Principled distance

Topic: Secularism: Western and Indian Models · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 8 "Secularism"; Class 11, Ch 10 "The Philosophy of the Constitution"

Meaning

Principled distance is the core idea of Indian secularism, 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 help or hold back, depending on what best protects freedom, equality and peace.

It explains how India can be secular and still reform religion. The Indian state can ban untouchability or fund minority schools without having a religion of its own.

Explanation

How it works: two choices for the state

• Distance: India is not theocratic. A theocracy is a state ruled by religious leaders or religious law.
• India has no state religion. It does not set up or officially favour any one faith.

• The Supreme Court has said that Indian secularism means the state neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith [4].

• The state can choose how to act:

• Disengage: stay out of religion, as in the American model, when that best protects constitutional values.
• Engage: step in when that protects those values better.

Two kinds of engagement

• Negative engagement: the state opposes religious tyranny (unfair control or cruelty backed by religion).

• Example: the abolition of untouchability under Art. 17.

• Positive engagement: the state gives help.

• Example: state aid to minority educational institutions.
• Under Art. 30(2), the state must not refuse or reduce aid to a school just because a minority runs it.

What the two words mean

• "Principled": the state acts for constitutional values such as freedom and equality.

• It must not act for vote-bank or other selfish political reasons.

• "Distance": this is not equidistance (keeping exactly the same gap from every religion).

• Different religions may need different treatment.
• A practice that oppresses people in one religion may need state action. Another religion may need none.

Why the Indian model needs it

• Indian secularism opposes two kinds of domination equally:
• Intra-religious domination (one group oppresses another group within the same religion). Examples: the treatment of dalits and women within Hinduism, and discrimination against women within Indian Islam and Christianity.

• Inter-religious domination (one religious community oppresses another). Example: majority threats to minority rights.

• To fight both, the state cannot stay fully outside religion. Principled distance tells it when and why it may step in.

• Limit: religious freedom is never absolute. Art. 25(1) is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other Fundamental Rights [2].

In the Constitution and practice

• Art. 25(2)(b): the state may make laws for social welfare and reform. It may also open Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus [2]. This is the main legal basis for state-supported reform.
• Art. 25(2)(a): the state may regulate the secular activities linked to religious practice [4]. Temple boards set up under state Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts use this power.
• Art. 17: abolished untouchability and made its practice punishable. This is negative engagement.
• Arts. 26, 29 and 30: protect religious denominations, distinct cultures and minority educational institutions [4]. These support positive engagement with communities, not just individuals.
• Art. 28:
• Art. 28(1): no religious instruction in a school wholly funded by the state [3].

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

• Reform laws that show engagement:

• The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, is now replaced by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
• The Special Marriage Act, 1954 allows civil marriage across caste or religion.

• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 removed caste limits on marriage.

• Key cases and instances:

• M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994): the secular state can still remove practices "derived from or connected with religion" when they block development and the right to equality [4].
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): a 9-judge bench held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution [4]. Basic structure means the core features that Parliament can amend around but cannot destroy.
• 42nd Amendment Act, 1976: added 'secular', 'socialist' and 'integrity' to the Preamble [4]. The Court has held that secularism was already present through Arts. 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 [4].

• Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India (25 November 2024): the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to 'socialist' and 'secular'. It held that Art. 368 (Parliament's amending power) extends to the Preamble [4].

• Haj subsidy, a test of positive engagement:

• 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 in savings now goes to the education of minority students, especially girls (PIB, November 2024) [5].

Don't confuse with

• Wall of separation (Western model): the state and religion stay fully apart, and religion is a purely private matter. Under principled distance, the state may openly engage with religion to protect freedom and equality.
• Equidistance: equidistance means treating every religion in exactly the same way. Principled distance allows different treatment when one religion's practice oppresses people and another's does not.
• Equal respect for all religions (sarva dharma sambhava): NCERT calls this slogan inadequate. Principled distance allows the state to disrespect unfair practices such as caste hierarchy, and even to show "equal disrespect" to unfair practices in every religion. The 1978 attempt to define 'secular' in Art. 366 as "equal respect for all religions" failed in the Rajya Sabha [4].
• Theocracy: in a theocracy, religious leaders or religious law rule the state. Under principled distance, the state has no religion of its own [4].

Prelims Hooks

• "Principled distance" was coined by Rajeev Bhargava, not by Nehru or Ambedkar.
• The two kinds of engagement: negative engagement means abolishing untouchability (Art. 17). Positive engagement means non-discriminatory aid to minority schools (Art. 30(2)).
• Art. 25(2)(b) allows laws on social welfare and reform and on opening Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all Hindus. Freedom of conscience is in Art. 25(1), not 25(2)(b) [2].
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) added three words to the Preamble: socialist, secular, integrity [4]. "Integrity" is a common trap.
• 'Secular' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. The 1978 proposal to define it in Art. 366 failed in the Rajya Sabha [4].
• The Haj subsidy was fully abolished for Haj 2018, after the Supreme Court's 2012 order to phase it out [5].

Mains Points

• Reform without equidistance: fair or uneven?
• The state has reformed religion through Art. 17, Art. 25(2)(b) and the 1955–56 Hindu Code laws.
• Critics say this reform has fallen mostly on Hindus, while minority personal laws remain largely untouched. This links to the Art. 44 (Uniform Civil Code) debate [4].

• Defenders reply that distance need not mean equidistance. The test is which practice harms equality and dignity.

• Positive engagement versus appeasement:

• State help, such as the Haj subsidy or minority-school aid (Art. 30(2)), must pass the "principled" test. It must serve equality, not vote banks.
• Ending the Haj subsidy and moving about ₹400 crore to minority girls' education is one example of applying that test [5].

• Contested cases include government-run HR&CE temple boards, the demand to "free temples", and religious rituals in government offices.

• Secularism as basic structure:

• From Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994) to Balram Singh (2024), the courts have treated secularism as part of the Constitution's core, not just a 1976 label [4].
• GS-II angle: Bommai also allows the Centre to use Art. 356 (President's rule, when the Union takes over the running of a state for a time) against a state government that acts against secularism.

Related concepts

• Indian model of secularism
• State-supported religious reform
• Equal respect for all religions

Read more

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