Western model of secularism

Also called: American model of secularism, Mutual exclusion · Topic: Secularism: Western and Indian Models · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 8 "Secularism"; Class 11, Ch 10 "The Philosophy of the Constitution"

Meaning

The Western model of secularism (also called the American model, or mutual exclusion) keeps the state and religion strictly apart. Each has its own area, and neither enters the other's. The state does not run, fund or reform religion, and religion does not shape laws or public policy. The USA is the clearest example.

It matters because the NCERT chapter explains Indian secularism mainly by contrasting it with this model. Many exam questions ask you to tell the two apart.

Explanation

How mutual exclusion works

• It works in two directions:
• The state keeps out of religion. It does not run, reform or manage religious bodies.

• Religion keeps out of the state. It does not shape laws or public policy.

• Rules that follow from this:

• No state policy may rest only on a religious reason.
• No religious category (such as "Hindu", "Muslim" or "Catholic") may be the basis of a public policy.
• No aid: the state gives no money to religious bodies, such as schools run by religious communities.

• No hindrance: the state does not block religious activity, as long as that activity stays within the law.

• The goal is individual freedom. The person is protected from a state that might push one faith, and from a church that might control the state.

The state as a "silent witness"

• Religion is treated as a private matter, not a matter of state policy or law.
• So the state does not step in when a religion:
• bars women from becoming priests;
• excommunicates dissenters (throws them out of the faith);

• stops some members from entering the sanctum (the holiest inner part of a place of worship).

• Result: the state protects people from religion's power over the state, but not from unfairness inside a religion.

Why the model is individualist

• Individualist means that rights such as liberty and equality belong to individuals, not to groups.

• So the model gives little room to community or minority rights, such as a community's right to run its own schools.

• The historical reason:

• Western societies were mostly of one religion (Christian), with Jews as the main minority.
• The main conflicts were inside one religion: the Church against dissenters.

• So the model paid little attention to equality between religions and to protecting minorities.

• No state-led religious reform: because the two are kept fully apart, the state cannot end caste exclusion or gender discrimination inside a faith.

Its variants: passive and assertive

• The scholar Ahmet Kuru splits Western secularism into two kinds:
• Passive secularism (USA): the state is neutral but allows religion to be seen in public life.

• Assertive secularism (France, Turkey): the state actively removes religion from public life.

• France (laïcité): this is France's form of secularism, with strict state neutrality. It rests on the Law of 9 December 1905 on the Separation of the Churches and the State. Under this law the Republic recognises, pays and funds no religion [3]. The 2004 law banned conspicuous religious symbols in public schools [3][5].

• Turkey (Kemalism): Mustafa Kemal Atatürk imposed secularism from the top down. He abolished the Caliphate (3 March 1924), banned the fez under the Hat Law (1925), brought in the Latin alphabet (1928), and wrote laiklik (secularism) into the constitution in 1937 as one of the "Six Arrows" [4].
• NCERT asks whether a secularism that tells you what to wear and which script to use is compatible with freedom.

In the Constitution and practice

• The US legal base: the First Amendment (1791). It is the first of the ten amendments in the US Bill of Rights. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" [3].
• Establishment Clause: the government may not set up an official religion or favour one religion over another [3].

• Free Exercise Clause: the government may not stop people from practising their religion [3].

• "Wall of separation between Church and State": Thomas Jefferson used this phrase in an 1802 letter. US courts later used it to describe strict separation. The phrase is not in the US Constitution.

• Key US cases:

Case	Year	What the court held
Everson v. Board of Education	1947	Paying parents back for bus fares to parochial (church-run) schools did not break the Establishment Clause [3]. The case also applied the wall idea to the US states.
Engel v. Vitale	1962	Official prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, even if taking part is voluntary [2].
Lemon v. Kurtzman	1971	State money for religious schools caused "excessive entanglement between government and religion". This created the Lemon test, a three-part check for Establishment Clause cases [3].
Carson v. Makin	2022	The wall was lowered for state funding linked to religious schools.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District	2022	A school could not stop a football coach from praying after games. The court expressly abandoned the Lemon test [3].

• Trend: since 2022 the US has been moving away from strict "no aid" separation and towards a wider view of free exercise.
• How India differs from this model:
• The word "secular" was added to the Preamble only by the 42nd Amendment (1976). S.R. Bommai (1994) treated secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.
• India follows principled distance. The state engages with religion or keeps away from it, depending on what liberty and equality need.
• Article 17 abolishes untouchability. Article 25(2)(b) lets the state throw open Hindu temples to all classes. Both are state action inside religion, which the Western model does not allow.
• Articles 29–30 protect the rights of minority communities, and Article 30(2) allows state aid to minority schools without discrimination. The Western model's "no aid" rule rules both out.

Don't confuse with

• Principled distance (Indian model): the Western model keeps a fixed wall and never steps into religion. India's model lets the state step in for reform and equality, as with Article 17 and Article 25(2)(b).
• Assertive secularism / laïcité: the US model is passive and lets religion be seen in public. French laïcité and Kemalism actively push religion out of public life, for example through bans on headscarves and the fez.
• Theocracy: a theocracy merges state and religion, so religious law becomes state law. The Western model is the opposite: complete separation.
• "Wall of separation" vs the First Amendment: the wall is Jefferson's phrase from 1802. The legal text is the First Amendment of 1791.

Prelims Hooks

• First Amendment (1791): the Establishment Clause means no official religion. The Free Exercise Clause means no ban on practising religion [3].
• "Wall of separation between Church and State" comes from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter. It is not a phrase in the US Constitution.
• Everson (1947) upheld paying back bus fares to parochial schools [3]. An option saying it was "struck down" is a trap.
• Engel v. Vitale (1962): official school prayer is unconstitutional even if voluntary [2]. Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) abandoned the Lemon test of 1971 [3].
• Trap: "Western secularism allows state-supported religious reform." This is false. Mutual exclusion rules out reform by the state, while Indian secularism allows it (Article 17, Article 25(2)(b)).
• Trap: the word "secular" entered the Indian Preamble through the 42nd Amendment (1976). India's model is principled distance, not a Western-style "wall".

Mains Points

• It protects the individual but stays silent on unfairness inside a religion.
• The Western model guards the individual against a state that might push one faith.
• But it leaves the state as a "silent witness" when women are barred as priests or members are kept out of the sanctum.

• India's principled distance lets the state step in for equality, through Article 17, Article 25(2)(b) and temple-entry laws.

• It fits poorly with deep religious diversity.

• The model was built for societies with mostly one religion, so it ignores community and minority rights.

• In a plural society like India, the Constitution adds Articles 29–30 and non-discriminatory aid to minority institutions (Article 30(2)) to secure equality between religions.

• The wall is not fixed.

• After Carson and Kennedy (2022), even the US is moving towards accommodating religion [3].
• Assertive versions have also shifted. Turkey eased its headscarf ban in 2013 and turned Hagia Sophia back into a mosque in 2020.
• This shows that secularism is a political choice that changes over time. It strengthens the case for India's flexible, context-based model.

Related concepts

• Laïcité
• Kemalist secularism

Read more

• The Western model: mutual exclusion, laïcité and Kemalism