Secularism

Written and reviewed by Subhra Gupta, Humanities faculty at UniDrill (M.A. Sociology, University of Delhi · 7 years teaching Humanities). Based on NCERT Political Science Class XI (Political Theory), Chapter 8.

A word everyone supports and everyone doubts

Almost every political party in India says it believes in secularism. And yet few ideas are doubted so often. Some call it anti-religious. Some call it a foreign import. Some say it favours minorities, others say it interferes too much in religion, and some say it can never work in a country so deeply religious.

Here is a puzzle to carry through the chapter. Suppose a state refuses to support any religion, but it still bans untouchability, a practice that some people defended on religious grounds. Has it violated religious freedom or protected it? Your answer decides what you think secularism is for. The chapter's answer is that secularism is not about keeping religion out of sight. It is about stopping domination.

The core idea: secularism opposes religious domination

Secularism is a normative doctrine: it describes how a society ought to be. It opposes every form of institutionalised religious domination, and the chapter names two kinds.

Why both matter. If secularism meant only "protect minorities from the majority", it would miss the oppression that happens within a faith. If it meant only "protect individuals inside a faith", it would miss communities being targeted from outside. So a secular society is one free of both: it promotes freedom within religions and equality between and within religions.

What kind of state does this need?

To keep a society free of domination, the state itself must not become an instrument of one religious group. The chapter sorts states into types.

The key sentence for the exam. Separation of religion and state is necessary but not sufficient. A secular state must also pursue goals such as peace, religious freedom, freedom from religiously based oppression and equality within and between religions. These goals come at least partly from outside religion.

Pause and predict: a state is not run by priests, but gives one religion special legal status and public funds. Is it secular?

Check your answer: no. It is not theocratic, but it has a formal alliance with a religion. That is the second row of the table, and it can leave little room for dissent or religious equality.

Two ways to be secular: mutual exclusion and principled distance

Both models agree that the state must not be theocratic and must not establish a religion. They differ on how the state should treat religion day to day.

The Western model grew where most people shared one faith, so it focused on domination inside that faith. Questions of minority rights and equality between religions were often neglected. Its individualist reading of liberty and equality leaves little space for community rights.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: the American model is mutual exclusion. In reality: the First Amendment of the US Constitution has two parts, one saying Congress shall not establish a religion and the other protecting the free exercise of religion. Courts have read these in different ways over time, so the real American practice is more varied than the simple label suggests. Why it matters: "mutual exclusion" is a useful exam label, not a full description of any one country.

Ataturk's Turkey: secularism as suppression

Kemal Ataturk's secularism in the first half of the twentieth century was an even stricter model. It was not about keeping a distance from organised religion. It involved active intervention in religion and suppression of it. His aim was to end the institution of the Khalifa and modernise Turkey aggressively.

The chapter's question is sharp: can we imagine a secularism that does not give people the freedom to keep their name, wear their clothes or use their language? Indian secularism says no.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: Ataturk's secularism meant intervention in and suppression of religion. In reality: Turkey abolished the caliphate in 1924, and the Hat Law came in 1925. The Turkish state did not simply stay away from religion. It set up an official body to manage religious affairs. Why it matters: it shows a third pattern, neither mutual exclusion nor principled distance, in which the state controls religion.

Nehru and Ataturk: two secularisms

Jawaharlal Nehru, asked what secularism means in independent India, described it as the equal protection by the state of all religions. A secular state, he said, protects all religions, does not favour one over another and does not itself adopt any religion as the state religion.

How Indian secularism works

Where it comes from. Indian secularism arose in a society that was already deeply religiously diverse, before Western ideas and nationalism arrived. India already had a culture of tolerance. But tolerance is not enough. It can sit alongside domination: it gives everyone some room but within limits, and it can mean putting up with people you find repugnant. That is a virtue after a civil war but not when people are struggling for equal dignity. Western modern ideas brought equality into Indian thought, and the result was a distinct form of secularism that blends both.

Three differences from the Western model. First, Indian secularism pays equal attention to domination within religions and between religions. Second, it protects the religious freedom of communities as well as individuals. Individuals may follow the religion of their choice, and minorities have the right to exist and to run their own cultural and educational institutions. Third, it allows state-supported religious reform.

Negative and positive engagement. Under principled distance the Indian state can engage with religion in two ways.

The state may also choose to disengage and stay out, as in the American style. Public holidays in India mark festivals of many faiths, such as Maha Shivaratri, Holi, Good Friday, Buddha Purnima, Id-ul-Fitr, Diwali and Christmas, a simple everyday sign of a state that deals with all of them.

Beyond the textbook. For the exam: India's secular character comes from its refusal to be theocratic or to establish any religion. In reality: the Constitution protected religious freedom from the start, in Articles 25 to 28, covering freedom of conscience and the practice of religion, the freedom of religious groups to manage their own affairs, no compulsion to pay taxes for any particular religion, and no religious instruction in wholly state-funded institutions. The word "secular" itself was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. Why it matters: the idea was part of the Constitution's design before the word appeared in the Preamble.

Not "equal respect for all religions". This phrase sounds attractive but the chapter says it does not fit Indian secularism. If it means peaceful coexistence, that is not enough. If it means equal respect for every aspect of every religion, it is misleading, because Indian secularism allows principled state intervention in all religions. For example, caste hierarchies justified by religion are not acceptable. The chapter's own phrase is that Indian secularism allows "equal disrespect" for some aspects of organised religions.

Pause and predict: a state bans a religious custom that bars certain castes from a temple, but also funds a minority community's school. Is the state being inconsistent?

Check your answer: no. This is principled distance. It engages negatively to remove domination and positively to protect a minority's right to its own institutions. The rule is the same in both cases: promote freedom and equality.

Six criticisms of Indian secularism, and the replies

The train compartment. Four passengers share a compartment: a heavy smoker, a non-smoker, and two mild smokers. If the non-smoker has asthma, a majority vote to allow smoking would harm his most basic interest. The lesson: when fundamental interests are at stake, voting is the wrong tool. A person has a prior right to the satisfaction of significant interests, and the basic interests of minorities should be protected by constitutional law.

The ramp. Building a ramp at a cinema for people who use wheelchairs is not a special privilege. It gives them the same access as everyone else. Minority rights work the same way: they are a means of equal access.

Two views. For the exam: personal law is a dilemma. Family-law matters can be seen as community-specific rights protected by the Constitution, or as instances of intra-religious domination because they treat women unequally. Another reading: some argue the state should leave personal laws entirely to communities, others that it should apply one common code to all. The chapter's position is a middle path: personal laws can be reformed so that they respect both minority rights and equality between men and women. Reform should come neither through coercion by the state or by a group nor through the state keeping a total distance. The state should act as a facilitator that supports liberal and democratic voices within each religion.

Exam traps

60-second revision

Where this chapter connects

• Previous: Nationalism explains why a diverse nation needs a political rather than a religious identity.
• Related: Rights in the Indian Constitution covers the Right to Freedom of Religion and the Cultural and Educational Rights that make principled distance work in law.
• Also see: Social Justice deals with the equal dignity and fair treatment that secularism aims to secure for every group.