The Indian model: principled distance and state-supported reform

Detail

1. What makes the Indian model different

• Indian model of secularism: a form of secularism in which religion is not only a private matter. The state may deal with religion openly in order to protect freedom and equality.
• Western model (for contrast): a strict wall of separation. The state stays out of religion and religion stays out of the state. Religion is a purely private matter.
• NCERT (Class 11) gives three differences from the Western model:

#	Feature of the Indian model	What it means in practice
1	Equal concern with intra-religious and inter-religious domination	It fights oppression inside a religion and oppression between religions
2	Protects individuals and minority communities	A minority has a right to exist and to keep its culture and its own schools and colleges
3	Allows state-supported religious reform	The state may step in to end unfair practices inside a religion

(a) Intra- and inter-religious domination

• Intra-religious domination means one group oppresses another group within the same religion. Indian secularism opposes:
• the oppression of dalits and women within Hinduism;

• discrimination against women within Indian Islam and Christianity.

• Inter-religious domination means one religious community oppresses another. Indian secularism opposes majority threats to minority rights.

• The Western model mainly looks at state–church separation and individual freedom. It pays less attention to group-on-group oppression.

(b) Freedom for individuals and communities

• The Western model mostly protects the individual believer.
• India also protects minority communities as groups:
• All minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to set up and run educational institutions of their choice (Art. 30) [4].
• Art. 29 protects the distinct culture of every section of citizens [4].
• Art. 26 gives every religious denomination (an organised religious group or sect) the right to set up religious and charitable institutions, manage its own religious affairs, and own and run property in line with the law [4].

(c) Room for state-supported religious reform

• State-supported religious reform: the state uses law to end oppression that comes from religious practice, even if the practice claims a religious basis.
• Constitutional anchor: Art. 25(2)(b). Art. 25 does not stop the state from making laws "providing for social welfare and reform" or for "the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus" [2].
• Art. 25(1) itself is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other Fundamental Rights [2]. Religious freedom in India is therefore never absolute.
• Examples:

Reform	Legal anchor	What it ended
Ban on untouchability	Art. 17	Caste-based exclusion, with its practice made punishable
Laws against child marriage	Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 → now Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006	Marriage of minors
Lifting the taboo on inter-caste marriage	Special Marriage Act 1954 (civil marriage across caste or religion); Hindu Marriage Act 1955	Caste limits on marriage
Temple entry for all Hindus	Art. 25(2)(b)	Exclusion of dalits from public temples

• The Supreme Court has described the same idea. In M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), it held that the secular state can still remove practices "derived from or connected with religion" when they block development and the right to equality [4].

2. Principled distance: how a reforming state stays secular

• Principled distance (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 serves freedom, equality and peace.
• Why India is still secular:
• It is not theocratic. A theocracy is a state ruled by religious leaders or religious law.
• It has no state religion. It does not establish or officially favour any one faith.

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

• Two choices open to the state:

• Disengage in the American way, staying out when that best protects values.

• Engage when engagement better protects values.

• Two kinds of engagement:

• Negative engagement: opposing religious tyranny, for example abolishing untouchability (Art. 17).

• Positive engagement: giving help, for example state aid to minority educational institutions. Under Art. 30(2), the state must not discriminate against a school when giving aid just because a minority runs it.

• Meaning of the two words:

• "Principled": the state acts in line with constitutional values, not for vote-bank or other opportunistic reasons.
• "Distance": this is not equidistance. Different religions may need different treatment. A practice that oppresses people in one religion may need state action, while another religion may need none.

Secularism in constitutional law

• 42nd Amendment Act, 1976: inserted 'secular', 'socialist' and 'integrity' into the Preamble [4].
• The Constituent Assembly had not added the word 'secular'. In 1949 many saw it as imprecise, because some read it as meaning opposed to religion [4].

• The Supreme Court has held that secularism was present in the Constitution even before 1976, through Arts. 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29 and 30 [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 of the Constitution. Parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot destroy these features.

• Kesavananda Bharati (1973, 13 judges) made the same observation [4].

• R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1994): secularism means the nation's commitment to treat people of all faiths equally and without discrimination [4].

• Dr Balram Singh v. Union of India (25 November 2024): the Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the insertion of 'socialist' and 'secular' [4].
• The petitioners argued that the words were added during the Emergency, and that adding them in 1976 to a Constitution adopted in 1949 falsified its history.
• The Court held that Art. 368 (Parliament's amending power) extends to the Preamble. The date of adoption does not limit this power.
• It called the Constitution a living document.

• It also noted that the petitions were filed 44 years after the words were added [4].

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

NCERT "Let's Think" cases

• Haj subsidy (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 cut step by step and fully abolished for Haj 2018 [5].
• Since then, 4.54 lakh Indian pilgrims have performed Haj without a subsidy. About ₹400 crore in savings has been redirected to the education of minority students, especially girls (PIB, November 2024) [5].

• Exam angle: is funding one community's pilgrimage "positive engagement" or unfair favouritism? Principled distance asks whether the aid serves equality.

• Religious rituals in government offices: the debate over official pujas, ground-breaking ceremonies (bhoomi pujan) and religious pictures in public offices.

• The question is whether these break the rule that the state has no religion of its own.

3. Why "equal respect for all religions" is not enough

• Equal respect for all religions (sarva dharma sambhava) is a popular slogan for Indian secularism. NCERT calls it inadequate, for two reasons:
• If it means peaceful coexistence or toleration, it is too little. Secularism also demands that no group dominates another, both inside and between religions.

• If it means equal respect for every practice of every religion, it is ambiguous:

  • Principled intervention means the state disrespects some practices, such as caste hierarchy or untouchability.
  • The state may even show "equal disrespect", criticising unfair practices in every religion alike.

• This explains why the 1978 attempt to define 'secular' as "equal respect for all religions" was never written into the Constitution [4].

Exercise Q1: what is compatible with secularism?

Item	Compatible?	Reason / anchor
No domination of one religious group by another	Yes	Core aim of secularism
A state religion	No	India has no religion of its own [4]
Equal state support to all religions	In principle	Allowed if it is non-discriminatory
Mandatory prayers in schools	No	Art. 28(1): no religious instruction 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 consent, or their guardian's consent if they are a minor [3]
Separate minority educational institutions	Yes	Art. 30 [4]
Government-appointed temple boards	Contested	State Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts; Art. 25(2)(a) lets the state regulate the secular activities linked to religious practice [4]; groups demand to "free temples" from state control
State action to ensure dalit temple entry	Yes	Art. 17 and Art. 25(2)(b) [2]

• Gazetted holidays (official public holidays listed by the government): the list includes festivals of many religions. It is an exercise in even-handedness (treating all communities fairly). This is still not mechanical equidistance.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 25(2)(b) allows laws on social welfare and reform and the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. It does not grant freedom of conscience; that is Art. 25(1) [2].
• Art. 28(1): no religious instruction in an institution wholly maintained out of state funds [3].
• Art. 30 covers minorities based on religion or language, not religion alone [4].
• The 42nd Amendment (1976) added three words to the Preamble: socialist, secular, integrity [4]. "Integrity" is a common trap.
• S.R. Bommai (1994), a 9-judge bench, held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution [4].
• Balram Singh v. UoI (2024): the Supreme Court upheld 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble, holding that Art. 368 extends to the Preamble [4].
• 'Secular' is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. The 1978 proposal to define it in Art. 366 failed in the Rajya Sabha [4].
• "Principled distance" was coined by Rajeev Bhargava, not Nehru or Ambedkar.
• The Haj subsidy was fully abolished for Haj 2018, after the Supreme Court's 2012 phase-out order [5].
• The Child Marriage Restraint Act (1929) was replaced by the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

Mains Points

• Principled distance vs the wall of separation: India's model lets the state reform religion, as with Art. 17, Art. 25(2)(b) and the 1955–56 Hindu Code laws.
• Critics say this reform has fallen unevenly on Hindus, while minority personal laws have been left largely untouched. This links to the debate on Art. 44 (Uniform Civil Code) [4].

• Defenders say distance need not mean equidistance.

• Equal respect vs equal disrespect: the state's duty is to equality and dignity, not to respect every practice.

• Useful case studies: temple-entry disputes, triple talaq, and the debate over freeing temples from HR&CE boards.

• Positive engagement and the risk of appeasement: the Haj subsidy and minority-school aid (Art. 30(2)) show that state help must be tested against constitutional values.

• Ending the Haj subsidy and moving about ₹400 crore to minority girls' education is one example of applying that test [5].

• Secularism as basic structure: from Kesavananda (1973) and 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) against a state government that acts against secularism.