Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

The statement highlights the unique nature of Indian secularism, often described by political theorist Rajeev Bhargava as “Principled Distance.” Unlike the Western model (e.g., USA), which envisions a strict "wall of separation" between Church and State, the Indian Constitution mandates a proactive engagement.

• The State does not keep a passive distance but intervenes to promote positive social values, such as equality, justice, and dignity- while respecting religious plurality.

Body:

Indian Secularism- Engagement vs. Separation

In the Western model, the State and religion operate in mutually exclusive spheres. In India, the State engages with religion to:

• Reform Social Evils: To eradicate practices like untouchability (Article 17) or gender discrimination within religious personal laws.
• Administer Institutions: To manage secular aspects (financial/political) of religious institutions (Article 25(2)(a)).
• Ensure Equality: To provide aid to minority educational institutions without discrimination (Article 30).

Key Recent Policy Debates

• Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Debate
  • Context: Article 44 directs the State to secure a UCC. Recently, states like Uttarakhand have moved towards implementing UCC.
  • Principled Engagement: Proponents argue that the State must intervene to separate "religious faith" from "social practices" (marriage, inheritance) to ensure gender justice and equality (Article 14).
  • Critique: Opponents argue this engagement violates the "freedom of conscience" (Article 25) and that the State is homogenizing diverse cultural practices rather than just reforming them.
• State Management of Temples (HR&CE Acts)
  • Context: Various state governments (e.g., Tamil Nadu, Karnataka) control the financial and administrative affairs of Hindu temples through Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Acts.
  • Principled Engagement: The justification is to prevent mismanagement of public funds and ensure access to all castes (social reform).
  • Critique: Critics argue this engagement is selective, as similar control is rarely exercised over mosques or churches, leading to accusations of the State failing the test of "equidistance."
• Essential Religious Practices (Hijab & Triple Talaq)
  • Triple Talaq (Shayara Bano Case): The Supreme Court invalidated instantaneous Triple Talaq.
    • This was a clear instance of the State (via Judiciary) engaging to prioritize individual dignity over religious dogma.
  • Hijab Controversy: The Karnataka High Court ruled that wearing the hijab is not an "Essential Religious Practice" (ERP) in Islam.
    • Implication: This upholds the State's power to regulate religious attire in secular spaces (schools) to maintain "public order, morality, and health," reinforcing that religious freedom is not absolute.
• Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)
  • Context: The CAA provides a path to citizenship for persecuted minorities from neighboring nations, excluding Muslims.
  • Debate:
    • Govt Stand: It is a "positive engagement" to protect persecuted minorities (affirmative action).
    • Criticism: Critics argue this violates the "basic structure" of secularism by introducing religion as a criterion for citizenship, shifting the State from "principled engagement" to "religious exclusion."
• The Waqf (Amendment) Debate
  • Context: The introduction of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has ignited a debate on the extent of State control over religious endowments.
  • Principled Engagement: The government argues that the inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards is necessary to ensure transparency, prevent land mismanagement, and include women (gender justice).
  • Critique: Critics argue this constitutes excessive interference rather than engagement.
    • They contend that mandating non-Muslims in the governance of Islamic institutions violates Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs) and breaches the "principled distance" by imposing State will on internal religious administration.

Conclusion

The Indian model of secularism is not a passive "live and let live" strategy but a dynamic, interventionist project aimed at transforming a traditional society into a modern, egalitarian one. However, for this model to succeed, the engagement must remain strictly "principled", guided by constitutional morality rather than political expediency.