Secularism Rajeev Bhargava

The goal of secularism is to ensure that social and political order is free from
institutionalized religious domination so that there is religious freedom,
freedom to exit from religion, inter-religious equality and equality between
believers and non-believers. Thus, religion defines the scope of secularism.
Secularism is committed to the view that all human beings exist on the
secular plane, whether or not they exist elsewhere. Consequences of this
view:

Some scholars do not agree with this view. Many of them identify
secular states with Church-state separation. However, according to
Bhargava, Church-state separation is a necessary condition but not a
sufficient condition for the existence of secular states. The state must
predominantly have secular ends. A secular state must follow the
principle of non-establishment.

Level of connection
(C)/ Disconnection
(D)
Ends: First Order
Institutions
and
personnel:
Second
Order
Law and Public Policy:
Third Order

Theocra
cy

State with
established
religions

Mainstream
secular

C
C

C
D

D
D

Amoral and Value-based Secular States

A secular state must have secular ends which are of two kinds

Amoral secular states: Their entire purpose is to maximize power,

wealth or both. No moral commitment to values such as liberty,
equality and peace. Usually they are imperial and autocratic. Example:
British colonial state in India, was motivated exclusively by power and
wealth but had a policy of tolerance and neutrality towards different
religious communities. May have a hands-off approach to all religions
mainly for instrumental purpose.
Value-based secular states: They are founded upon the following
features
o The principle of non-establishment of religion

o Peace between communities

o Religious liberty to any one religious group
o Religious liberty granted non-preferentially to members of every
religious group
o The liberty to embrace a religion other than the one into which a
person is born and to reject all religions
o No discrimination by the state on the grounds of religion to
entitlements provided by the state
o No discrimination in admission to educational institutions on
grounds of religion
o Equality of active citizenship: no discrimination on grounds of
religion
The value-based secular states differ from one another in their
respective understandings of the relationship with religion. They
maybe of two types:

Value-based secular state which conceive disconnection at the

third level in a wholly one-sided manner. To disconnect is to
exclude religion from its own affairs but to have no limits on its own
interventionist powers in the affair of religion. Such states exclude
religion in order to control or regulate them and sometimes even to
destroy them. They are decidedly anti-religious. Example: Communist
state, secular state in France and Turkey in the 19th century
Value-based secular states which conceive third-level
disconnection as mutual exclusion. Such a state maintains a policy
of strict or absolute separation. Religion does not interfere in the affairs
of the State and vice-versa. Mutual exclusion is justified on the grounds
of negative liberty and is identical with privatization of religion.
When a state is disconnected with religions at all three levels (first
order/second order/third order), then a wall of separation is erected
between the two. This is the mainstream conception of secularism.

Crisis for Secular States

Criticisms against the Secular State in India:

It is integrally connected with the repressive structures of the nation

state and an increasingly indefensible conception of science and
rationality

Impractical to exclude religion from public life and be privatized, in a

deeply religious society
It is tied to liberal individualism which gives little importance to
communities in the life of religious people and therefore does not
protect the community-specific rights of the communities.
It is a conflict generating ideology which threatens peace

If a secular state is a bad thing, then what will replace secular states and
what ethical gains or losses might ensue as a result of this replacement? The
author attempts to answer this by looking at how different states (theocracy,
state with established religions and secular states) fare on an index of
freedom and equality.
Theocracy, State with Established Religions and Secular State
Theocracy
The Anglican Church in England or the Catholic Church in Italy

Fared poorly on an index of freedom and equality

There was inequality among religions and even among the churches of
the same religion
Religious minorities were not tolerated and faced persistent religious
persecution
When one religion is formally and substantively established, the
persecution of minorities and internal dissenters persist. Example:
Islam in Saudi Arabia
Religious majority versus Secular majority
o Given the unfortunate, sectarian character of most religions, the
rule of religious majority is exclusionary which is not true of
secular majority

State with Established Religions

States of New York and the colonies of Massachusetts in the 17th century
respected more than one religious denomination

Religious tax was levied on everyone but people had the choice to
remit the tax money to their preferred Church
Financially aided schools run by religious institutions but on a nondiscriminatory basis
Did not compel people to profess the beliefs of a particular
denomination

States with substantive establishment of multiple churches are

relatively more peaceful and members are more tolerant

Limitations:

They may continue to persecute member of others religions and

atheists
They are indifferent to the liberty of individuals within each
denomination or religious group
Absence of legal provisions that allow an individual to exit his religious
community and embrace another religion
Such states are unconcerned with the non-religious liberties of
individuals or groups
Such states are entirely indifferent to citizenship rights

State which establish multiple religions face similar problems but are better
than states with multiple church establishments in one important respect
there is peace and toleration and perhaps equality between all religious
communities.
Does this mean that all secular states are better from an ethical point of view
than religion centered states? An affirmative answer would be too hasty.

Amoral secular states are not committed to any values fair poorly on
the index of freedom and equality
Anti-religious secular states have a poor record in promoting or
protecting religious freedoms also fair badly on the index of freedom
and equality
Secular states with a wall of separation between itself and religion
fair very well on the index of freedom and equality. For example,
o Grants citizens the right to criticize, challenge or revise the
dominant interpretations of the core beliefs of their religion
o Non-preferentiality to every member of all religions
o Free to criticize and reject ones own religion and freely embrace
another

Critique of Mainstream Secularism

Societies which practice mainstream secularism require its citizens to

leave their religious convictions behind in the private sphere as a
condition of entering the public sphere. People may want to vote on an
issue on the basis of their conscience and sometimes conscience is
inextricably linked to religion. To ask them to leave behind their religion

is to force them to be disconnected from their morality and conscience.

It is to ask them not to act as moral agents.
Second problem is that respect for religion is not grounded on the
believers own point of view. It is a perspective of an outsider rather
than the one that flows from the inside.
Mainstream secularism is sectarian. It lives comfortably with
Protestantized and individualized religions but lacks the resources to
deal with or accommodate community-oriented religions with a strong
public presence. This insensitivity to groups make it insensitive to
community-specific rights.
Liberal secularism is a product of and is shaped by a Protestant ethic. It
is therefore bound with one particular religion. However, it pretends to
be universalist.
It relies not just on reason to which no one should have an objection to,
but a particular conception of reason that puts a high premium on
being totally disconnected with emotions, and which encourages
dichotomous manner of thinking.

The author does not find these criticisms good enough to disregard
secularism altogether. Although community oriented public religions have
their own moral integrity, yet frequently these very religions continue to be
source of oppression and exclusion. For instance, treatment of women in
Hinduism.
Indian Secularism
The state in the Indian Constitution possesses all the features of a secular
state.

Article 27 rules out public funding of religion

Article 28(1) no religious instruction is to be provided in any
educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds
Articles 25, 27, 28 guarantee religious liberty
Equality of citizenship is guaranteed by Articles 14, 15(1) and 29(2)

Features which make Indian Secularism distinctive:

Its multi-value character. IT is tied not only to individualistically

construed values of religious and non-religious liberty and equality, but
also to peace, toleration and to non-individualistically construed values
of equality and liberty.
Its acceptance of community-specific rights

It is committed to idea of principled distance, different from one-sided

exclusion, mutual exclusion and strict neutrality or equidistance. The
idea of principled distance accepts a disconnection between state and
religion at the level of ends and institutions but does not make a fetish
of it at the third level of policy and law, making it different from other
models of secularism like moral and amoral. (Refer to the table in the
first page)

Principled Distance

The policy of principled distance entails a flexible approach on the

question
of
inclusion/exclusion
of
religion
and
the
engagement/disengagement of the state, which at the third level of
policy and law depends on the context, nature or current state of
relevant religions.
Religion may intervene in the affairs of the state if such intervention
promotes freedom, equality or any other value integral to secularism.
Equally, the state may engage with religion or disengage with it,
engage positively or negatively but it does so depending entirely on
whether or not these values are promoted or undermined. A state that
intervenes or refrains from interference on this basis keeps a principled
distance from all religions.
It is different from strict neutrality, the state may help or hinder all
religions to an equal degree and in the same manner, that is if it
intervenes in one religion, it must also do so in others
Principled distance allows for differential treatment- Religious
groups have sought exemptions from practices in which state
intervenes by promulgating a law to be applied neutrally to the rest of
society. The demand for non-interference is made on the ground either
that the law requires them to do things not permitted by their religion
or prevents them from doing acts mandated by it.
Differential treatment may not necessarily be in terms of special
exemptions, it may require state intervention in some religions more
than others, considering the historical and social conditions of all
religions. All it must ensure is that the relationship between state and
religions is guided by non-sectarian motives consistent with values and
principles
It is marked by a unique combination of active hostility to some
aspects of religion (a ban on untouchability and a commitment to make
religiously grounded personal laws more gender-just) with active
respect for its other dimensions

It breaks out of the rigid interpretative grid that divides our social world
into the modern Western and traditional indigenous non-Western.
Indian Secularism is mdern but departs from the mainstream
conception of Western secularism
It opens out the possibility of multiple secularisms
Idea of Contextual Secularism (refer to the 18th page of the reading)
Frequently argued against Indian secularism that it is contradictory
because it tries to bring together individual and community rights and
that articles in the Indian Constitution that have a bearing on the
secular nature of the Indian state are deeply conflictual and at best
ambiguous.

Is Secularism a Christian and Western Doctrine?

The doctrine of secularism is not exclusively Christian. It is true that

the institutional separation of the Church and the state is an internal
feature of Christianity and an integral part of Western secularisms. But
this Church-state disconnection is a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for the development of societies even in societies with
Church based religions.
Whether secularism is a Western doctrine, can be both a yes and a no.
The early and middle history of secularism is almost entirely
dominated by Western Societies. The same cannot be said of its later
history. The absence of deep religious diversity and conflict in Western
societies meant that issues of citizenship could be addressed almost
entirely disregarding the religious context. However, these were
important issues in non-Western societies like India. The later history of
secularism is more non-Western than Western.