Secularism

Chapter 7 ended by asking how a democracy can treat all its cultures and communities as equals. This chapter answers through secularism. NCERT notes a puzzle: almost every politician and party professes secularism, yet it is challenged by clerics, religious nationalists, some politicians, activists and academics. The chapter asks: what is secularism? Is it a western implant? Is it suitable where religion matters deeply? Does it favour minorities? Is it anti-religious?

• Builds on Chapters 2 (freedom), 3 (equality and differential treatment), 5 (rights) and 7 (nationalism and pluralism).
• Pairs with Indian Constitution at Work, Chapter 2 (Articles 25–30) and Chapter 10 (secularism as principled distance in the Constitution's philosophy, and the Preamble).
• UPSC: Prelims on the meaning of secularism (1979, 1980, 1981), minorities (1996, 2001, 2011) and the national anthem and conscience (1996); GS1 on Indian vs western secularism (2014, 2018), challenges to cultural practices in the name of secularism (2019), tolerance and pluralism (2017, 2022), religiosity vs communalism (2017); GS2 on lessons for France (2019), comparison with the US (2024) and the uniform civil code (2015).

• Secularism opposes inter-religious and intra-religious domination; it promotes freedom within, and equality between and within, religions — it is not anti-religious.
• A secular state is neither theocratic nor has an established religion, and pursues ends such as peace, freedom and equality.
• Western model: separation as mutual exclusion; individual rights; no state aid or reform; religion a private matter.
• Indian model: principled distance — the state may disengage, oppose religious tyranny (untouchability) or support communities (minority schools); community rights and state-supported reform.
• Nehru: equal protection to all religions, reform allowed, firm opposition to communalism; Ataturk: active suppression of religion — a different idea.
• Six criticisms (anti-religious, Western import, minoritism, interventionist, vote-bank, impossible) — each with NCERT's response; ‘secular’ added to the Preamble in 1976.

NCERT opens with examples of religious discrimination worldwide: it says Arab minorities in Israel are excluded from benefits available to Jewish citizens, that subtle discrimination persists against non-Christians in parts of Europe, and that the condition of religious minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh has caused concern. These, NCERT says, show the continuing importance of secularism.

Inter-religious domination. The Constitution says every citizen may live with freedom and dignity anywhere in India, yet exclusion persists. NCERT gives three examples: more than 2,700 Sikhs killed in Delhi and elsewhere in 1984, whose victims' families feel the guilty were not punished; several thousand Kashmiri Pandits forced to leave the Kashmir valley and unable to return for more than two decades; and more than 1,000 people killed in the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat in 2002, many of whose surviving families could not return to their villages. In each, NCERT says, members of one community were targeted for their religious identity and denied basic freedoms — inter-religious domination. Secularism is first and foremost a doctrine that opposes it.

Intra-religious domination. Some believe religion is merely the ‘opium of the masses’ that will vanish when needs are met. NCERT calls this an exaggerated view of human potential: we will never control the world fully — disease, accident, separation and loss remain — and religion, art and philosophy respond to such suffering. So secularism accepts this and is not anti-religious. But religion has deep problems: hardly any religion treats men and women equally; in Hinduism dalits have been barred from temples, and in some places Hindu women cannot enter temples; organised religion is often captured by its most conservative faction, intolerant of dissent; NCERT also says religious fundamentalism in parts of the US endangers peace; and sects fragment and persecute dissenters. Secularism opposes this intra-religious domination too.

So secularism is a normative doctrine seeking a society free of inter- and intra-religious domination; positively, it promotes freedom within religions and equality between and within religions. The next question: what kind of state can realise this?

Education and individual goodness — stories of Hindus saving Muslims and Muslims saving Hindus during riots — help, but cannot end religious discrimination alone. Modern states have enormous power, so how they function matters. First, a state must not be run by religious heads: a state governed by a priestly order is theocratic — like the Papal states of medieval Europe or, recently, the Taliban-controlled state — and such states are known for hierarchy, oppression and denial of freedom to other faiths. Religious and state institutions must be separated.

But separation is not enough. Non-theocratic states may still have an established religion: sixteenth-century England was not run by priests but favoured the Anglican Church. To be truly secular a state must refuse theocracy, have no formal legal alliance with any religion, and be committed to ends at least partly derived from non-religious sources: peace, religious freedom, freedom from religiously grounded oppression, discrimination and exclusion, and inter- and intra-religious equality. Separation is necessary but not sufficient, and its form may vary. NCERT compares two conceptions: the mainstream western one, best represented by the American state, and the Indian one.

All secular states are neither theocratic nor establish a religion. In the most common conception, inspired by the American model, separation means mutual exclusion: the state does not intervene in religion and religion does not interfere in the state. No state policy may have an exclusively religious rationale; no religious classification may be the basis of public policy. The state cannot aid religious institutions — not even educational ones run by religious communities — nor hinder them within the law. If a religion forbids women from becoming priests, excommunicates dissenters or bars some members from a sanctum, the state can do little. Religion is a private matter.

This conception is individualist: liberty and equality are of individuals; there is little scope for community or minority rights. NCERT explains this by history: apart from the Jews, most western societies were religiously homogeneous, so they focused on intra-religious domination, and inter-religious equality and minority rights were often neglected. Finally, it has no place for state-supported religious reform, which follows from mutual exclusion.

Some say Indian secularism imitates the West; a careful reading of the Constitution shows it is fundamentally different. It does not focus only on church–state separation; inter-religious equality is crucial. It arose in a context of deep religious diversity that predated western modern ideas, with a culture of inter-religious ‘tolerance’. But NCERT cautions that tolerance is compatible with religious domination: it allows limited space and lets you put up with people you find repugnant — a virtue after a civil war, but not enough when people seek equal dignity. Western modernity sharpened neglected Indian notions of equality, focusing attention on equality within communities and replacing hierarchy with inter-community equality. Indian secularism took its distinct form from this interaction.

• First difference: equal focus on intra- and inter-religious domination — opposing the oppression of dalits and women within Hinduism, discrimination against women within Indian Islam or Christianity, and threats a majority might pose to minorities' rights.
• Second: religious freedom of individuals and of minority communities — an individual may profess any religion, and minorities may maintain their culture and educational institutions.
• Third: room for state-supported religious reform — the Constitution bans untouchability; laws abolished child marriage and lifted the taboo on inter-caste marriage.

Can a state support religious reform and still be secular? Yes: India's secular character rests on being neither theocratic nor establishing any one or several religions. Beyond that it follows a sophisticated policy for religious equality that lets it disengage from religion American-style or engage with it when needed — negatively, to oppose religious tyranny (the ban on untouchability), or positively (minorities' right to set up educational institutions that may receive state aid). All are means to peace, freedom and equality.

So Indian secularism cannot be summed up as ‘equal respect for all religions’. If that means peaceful coexistence or toleration, it is not enough. If it means equal respect for all established religions and their practices, it is ambiguous, because Indian secularism allows principled state intervention in all religions, which shows disrespect for some aspects of each — religiously sanctioned caste hierarchies, for example, are unacceptable. The secular state allows ‘equal disrespect’ for some aspects of organised religions.

NCERT's constitutional examples: the ban on untouchability (negative engagement) and minorities' right to set up educational institutions that may receive state aid (positive engagement). The fuller picture below is Beyond NCERT.

NCERT says Indian secularism has faced fierce criticism, and sets out six charges with its responses. The responses below are NCERT's; the critics' positions are summarised as they state them.

NCERT's closing point: Indian secularism is a great experiment watched by the world, because migration and globalisation are making Europe, America and parts of the Middle East as diverse as India. Its success depends on equal dignity, not just tolerance; on opposing domination both between and within religions; and on a state that keeps a principled distance in the service of peace, freedom and equality.

Try each question yourself first, then open the outline. Question 2 (sorting the mixed-up table) is also in the self-check.

Numbers

One-liners

• Secularism opposes inter- and intra-religious domination; it is not anti-religious.
• A secular state: no theocracy, no established religion, and ends of its own.
• Western model: mutual exclusion; Indian model: principled distance.
• Indian secularism protects communities as well as individuals.
• State-supported religious reform is compatible with Indian secularism.
• Tolerance is compatible with domination; secularism demands equal dignity.
• Minority rights protect fundamental interests — not privileges.
• Nehru: equal protection to all religions; firm opposition to all communalism.

Traps to avoid

• Secular = freedom of religion for all and no state religion — not ‘keeping away from all religions’ (UPSC 1979, 1980, 1981).
• ‘Secular’ entered the Preamble in 1976; the Constitution was secular from 1950.
• Bommai (1994): secularism is part of the basic structure.
• ‘Minority’ is not defined in the Constitution; the minorities commission is statutory (UPSC 1996).
• Pakistan's state religion is Islam (no sect named) — NCERT says ‘Sunni Islam’.
• Sati was outlawed in 1829, not by Nehru's government.
• The uniform civil code is a Directive Principle (Article 44).
• ‘Principled distance’ is Rajeev Bhargava's term.
• Indian secularism ≠ ‘equal respect for all practices’; it permits ‘equal disrespect’ for oppressive aspects.

Prelims — what UPSC asks

• Meaning: secular denotes freedom of religion and worship for all and no official religion (1979, 1980, 1981).
• Minorities: ‘minority’ not defined in the Constitution (1996); notified minority communities and the minorities commission (2001); advantages of national-minority status — own educational institutions and the 15-Point Programme (2011).
• Conscience: no one can be compelled to sing the national anthem (1996 — Bijoe Emmanuel, 1986).

Mains — where it appears and how to answer

• GS1: Indian vs western secularism (2014, 2018) — the models table and principled distance; challenges to cultural practices in the name of secularism (2019) — ‘equal disrespect’ for oppressive aspects, with both sides; tolerance, assimilation and pluralism (2022) and the spirit of tolerance (2017) — NCERT's tolerance-is-not-enough argument; religiosity vs communalism (2017) — secularism opposes domination, not faith.
• GS2: lessons for France (2019) and comparison with the US (2024) — mutual exclusion vs principled distance, with constitutional articles; the uniform civil code (2015) — NCERT's facilitator approach and Article 44, with both sides attributed.
• Answer frame: define secularism (two dominations) → secular state → western vs Indian model → principled distance with constitutional articles and Bommai → criticisms with responses, attributed → a balanced conclusion. On communal violence, use only NCERT's examples, attributed; avoid present-day political commentary.

Tap an option. NCERT's own exercise questions come first; the rest test the figures and common confusions.

Open any question to attempt it in the Question bank — your attempt is saved to your progress.