Mains Marathon

Approach:

• Briefly introduce the principle of Secularism.
• Discuss the principle of ‘principled distance’ in Indian secularism.
• Explain the doctrine of ‘laïcité’ in French Secularism.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of both models.
• Conclude with a scholarly remark.

Introduction:

Secularism as a political principle ensures the separation of state and religion while promoting religious liberty and equality. India follows the model of ‘principled distance’, which allows contextual engagement with religion, while France upholds ‘laïcité’, a stricter form of secularism that mandates the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. Both models seek to uphold state neutrality but differ significantly in their approach to religious symbols and freedoms.

Body :

Indian Secularism: The Principle of Principled Distance

• Coined by political philosopher Rajeev Bhargava, the concept of principled distance underpins India's model of secularism.
• It is neither strictly separationist nor theocratic.
• Instead, it allows the state to intervene in or disengage from religious matters based on constitutional values like equality, dignity, and social justice.
  • For example, the Indian state has intervened to ban untouchability, promote temple entry for Dalits, etc.
• This model reflects India’s pluralistic ethos and accommodates its religious diversity.
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Asserted that secularism is part of the basic structure.

French Secularism: The Doctrine of Laïcité

• Laïcité, institutionalized through the 1905 Law on Separation of Church and State, represents the French version of strict secularism.
• It emphasizes that religion must remain in the private sphere and prohibits religious expression in public institutions such as schools, courts, and government offices.
• This model reflects France’s history of resistance to clerical authority and aims to protect individual liberty by excluding religion from public life.

Comparative Effectiveness and Contemporary Controversies

• Approach to State–Religion Relationship :
  • India follows a contextual and accommodative model through principled distance—the state can engage or disengage depending on constitutional values.
    • Religious institutions are regulated through laws like the Waqf Act, and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Acts.
  • France enforces absolute neutrality via laïcité, mandating strict separation between religion and state.
• Treatment of Religious Symbols :
  • India: Generally permits religious symbols.
    • Allows Sikh turban in police service, public holidays for all major religions, and minority institutions’ rights under Article 30.
    • Shirur Mutt Case (1954): SC distinguished between essential and non-essential religious practices.
  • France: It strictly bans religious attire in public institutions. Laws banning hijab (2004), niqab (2011), and abaya (2023) have disproportionately impacted Muslim women.
• Social Impact:
  • India: India’s model promotes inclusivity and encourages social reform.
    • Triple Talaq Case (2017): Court struck down instant divorce as unconstitutional, affirming the role of the state in protecting women's rights within religion.
  • France: Protects individual liberty through neutrality, but has faced criticism for alienating minority communities and restricting religious identity.
• Flexibility Vs Consistency :
  • While India's model allows more religious accommodation, it sometimes results in political misuse or inconsistent application.
    • It faces criticism for selective enforcement—e.g., the Karnataka hijab ban (2022) upheld institutional uniformity over individual religious expression, and the now-discontinued Haj subsidy was seen by some as political appeasement.
  • France’s laïcité ensures uniformity, but often leads to exclusion and alienation of religious minorities, particularly in multicultural settings.

Conclusion:

India's principled distance model, though complex, offers greater flexibility in managing religious diversity, aligning with the multicultural fabric of the nation. In contrast, France’s laïcité, though consistent in principle, faces criticism for enforcing a majoritarian notion of neutrality.

As Rajeev Bhargava observes:

“Indian secularism is not anti-religious; it is multi-value and multi-principled, emphasizing freedom, equality, and reform.”

To ensure genuine secularism, both countries must evolve inclusive frameworks that balance state neutrality with individual religious freedoms in an increasingly diverse world.