Chapter 8 Secularism

In diverse societies with multiple cultures and communities, a key challenge for a democratic state is ensuring equality for all. This chapter explores how the concept of secularism attempts to address this concern, particularly in the Indian context. In India, secularism is a widely discussed and often debated idea. While most politicians and parties claim to be secular, the concept faces various challenges and anxieties from different groups.

Examples of religious discrimination persist globally, such as the exclusion of Arab minorities in Israel or discrimination against non-Christians in parts of Europe. Concerns also exist regarding the treatment of religious minorities in neighboring states like Pakistan and Bangladesh. These situations highlight the ongoing importance of secularism for individuals and societies today.

What Is Secularism

Despite constitutional declarations guaranteeing rights and dignity to all citizens, instances of exclusion and discrimination continue in India. Examples of tragic incidents like the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi, the forced displacement of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir valley, and the 2002 Gujarat riots targeting Muslims illustrate how members of one community can be targeted and victimized based on their religious identity, denying them basic freedoms. These are instances of religious persecution and domination between different religious groups.

Secularism is fundamentally a doctrine that opposes all forms of institutionalized religious domination. This opposition extends beyond just domination between different religions; it also includes domination within a single religion.

Inter-religious Domination

This refers to the domination of one religious group over another. The examples of massacres and displacement of religious minorities in India (Sikhs in 1984, Kashmiri Pandits, Muslims in 2002) are stark instances of inter-religious domination and persecution, where basic freedoms and safety are denied based on religious identity. Secularism's primary aim is to oppose and prevent such domination by one religious community over others.

Intra-religious Domination

Some believe that religion is merely a temporary phenomenon or an 'opium of the masses' that will disappear as societies progress. However, this view often underestimates the complex role of religion in human life, particularly as a response to suffering, loss, and the uncertainties of existence. Secularism does not necessarily deny the role of religion or is anti-religious in this sense.

However, religions themselves often contain internal problems and hierarchies that lead to domination within the same religious group. Examples include gender inequality within many religions (men and women not treated equally) or persistent discrimination against certain sections within religions, such as Dalits being barred from entering Hindu temples or Hindu women facing similar restrictions. When religion becomes institutionalized and organized, it can be dominated by conservative factions that suppress dissent and internal diversity. Religious fundamentalism can lead to intolerance, sectarian violence, and persecution of minority sects within a religion.

Thus, religious domination is not limited to conflicts between different religions; it also takes the form of domination within a religion (intra-religious domination). Since secularism opposes all forms of institutionalized religious domination, it challenges not only inter-religious but also intra-religious domination.

In essence, secularism is a normative doctrine aiming for a secular society – one free from both inter-religious and intra-religious domination. Positively, it seeks to promote freedom within religions (allowing for diversity and dissent) and equality between different religions and their followers, as well as equality within a religion (among its members). To achieve these goals, the state's relationship with religion is crucial.

Secular State

To prevent religious discrimination and promote harmony, the state's role is vital. Education and individual acts of mutual help can foster understanding and reduce prejudice, but given the state's significant public power in modern societies, its functioning is crucial for creating a less conflict-ridden society. A secular state is necessary to prevent any religious group from dominating others and to promote religious harmony.

A state run directly by religious heads is called a theocratic state (e.g., historical Papal states, recent Taliban-controlled state). Theocratic states lack separation between religious and political institutions, are often hierarchical, oppressive, and restrict religious freedom for other groups. If we value peace, freedom, and equality, separating state and religious institutions is essential.

However, mere separation of state and religion is not always sufficient for a state to be truly secular. Some non-theocratic states maintain a formal legal alliance with a particular religion (e.g., historical favoritism of the Anglican Church in 16th-century England, Pakistan's official state religion of Sunni Islam). Such states may limit scope for internal dissent or religious equality for others.

To be genuinely secular, a state must not only reject theocracy but also avoid any formal legal alliance or establishment of any religion. Beyond this, a secular state must be committed to non-religious principles and goals like peace, religious freedom, and equality (both inter-religious and intra-religious). To achieve these ends, the state must maintain a separation from organized religion. However, the *form* and *extent* of this separation can vary, depending on the specific values being promoted. Two major conceptions are the Western model (exemplified by the US) and the Indian model.

Promoting communal harmony involves actively countering prejudice and fostering understanding between different religious communities. Examples could include educational initiatives promoting interfaith dialogue, celebrating festivals together, highlighting shared cultural heritage, and individual acts of kindness and support across community lines, particularly during times of tension.

The Western Model Of Secularism

All secular states share two basic characteristics: they are neither theocratic nor do they establish a state religion. However, the prevailing conception of secularism, largely inspired by the model in the United States, understands the separation of religion and state as strict mutual exclusion. In this view, the state is to have no involvement or interference in religious affairs, and similarly, religious institutions are not to interfere in state affairs.

Key features of this Western model:

• Each sphere (state and religion) has its own independent jurisdiction.
• No state policy or law can have an exclusively religious justification.
• No public policy can be based on religious classification.
• The state cannot provide financial aid or support to religious institutions (e.g., religious educational institutions).
• The state cannot hinder the activities of religious communities, provided they operate within the general law.

In this conception, religion is considered a purely private matter, separate from public policy or law. Consequently, if a religious institution practices internal discrimination (e.g., forbidding women from becoming priests, excommunicating dissenters, restricting entry to parts of a temple based on internal rules), the state, under this strict separation model, cannot intervene. It must remain a 'silent witness' as these are considered internal religious matters.

This model interprets freedom and equality primarily in an individualistic manner. Liberty is seen as individual liberty, and equality as equality between individuals. There is less emphasis on community-based rights or specific rights for religious minorities. The historical context of many Western societies, which had relatively more religious homogeneity (primarily Christian with smaller Jewish populations) compared to India, influenced this focus on preventing domination *within* a religion (e.g., state vs. church) rather than focusing significantly on equality *between* different religions or protecting minority religious rights.

Furthermore, this strict separation model generally does not accommodate the idea of state-supported religious reform. Since separation is understood as mutual exclusion, the state is seen as having no legitimate role in internal religious matters, even if aimed at social reform. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's secularism in Turkey provides a contrasting example, involving aggressive state intervention to suppress traditional religious practices in the name of modernization, which is different from the principled non-interference often associated with the US model.

Under Ataturk, the state actively suppressed traditional religious dress (Fez cap banned, Western clothing encouraged), replaced religious law and institutions with secular ones, changed the calendar, and even the alphabet, fundamentally altering religious practices in the public sphere. This form of secularism was not about distance but active state control over and suppression of religion, representing a different approach compared to both the US model and Indian secularism.

The Indian Model Of Secularism

The Indian model of secularism is often said to be different from the Western conception, particularly the American model. A key distinction is that Indian secularism does not solely focus on strict church-state separation based on mutual exclusion. For the Indian conception, the idea of inter-religious equality is paramount.

What makes Indian secularism distinctive? It developed in the context of India's long history of deep religious diversity, existing well before the arrival of Western modern ideas. While there was a culture of inter-religious 'tolerance', tolerance itself is often compatible with domination; it may offer limited freedom and require individuals to 'put up' with others they find repugnant. Indian secularism, influenced by both its diverse history and Western ideas of equality, aimed for more than just tolerance; it sought equality between and within religious communities.

The interaction with Western ideas of modernity and equality sharpened existing notions of equality in Indian thought, leading to a focus on equality within communities (e.g., gender equality within religions) and inter-community equality (replacing historical notions of hierarchy). This resulted in Indian secularism addressing both intra-religious and inter-religious domination.

Key differences of Indian secularism from mainstream Western secularism:

1. Dual Focus: Indian secularism opposes not only inter-religious domination (e.g., a majority community oppressing minorities) but also intra-religious domination (e.g., discrimination against Dalits or women within Hinduism, or women within Islam or Christianity).
2. Community Rights: Indian secularism recognizes and protects not only the religious freedom of individuals (right to practice one's religion) but also the religious freedom and rights of minority communities as groups (right to exist, maintain their culture, and run educational institutions). This contrasts with the individualistic focus of the Western model, which gives less scope for community-based or minority rights.
3. State-Supported Religious Reform: Indian secularism is compatible with the idea of the state intervening in religious affairs to bring about social reform, particularly to eliminate practices that perpetuate intra-religious domination or violate fundamental rights. Examples include the constitutional ban on untouchability and state laws against child marriage and promoting inter-caste marriage within Hinduism, or challenging discriminatory practices against women within various religious personal laws. This is a significant difference from the strict non-interference approach of the Western model.

The Indian state is secular because it is neither theocratic nor does it establish any religion. Beyond this, it adopts a nuanced approach to religious equality, allowing it to either disengage from religion (like the American style) or engage with it (positively or negatively) when necessary to promote its core values of peace, freedom, and equality. The state can intervene negatively to oppose religious tyranny (e.g., banning untouchability) or engage positively (e.g., providing assistance to minority educational institutions). This allows for complex strategies in pursuit of religious equality.

The complexity of Indian secularism means it cannot be simply defined as "equal respect for all religions". While tolerance is a part, secularism is more than just peaceful coexistence. If "equal respect" means respecting every aspect of every religion, this is problematic, as Indian secularism *does not* treat aspects like religiously sanctioned caste hierarchies or gender inequality as worthy of equal respect. Indian secularism allows for a principled state intervention or 'principled distance' from religion, where the state can intervene based on principles derived from the Constitution (like equality, freedom, social justice) even if it means selectively engaging with or criticizing certain religious practices. It implies equal disrespect for those aspects of any religion that violate fundamental rights and constitutional values.

Nehru, a key figure in shaping Indian secularism, defined it as the state providing "equal protection to all religions" without favoring any or adopting a state religion. For him, secularism was not hostility to religion (unlike Ataturk's aggressive secularism in Turkey). He supported state intervention for social reform in religion (e.g., laws against caste discrimination, dowry, sati, promoting women's legal rights). Nehru was firmly opposed to all forms of communalism, particularly majority communalism, viewing secularism as essential for India's unity and integrity.

The debate over banning religious markers (turbans, veils) in public institutions in countries like France highlights the difference. In India, such public display is generally not prohibited as it falls under individual or community religious freedom, reflecting the distinct approach of Indian secularism which accommodates public religious expression within constitutional limits, unlike the strict public-private separation in the French model.

The list of gazetted holidays in India, which includes holidays for major festivals of different religions (e.g., Diwali, Eid, Christmas, Guru Nanak's Birthday, Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti), reflects the state's recognition of and engagement with the religious diversity of the country. While this does not imply a state religion, it is seen by some as a form of state accommodation and equal respect towards different religions, supporting the case for Indian secularism's approach to managing religious diversity in the public sphere.

Criticisms Of Indian Secularism

Indian secularism has faced several criticisms:

Anti-religious

Critics argue that secularism is hostile to religion. However, secularism is fundamentally opposed to institutionalized religious domination, not religion itself. It promotes religious freedom and equality, protecting religious identity rather than threatening it. Secularism challenges forms of religious identity that are dogmatic, violent, fanatical, exclusivist, and promote hatred, questioning whether these are intrinsically worthy aspects of religion. The aim is to counter domination and inequality, not to eliminate religious faith.

Western Import

A second criticism is that secularism is a Western concept, linked to Christianity, and thus unsuitable for Indian conditions. This critique is partly addressed by noting that many aspects of modern life in India have Western origins. More importantly, the Western model (often based on mutual exclusion) is not the only form of secularism, nor is it a product solely of the Christian world (it emerged from challenges to established religious authority). India's secularism evolved as a distinct variant influenced by its own history of religious diversity and peaceful coexistence. It is not a simple copy; it follows a concept of principled distance from religion, allowing both non-interference and intervention when necessary to promote constitutional values like peace and equality, making it suited to India's diverse context.

Minoritism

A third criticism is that Indian secularism favors minority communities (charge of minoritism). This is because Indian secularism advocates for minority rights. The justification for this, as illustrated by the smoking example (where a minority asthmatic's fundamental interest outweighs a majority's preference), is that when fundamental interests (like health, safety, or core cultural identity) are at stake, democratic procedures like voting are inappropriate. Minority rights are necessary constitutional protections for the fundamental interests of minority groups to prevent their marginalization or harm by a majority.

Providing special arrangements for minorities (e.g., ramps for wheelchair users) should not be seen as granting special privileges but as treating them with the same respect and dignity by ensuring they can access opportunities available to others. Minority rights, when protecting fundamental interests, are justified measures to ensure inclusion and equality in a diverse society.

Interventionist

A fourth criticism is that Indian secularism is excessively coercive and interferes too much with religious freedom. While Indian secularism rejects strict mutual exclusion and permits state intervention in religion (unlike the Western model), this doesn't automatically mean excessive coercion. Indian secularism operates based on 'principled distance', allowing for both non-interference and engagement. Intervention is permitted to oppose religious tyranny or support reform based on constitutional principles. While state-supported religious reform (like banning untouchability) is allowed, debates exist on whether it is applied consistently (e.g., reforming personal laws across all communities). This is a dilemma, balancing reform with respecting community rights. The state aims to be a facilitator for reform from within religions, supporting liberal voices.

Vote Bank Politics

A fifth criticism is that secularism encourages 'vote bank politics', where politicians appeal to specific religious groups solely for votes. While politicians do seek votes from various groups in a democracy, the issue is *how* they seek these votes and *what* they promise. If politicians pursuing minority votes genuinely aim for the group's welfare, it is a success of the secular project in protecting minority interests. However, if it involves promoting self-interest, gaining power at the cost of others' rights, or undermining majority interests, then it is unjust. Critics claim the system is skewed towards minorities, but evidence for widespread injustice caused by minority-focused vote bank politics in India is debatable. Vote bank politics itself is not inherently wrong unless it generates injustice; parties appeal to various social groups.

Impossible Project

A final, cynical criticism is that secularism is an impossible project because people with deep religious differences can never coexist peacefully. This empirical claim is countered by India's historical experience of diverse religious communities living together, and examples from other historical empires like the Ottoman Empire. Critics argue this coexistence was possible only under conditions of inequality, not when equality is a dominant value. However, the complexity of Indian secularism, managing diversity while pursuing equality, is seen by some as a model for the future of increasingly diverse societies worldwide, especially with globalization and migration. India is viewed as a significant experiment in realizing peaceful coexistence with equality amidst deep religious differences.

Exercises

Content for Exercises is excluded as per your instructions.