Secularism

Secularism is about how a state treats religion fairly when many religions live side by side. It opposes two things. The first is the domination of one religious group by another. This is called inter-religious domination. The second is the domination of people within a religion by its own powerful sections. This is called intra-religious domination. Secularism stands against both.

Examples from around the world show why secularism matters. Minorities have faced exclusion in many countries. Members of one community have been targeted because of their faith. In India too there have been terrible cases of religious violence. All of these are forms of inter-religious domination. Secularism opposes them first of all.

But religion can also harm its own members. Many religions have treated women unequally. Some have barred dalits from temples. When a religion is run by its most conservative section, it allows no dissent. This is intra-religious domination. Secularism opposes it as well. So secularism is not against religion. It promotes freedom within each religion and equality both between religions and within them.

What kind of state can secure these goals? Education and goodwill help, but they are not enough. The state holds great power, so its design matters most.

A secular state must meet two conditions. The first condition is that it must not be run by priests. A state run by a priestly order is called a theocracy, and theocracies rarely allow freedom to other faiths. The second condition is that it must have no official religion. A state can be free of priests and still favour one religion. England once favoured the Anglican Church in just this way. A truly secular state therefore separates religion from the state in order to protect peace, freedom and equality.

The American model reads separation as mutual exclusion. The state stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the state. The state may not base any policy on religion, and it may not fund or block any religious group. In this model religion is a private matter. Freedom and equality are seen in terms of the individual, and there is little room for the rights of a community or a minority.

Indian secularism is not a copy of the western model. It grew in a land of deep religious diversity, and it took its own shape. Its central idea is principled distance. The state keeps its distance from religion, but it may step in when a clear principle calls for it.

Indian secularism opposes domination both between religions and within them. It protects the religious freedom of individuals and of minority communities. It also allows state-supported reform. The Constitution abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form (Article 17). The state has also passed laws against child marriage and against the old bar on inter-caste marriage. So the Indian state can stay away from religion in the American style. Or it can engage with religion when a principle requires it. This flexible approach is what principled distance means.

A key feature is that the Indian state can both fund and reform religion. The American "wall of separation" forbids this. The same Constitution that protects religious freedom (Articles 25–28) also lets the state throw open Hindu temples to all classes of Hindus (Article 25(2)(b)). It can also regulate or restrict the secular activities tied to religious practice (Article 25(2)(a)). This is principled distance in action: distance by default, engagement on principle.

Articles:

• Article 25: freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to public order, morality and health. "Propagate" means the right to spread or expound one's faith, NOT a fundamental right to convert another person. Available to citizens and non-citizens alike. Clause (2) expressly lets the state regulate any secular activity linked to religious practice. It also lets the state throw Hindu religious institutions open to all classes and sections of Hindus.
• Article 26: the freedom of a religious denomination (subject to public order, morality and health) to (a) establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, (b) manage its own affairs in matters of religion, (c) own and acquire property, and (d) administer that property under law. Note: a denomination's right under 26(b) is over "matters of religion" only; the state may still regulate its secular administration.
• Article 27: no person can be compelled to pay any tax whose proceeds are specifically appropriated to promote or maintain any particular religion. This bars taxes for religion, but a fee for regulating a religious institution is allowed.
• Article 28: turns on who funds the institution. No religious instruction is permitted in institutions wholly maintained out of state funds (28(1)). Institutions established under an endowment or trust requiring religious instruction are exempt (28(2)). In state-recognised or state-aided institutions, no one may be compelled to attend religious instruction without consent, and the person's own consent (or, if a minor, the guardian's) is required (28(3)).
• Articles 29 and 30: the cultural and educational rights that protect minorities. Article 29 protects any section with a distinct language, script or culture. It also bars denial of admission to a state-aided institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste or language. Article 30 gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. These rights show that Indian secularism guards minority communities, not just individuals.
• The word "Secular" (along with "Socialist") was inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976. The original 1950 Preamble did not contain the word. The Constitution was, however, secular in substance from the start.

Indian secularism faces five common criticisms. Each one can be answered. The first is that it is anti-religious. In fact it opposes only religious domination, not religion itself. The second is that it is a western import. But many things in India come from abroad. The idea of peaceful coexistence of religions also has deep Indian roots. The third is that it favours minorities. Minority rights are not special privileges. They protect the basic interests of groups that a simple majority vote could otherwise crush. The fourth is that it interferes too much. Indian secularism does reject strict non-interference. But principled distance is not the same as constant coercion. The fifth is that it feeds vote-bank politics. Seeking votes is normal in a democracy. The real test is whether a group is genuinely helped or merely used.