prohibits religious instruction in state-funded educational institutions (with exceptions for certain schools).
• Positive secularism: Unlike the American "wall of separation," the Indian state actively engages with religion. It can regulate religious practices (Article 25(2)), open Hindu temples to all castes (Article 25(2)(b)), legislate on religious endowments, and fund religious schools (under Article 28(3)). The state is not neutral by exclusion but by equal engagement — what Rajeev Bhargava calls "principled distance."
• Equal respect (sarva dharma sama bhāva): This phrase, popularized by Gandhi, means "equal respect for all religions." The state does not withdraw from religion but treats all religions equally. It can subsidize pilgrimages (Haj, Mansarovar, Kailash), manage temples (under state Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts), and fund religious schools. The goal is not to privatize religion but to prevent any one religion from dominating the state.
• Reform and intervention: The Indian state has historically intervened in religion for social reform. The Sati Abolition Act (1829), Widow Remarriage Act (1856), Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act (1856), and later the Hindu Code Bills (1955–1956) reformed Hindu personal law. The Shah Bano case (1985) and the subsequent Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act showed the complexity of reforming minority personal law. The Supreme Court's judgment in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) declared triple talaq unconstitutional, sparking a debate about whether the state should reform all personal laws uniformly.

Indian Secularism: Practices and Tensions

Constitutional Debates

• Constituent Assembly: The Constituent Assembly debated whether to include the word "secular" in the Preamble. Some members (like K.T. Shah) wanted explicit mention; others (like Ambedkar) argued that the Constitution's entire structure was secular, so explicit mention was unnecessary. The word was not in the original Preamble but was added by the 42nd Amendment (1976) during the Emergency — a controversial context that taints its legitimacy for some critics.
• Personal laws: India has separate personal laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and Jews, governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. This is a colonial legacy, not a constitutional choice. The Directive Principles (Article 44) call for a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), but no government has implemented it. The BJP has promised UCC, arguing that separate personal laws are "pseudo-secularism." Critics argue that a UCC imposed by the majority community would not be truly uniform but majoritarian.
• Religious endowments: State governments manage Hindu temples through Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka). The state collects temple revenues, appoints trustees, and audits accounts. This is justified as preventing corruption and ensuring access to all castes. Critics ask: why does the state manage Hindu temples but not mosques, churches, or gurudwaras? Is this equal treatment or interference with the majority religion?
• Pilgrimage subsidies: The Central and state governments have subsidized pilgrimages (Haj subsidy until 2017, Kailash-Mansarovar subsidy, Amarnath Yatra arrangements). The 2017 abolition of the Haj subsidy was welcomed by some Muslim reformers but criticized by others as symbolic targeting of Muslims. The question is: should the state subsidize any pilgrimage, or should all be equally supported, or should none be supported?

Communal Violence and the Secular State

• 1984 anti-Sikh riots: After Indira Gandhi's assassination, mobs killed thousands of Sikhs in Delhi and other cities. The state failed to protect citizens, and in some cases, police and politicians actively participated. The Nanavati Commission confirmed state complicity. Only a handful of convictions occurred decades later. This is often cited as evidence that the Indian state is secular in the Constitution but not in practice.
• 2002 Gujarat riots: Over 1,000 people (mostly Muslims) were killed in communal violence after the Godhra train burning. The state's role was heavily contested. The Supreme Court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) cleared then-Chief Minister Narendra Modi of direct involvement, but the episode remains a defining moment in the debate about whether the state can be neutral when the ruling party has a religious agenda.
• 2020 Delhi riots: Clashes between pro- and anti-CAA protesters led to over 50 deaths, mostly Muslims. The state's response — arrests of activists and protesters under UAPA — was criticized as one-sided and politically motivated. The riots and their aftermath exposed deep communal fractures and raised questions about whether the police and judiciary can be neutral in a polarized environment.
• Institutional response: The Supreme Court has held that secularism is a "basic feature" of the Constitution (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994) and cannot be amended away. But the gap between constitutional doctrine and state practice remains wide. The question is not whether the Constitution is secular, but whether the state is.

Debates and Controversies

Critique from the Right: Pseudo-Secularism

• Hindutva critique: Hindu nationalist thinkers (M.S. Golwalkar, Deendayal Upadhyaya) argued that Indian secularism is "pseudo-secularism" — it appeases minorities (through Muslim Personal Law, Haj subsidies, minority educational institutions) while interfering with Hindu practices (temple management, cow slaughter laws, reform of Hindu customs). The BJP's 2019 manifesto promised to end "appeasement" and treat all citizens equally.
• Uniform Civil Code demand: The BJP argues that a Uniform Civil Code is essential for true secularism — the same law for all citizens regardless of religion. Critics respond that the current Hindu Code Bills are not "uniform" (they apply only to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs) and that a UCC imposed by the majority would not be secular but majoritarian. The debate is about whether "equality" means identical treatment or context-sensitive accommodation.
• Minority rights vs. majoritarianism: The Hindu nationalist critique of minority rights (Article 29, 30) as "appeasement" clashes with the constitutional guarantee of minority cultural and educational rights. The Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) and PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra (2005) upheld the right of minority institutions to manage their affairs, but with regulatory oversight. The balance between minority autonomy and state regulation is contested.

Critique from the Left: Failure to Protect Minorities

• Communal violence: Progressive critics argue that the Indian state has repeatedly failed to protect minorities during riots — 1984, 2002, 2013 (Muzaffarnagar), and 2020. Police bias, political complicity, and judicial delays create a culture of impunity. The state is secular in law but not in practice.
• Structural discrimination: Muslims, Dalits, and Adivasis face discrimination in housing, employment, education, and criminal justice. The Sachar Committee (2006) documented Muslim disadvantage in education, employment, and political representation. The state has not effectively addressed these gaps.
• Majoritarianism in law: The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) introduced religion-based citizenship criteria for the first time — fast-tracking citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Critics argue this violates the secular principle of equal citizenship. The government defends it as humanitarian protection for persecuted minorities. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on its constitutionality.
• Love Jihad laws: Several BJP-ruled states passed laws criminalizing religious conversion for marriage ("love jihad" laws). Critics argue these laws violate personal liberty, privacy, and the right to marry across religious lines. Supporters claim they prevent forced conversion. The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018) upheld the right of adults to marry across religion, but state laws continue to create obstacles.

The Debate about Secularism's Future

• Is secularism dying? Some scholars argue that Hindu nationalism has fundamentally challenged the constitutional model of secularism. The BJP's political dominance, the Ram Temple construction (consecrated 2024), and the normalization of religious symbols in state ceremonies suggest a shift toward what some call "ethnic democracy" or "majoritarian state."
• Is secularism being redefined? Others argue that Indian secularism is evolving, not dying. The Supreme Court continues to protect minority rights (e.g., the electoral bonds case, 2024), civil society remains active, and elections are still competitive. The tension between secularism and majoritarianism is a struggle, not a settled outcome.
• Alternative frameworks: Some scholars propose replacing "secularism" with "pluralism," "inclusive nationalism," or "constitutional patriotism." The debate is not just about the word but about the underlying principle: how should a diverse state manage religious difference?

Landmark Cases

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Secularism is a "basic feature" of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that misuse of Article 356 for partisan reasons (dismissing state governments on religious grounds) is unconstitutional. This is the most important judicial affirmation of secularism.
• Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): A mosque is not an essential part of Islamic practice; the state can acquire it for public purpose. Controversial but legally significant for the Ayodhya dispute. The judgment was criticized by Muslims but was later used to justify the Babri Masjid demolition trial and the eventual handover of the site for temple construction.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court declared triple talaq (instant divorce) unconstitutional, holding that it violated Muslim women's right to equality. Three judges held it unconstitutional (one on the ground that it was arbitrary under Article 14, two on the ground that it violated Article 25). The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 later criminalized it.
• Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018): The Supreme Court upheld the right of an adult woman to marry a man of her choice, even across religious lines. The case involved Hadiya, a Muslim convert in Kerala, whose marriage was annulled by the High Court on allegations of "love jihad." The Supreme Court restored the marriage and held that the right to choose a partner is a fundamental right under Article 21.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality (Section 377 of the IPC). While not directly about secularism, the judgment relied on constitutional morality — the idea that the Constitution's values (dignity, liberty, equality) override majoritarian moral preferences. This is a secular principle: the state protects individual rights even when they conflict with religious norms.

Sources