Indian model of secularism

Also called: Indian secularism · Topic: Secularism: Western and Indian Models · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 3 "Gender, Religion and Caste"; Class 11, Ch 8 "Secularism"; Class 11, Ch 10 "The Philosophy of the Constitution"

Meaning

The Indian model of secularism means the state has no religion of its own and keeps a principled distance from all religions. It can step into religious matters, or stay out, depending on which choice best protects freedom, equality and peace. Unlike the Western model, religion is not only a private matter in India. That is why the state can protect minority groups, give aid to their schools, and use law to end unjust practices inside a religion, such as untouchability.

Explanation

How it differs from the Western model

• Western model: a strict wall of separation. The state stays out of religion, and religion stays out of the state. Religion is a purely private matter.
• Indian model: the state may deal with religion openly to protect freedom and equality. NCERT (Class 11) gives three differences: 1. It opposes domination both inside and between religions.
  • Intra-religious domination means one group oppressing another group within the same religion. Examples are the oppression of dalits and women within Hinduism, and discrimination against women within Indian Islam and Christianity.
  • Inter-religious domination means one religious community oppressing another, such as majority threats to minority rights. 2. It protects communities as well as individuals.
  • The Western model mostly protects the individual believer.
  • India also protects minority communities as groups. A minority has the right to exist and to keep its culture and its own schools and colleges. 3. It allows state-supported religious reform.
  • The state may use law to end oppression that comes from a religious practice, even when the practice claims a religious basis.

Principled distance: how a reforming state stays secular

• Principled distance is a term coined by political theorist Rajeev Bhargava (1998).
• The state keeps a distance from all religions.

• It may step in or stay out, and it may help or hold back, depending on what best serves freedom, equality and peace.

• The state has two choices:

• Disengage: stay out, in the American way, when that best protects these values.

• Engage: step in when that protects them better.

• Engagement can take two forms:

• Negative engagement means opposing religious tyranny (harsh, unjust rule in the name of religion). Example: abolishing untouchability (Art. 17).

• Positive engagement means giving help. Example: state aid to minority schools. When the state gives aid, it must not discriminate against a school just because a minority runs it (Art. 30(2)).

• What the two words mean:

• "Principled": the state acts on constitutional values, not to win votes from one group or for any other selfish reason.

• "Distance": this is not equidistance (treating every religion in exactly the same way). Each religion may need different treatment. A practice that oppresses people in one religion may need state action, while another religion may need none.

• Why India still counts as secular:

• It is not a theocracy (a state ruled by religious leaders or religious law).
• It has no state religion. It does not officially favour any one faith.
• The Supreme Court has said that the state neither supports any religion nor penalises anyone for professing and practising a faith [4].

Limits: religious freedom is not absolute

• Art. 25(1) gives freedom of religion. That freedom is subject to public order, morality and health, and to the other Fundamental Rights [2].
• Art. 25(2)(b) lets the state make laws for social welfare and reform. It also lets the state open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [2].
• In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that a secular state can still remove practices "derived from or connected with religion" when they block development and the right to equality [4].

Why "equal respect for all religions" is not enough

• Sarva dharma sambhava (equal respect for all religions) is a popular slogan for Indian secularism. NCERT calls it inadequate, for two reasons:
• If it only means peaceful coexistence or toleration, it asks too little. Secularism also demands that no group dominates another, whether inside a religion or between religions.
• If it means respecting every practice of every religion, it is unclear. A reforming state must disrespect some practices, such as caste hierarchy or untouchability. It may even show "equal disrespect" by criticising unfair practices in every religion alike.

In the Constitution and practice

• Constitutional anchors for community rights:
• Art. 26: every religious denomination (an organised religious group or sect) can set up religious and charitable institutions, manage its own religious affairs, and own and run property in line with the law [4].
• Art. 29: protects the distinct culture of every section of citizens [4].
• Art. 30: all minorities, whether based on religion or language, can set up and run educational institutions of their choice [4].

• Art. 28(1): no religious instruction may be given in a school wholly funded by the state. Art. 28(3): no one in a state-recognised or state-aided school can be forced to attend religious instruction or worship without their own consent, or their guardian's consent if they are a minor [3].

• Examples of state-supported reform:

Reform	Legal anchor	What it ended
Ban on untouchability	Art. 17	Caste-based exclusion, now a punishable offence
Ban on child marriage	Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929, now replaced by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006	Marriage of minors
Inter-caste marriage	Special Marriage Act 1954; Hindu Marriage Act 1955	Caste limits on marriage
Temple entry for all Hindus	Art. 25(2)(b)	Exclusion of dalits from public temples [2]

• The word 'secular' in the Constitution:
• 42nd Amendment Act, 1976: added 'secular', 'socialist' and 'integrity' to the Preamble [4].
• The Constituent Assembly left the word out. In 1949 many people found it unclear, because some read it as meaning against religion [4].
• The Supreme Court has held that secularism was already in the Constitution before 1976, through Arts. 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 [4].

• The 1978 attempt to define it failed. The Constitution (45th Amendment) Bill, 1978, later passed as the 44th Amendment Act, proposed defining 'secular' in Art. 366 as "equal respect for all religions". The Rajya Sabha did not accept this change [4]. 'Secular' therefore remains undefined in the Constitution.

• Landmark cases:

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973, 13 judges) and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994, 9 judges) both held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution [4]. Basic structure means the core features that Parliament can amend but cannot destroy.
• R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994): secularism means treating people of all faiths equally and without discrimination [4].

• Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India (25 November 2024): the Supreme Court dismissed petitions against the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble [4].

  • The Court held that Art. 368 (Parliament's power to amend the Constitution) extends to the Preamble. The fact that the Constitution was adopted in 1949 does not limit this power.
  • It called the Constitution a living document. It also noted that the petitions came 44 years after the words were added [4].

• Positive engagement in practice: the Haj subsidy. This was state money that helped Muslim pilgrims pay for travel to Saudi Arabia.

• It grew from ₹10.51 crore in 1994 to ₹836.56 crore in 2012–13 [5].
• In 2012, the Supreme Court asked for it to be phased out within ten years. It was fully abolished for Haj 2018 [5].

• About ₹400 crore saved has been moved to the education of minority students, especially girls (PIB, November 2024) [5].

• Contested areas:

• Temple boards: state Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts rely on Art. 25(2)(a), which lets the state regulate the secular (non-religious) activities linked to religious practice [4]. Some groups demand that temples be freed from state control.
• Religious rituals in government offices, such as official pujas and bhoomi pujan (ground-breaking ceremonies), raise the question of whether the state is keeping to having no religion of its own.

Don't confuse with

• Western (wall-of-separation) secularism: the state and religion stay fully apart, and religion is private. India's model lets the state step into religion to reform it or to help minority communities.
• Equidistance: this means treating every religion in exactly the same way. Principled distance allows different treatment for different religions when constitutional values require it.
• Sarva dharma sambhava (equal respect for all religions): this is a popular slogan, not the constitutional definition. Its 1978 attempt to enter Art. 366 failed in the Rajya Sabha [4].
• Theocracy: here the state is run by religious leaders or religious law. India has no state religion at all.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 25(2)(b) allows laws for social welfare and reform and for opening Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all Hindus. Freedom of conscience is in Art. 25(1), not Art. 25(2)(b) [2].
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) added three words to the Preamble: socialist, secular, integrity. "Integrity" is a common trap [4].
• S.R. Bommai (1994), a 9-judge bench, held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution [4].
• "Principled distance" was coined by Rajeev Bhargava, not by Nehru or Ambedkar.
• Art. 30 covers minorities based on religion or language, not religion alone [4].
• 'Secular' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. The 1978 proposal to define it in Art. 366 failed in the Rajya Sabha [4].

Mains Points

• Principled distance or uneven reform? The model lets the state reform religion through Art. 17, Art. 25(2)(b) and the Hindu Code laws of 1955–56.
• Critics say reform has fallen mostly on Hindus, while minority personal laws remain largely untouched. This links to the debate on the Uniform Civil Code (Art. 44) [4].

• Defenders reply that distance need not mean equidistance. The test is equality and dignity, not identical treatment.

• Equal respect or equal disrespect? The state's duty is to equality, not to respecting every practice.

• Useful case studies are temple-entry disputes, triple talaq, and the demand to free temples from HR&CE boards.

• Help or appeasement? State help to religious groups must pass the test of constitutional values.

• Ending the Haj subsidy for Haj 2018 and moving about ₹400 crore to minority girls' education is one example of applying this test [5].
• GS-II angle: S.R. Bommai (1994) treated secularism as part of the basic structure [4]. It also allows the Centre to use President's rule (when the Union government takes over the running of a state for a time, under Art. 356) against a state government that acts against secularism.

Related concepts

• Principled distance
• State-supported religious reform
• Equal respect for all religions

Read more

• The Indian model: principled distance and state-supported reform