Criticisms of Indian secularism and the responses

Detail

Background: why answer these criticisms at all

• Indian secularism means the state keeps a principled distance from all religions. It may stay away from a religion, or it may step in, to protect freedom and equality.
• The word "secular" was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment, 1976. The secular idea was already in the Fundamental Rights (Articles 25–30) before that.
• In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), a nine-judge bench held that secularism is part of the basic structure (the core features of the Constitution that even Parliament cannot destroy by amendment). It called secularism "a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions" [4].
• NCERT lists six criticisms of Indian secularism and answers each one:

#	Criticism	NCERT's short answer
1	Anti-religious	It opposes religious domination, not religion
2	A Western import	It has both Western and Indian roots
3	Minoritism	Protecting basic interests is equal respect, not a privilege
4	Interventionist	Principled distance also allows the state to stay out
5	Vote-bank politics	Seeking votes is normal; injustice to others is the real test
6	An impossible project	History shows that people of different faiths can live together

1. "Secularism is anti-religious"

• The charge: secularism weakens religion and religious identity.
• The reply:
• Secularism opposes institutionalised religious domination. This means one religion, or one group inside a religion, controlling others through the state or society. It does not oppose religion itself.
• It protects religious identity because it gives every person freedom and equality.

• The Constitution's text shows this. Article 25(1) gives "all persons" an equal right to freedom of conscience and the right to "profess, practise and propagate" religion. This is subject to public order, morality and health [2].

• What secularism does weaken:

• Only dogmatic, violent, fanatical and exclusivist identities. These are identities that teach hatred of other groups.
• NCERT asks the real question: does what is weakened deserve to survive? Its answer is no.

2. "Secularism is a Western import"

• The charge: secularism came from Christian Europe and does not fit Indian society.
• The shallow reply:
• India uses trousers, the internet and parliamentary democracy, all of which came from the West.
• No European refuses to use the zero because it was invented in India.

• So where an idea came from does not decide whether it is good.

• The deeper reply:

• A secular state must have ends (goals) of its own, such as peace, freedom and equality between communities.
• Western states became secular by challenging the power of the established church. Secularism grew out of a fight against the church, so it is not a "Christian product".
• Mutual exclusion (a strict wall where state and religion keep out of each other's affairs) is the Western model. It is not the defining feature of every secular state.

• Indian secularism has two roots:

  • Western: separation of state and church
  • Non-Western / Indian: the old Indian tradition of coexistence of communities

• The Constituent Assembly made its own choices:

• Article 25 was debated on 3 and 6 December 1948. Members raised concerns about forced conversion under "propagate", but the amendments to remove the word were rejected [2].

• Explanation I to Article 25 says that wearing and carrying a kirpan is part of practising the Sikh religion [2]. This kind of accommodation shows the model was adapted to India, not copied from the West.

• The scholarly debate:

Scholar	Work / year	Stand
T.N. Madan	"Secularism in Its Place" (1987)	Critic. Secularism is a gift of Christianity and does not suit South Asia, where most people are religious
Ashis Nandy	1988	Critic. He preferred faith-based tolerance, which comes from inside religious traditions, over a state ideology
Rajeev Bhargava	1998	Defender. He developed the idea of principled distance and contextual secularism
Amartya Sen	The Argumentative Indian (2005)	Defender. India has its own long tradition of debate and tolerance (for example, Ashoka and Akbar)

3. "Minoritism": the charge of special privileges

• Minoritism is the charge that Indian secularism gives special rights and privileges to minorities, such as Articles 29–30 (minorities' cultural and educational rights), and so treats the majority unfairly.
• NCERT's train example: a preference versus a basic interest
• Some passengers want to smoke and one does not. A majority vote can fairly settle a mere preference like this.
• But if the non-smoker is asthmatic, smoke harms his health, which is a fundamental interest. Health cannot be put to a vote.

• In the same way, the fundamental interests of minorities must be protected by constitutional law. They cannot depend on what the majority wants.

• NCERT's lift-or-ramp example: a separate arrangement is not a privilege

• A cinema is on the first floor. Wheelchair users cannot climb the stairs.
• Building a lift or ramp for them is not a privilege. It gives them equal respect, because now they can watch the film like everyone else.

• Likewise, minority rights put minorities on an equal footing. They do not place minorities above others.

• The constitutional view: the Supreme Court calls Indian secularism a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions, not a favour to any one religion [4]. Articles 25–30 together put the state's religious tolerance into practice [2].

4. "Indian secularism is interventionist"

• The charge: the state interferes too much in religion, especially in personal laws (each community's own rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption).
• The reply:
• Principled distance works both ways. It allows non-interference as well as intervention.

• When the state does step in, the intervention need not be coercive. It can work through persuasion and agreement inside the community.

• Constitutional basis for stepping in:

• Article 25(2)(a): the state may regulate any economic, financial, political or other secular activity linked to religious practice [2].
• Article 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. Here "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists (Explanation II) [2].

• Article 28: no religious instruction is allowed in an educational institution that is wholly funded by the state. In a state-recognised or state-aided institution, no one can be forced to attend religious instruction or worship without their consent, or their guardian's consent [3].

• NCERT's admission: the state's approach to reforming personal laws has been inconsistent. Hindu law was codified, but other personal laws were left mostly untouched.

• Later developments on personal-law reform:
• The 21st Law Commission issued a consultation paper, "Reform of Family Law", on 31 August 2018. The Ministry of Law and Justice had asked it to study whether a Uniform Civil Code (UCC: one common set of family laws for all citizens; Article 44, a Directive Principle) was feasible [5].
• Instead of a single code, it proposed reforms within each personal law. Examples [5]:
  • The "best interest of the child" should guide custody decisions in every religion.
  • Property bought after marriage should be divided at divorce.
  • Irretrievable breakdown (when a marriage has failed beyond repair) should be a ground for divorce under Parsi law.
  • Christians should have gender-neutral succession.
• The 22nd Law Commission (2023) again invited views on the UCC from the public and from recognised religious organisations [6].

5. Vote-bank politics

• The defence first:
• In a democracy, politicians will seek votes. That is normal.

• The real test: does a group benefit without injustice to other groups? If it does, getting its votes is not wrong.

• Vote bank (definition):

• A vote bank is a group that is mobilised to vote en masse (all together) as one monolithic block, as if all its members had the same interests.

• The term is traced to sociologist M.N. Srinivas (1955).

• How vote-bank politics harms democracy:

• Leaders invent a single "group interest" → real differences of class, region and gender inside the group are ignored.
• Emotional issues win over real needs → identity and short-term gains push aside development and governance.

• Groups become rivals → each group is shown as competing with others for limited resources, which deepens division.

• Minority appeasement (definition): putting a minority group's interests (often those of its conservative leaders) above the equality of all citizens.

• The irony: instead of helping the minority, appeasement has deepened its alienation and marginalisation (being pushed to the edge of society).

• It also blocks internal reform. Leaders who claim to speak for the whole group resist change in personal law.

• Class 10 adds that caste "vote banks" are rarely solid:

• No parliamentary constituency has a clear majority of one single caste.
• Parties put up candidates from the same castes, so a caste's votes get split.
• Voters shift between parties, and ruling parties and sitting MPs often lose.

• So no party wins only with the votes of one caste or community.

• The mirror distortion: majoritarian mobilisation

• This means rallying the majority community as one block against minorities.
• It is the same error turned around, and it is just as harmful to secularism.

6. "Secularism is an impossible project"

• The charge: people with deeply different religions can never live together in peace.
• NCERT's reply: this is empirically false, meaning the facts of history disprove it.
• Indian history has long periods of different faiths living side by side.

• The Ottoman millet system let each religious community (millet) run its own affairs under the Ottoman Empire.

• The critics' counter:

• Such coexistence worked only under hierarchy, with one group on top and others below.

• It cannot work today, when equality is a dominant value.

• NCERT's final answer:

• India's secularism is not impossible. It is a watched global experiment.
• Migration is making Europe, America and parts of the Middle East as religiously diverse as India.
• So the world is watching to see whether India can make equality plus diversity work.

Prelims Hooks

• "Secular" (with "socialist") was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, not by the original Constitution.
• S.R. Bommai (1994): a nine-judge bench held that secularism is part of the basic structure [4].
• Article 25(2)(b): "Hindus" includes Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists (Explanation II). Explanation I covers the kirpan [2].
• Article 28: no religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained out of state funds [3].
• Trap: the term "vote bank" is traced to M.N. Srinivas (1955), not to a political leader or the ECI.
• Scholar–stand pairs: T.N. Madan (1987) and Ashis Nandy (1988) are critics. Rajeev Bhargava and Amartya Sen (The Argumentative Indian, 2005) are defenders.
• NCERT examples: asthmatic passenger in a train = basic interests cannot be put to a vote. Ramp/lift for wheelchair users = equal respect, not a privilege.
• Ottoman millet system = NCERT's historical example of different faiths living together.
• 21st Law Commission consultation paper "Reform of Family Law" was issued on 31 August 2018 [5].

Mains Points

• Indian secularism is not an import. It joins the Western idea of church-state separation with India's tradition of coexistence. Principled distance lets the state both protect religious freedom (Article 25) and reform unjust religious practices (Article 25(2)(b)), so it is more context-sensitive than strict Western mutual exclusion.
• Minority rights versus minoritism: use NCERT's train and ramp examples. Protecting minorities' fundamental interests through the Constitution is equal respect, not appeasement. Appeasement is different: it hands power to conservative community leaders and harms ordinary members of the minority.
• The personal-law dilemma: the state's reform record is inconsistent (Hindu law was codified, others were not). The 21st Law Commission (2018) preferred reform within each personal law to an immediate Uniform Civil Code [5]. Reform that comes through consent and from within the community fits principled distance better than reform imposed from outside.
• Vote-bank and majoritarian politics both treat citizens as fixed religious blocks. Answer them with issue-based politics, strong enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, and the Bommai principle that religion must not be mixed with the secular work of the state [4].