1. Religious domination
In a society with many faiths, one community may dominate another, and members of one community may dominate others inside it.
- Inter-religious domination: one religious community dominating another.
- Intra-religious domination: domination within a religious community, for example by caste or gender.
| Kind of domination | Meaning | Imagined case |
|---|---|---|
| Inter-religious | One religious community dominating another | A Sunhold trust keeps the Tessel community out of the market hall in Ashvale |
| Intra-religious | Domination within a religious community, for example by caste or gender | A Rivermark council bars women from reading aloud at its gatherings in Quillfield |
| Imagined statement in Ashvale | Kind of domination | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| A hall committee of one faith refuses a hall to another faith for its festival | Inter-religious | One community over another |
| A council of a faith forbids its own women to lead prayers | Intra-religious (gender) | Inside one community, based on gender |
| An elder fines families who dine with other hereditary groups of the same faith | Intra-religious (caste-like) | Inside one community, based on birth into a group |
| A trust of one faith lets only its own processions use the main street | Inter-religious | One community over another in a shared space |
Key terms
- Inter-religious domination
Domination of one religious community over another.
- Intra-religious domination
Domination within a religious community, for example by caste or gender.
2. Meaning of secularism and the secular state
Secularism is a normative doctrine that seeks a society free from both inter-religious and intra-religious domination. It promotes freedom within religions and equality between them, and keeps state power apart from the control of any religious group.
A secular state is not run by any religious group, has no official religion and does not discriminate on grounds of religion.
| Point | Secularism |
|---|---|
| Standard definition | A normative doctrine that seeks a society free from both inter-religious and intra-religious domination |
| What it promotes | Freedom within religions and equality between them |
| What it needs of the state | State power kept apart from the control of any religious group |
| Meaning of normative | It states how things ought to be, and not only how they are |
| Feature of a secular state | What it means |
|---|---|
| Not run by any religious group | Religious leaders or bodies do not hold state power as such |
| No official religion | The state does not name any religion as its own |
| No discrimination on grounds of religion | Citizens are treated alike whatever faith they follow |
| Imagined contrast | Meridan names the Sunhold faith its official religion; it cannot be called secular in this sense |
Key terms
- Secularism
A normative doctrine that seeks a society free from both inter-religious and intra-religious domination, promoting freedom within religions and equality between them.
- Normative
Stating how things ought to be, and not only how they are.
- Secular state
A state that is not run by any religious group, has no official religion and does not discriminate on grounds of religion.
3. The Western model
As commonly taught, the Western model rests on mutual exclusion: the state does not interfere in religion and religion does not interfere in the state. It focuses on individual freedom and equality and leaves little room for community-based rights. The United States and France are often given as examples; they differ from each other in detail.
| Feature | Western model, as commonly taught |
|---|---|
| Core idea | Mutual exclusion: the state does not interfere in religion and religion does not interfere in the state |
| Focus | Individual freedom and equality |
| Community rights | Little room for rights based on a community |
| Examples often given | The United States and France, which differ from each other in detail |
| Imagined case | Calendra gives no grant to any religious body and no religious body takes part in lawmaking |
Key terms
- Mutual exclusion
The idea that the state does not interfere in religion and religion does not interfere in the state.
4. The Indian model and principled distance
The Indian model rests on principled distance: the state keeps a distance from all religions but may intervene on principle to promote freedom and equality. Examples are the abolition of untouchability (Article 17) and the opening of places of worship to all castes.
It also gives equal respect to all religions and supports communities on an equal footing, as with Article 30. There is no state religion. The term principled distance is associated with the political theorist Rajeev Bhargava.
| Feature | Indian model |
|---|---|
| Core idea | Principled distance: the state keeps a distance from all religions but may intervene on principle |
| Aim of intervention | To promote freedom and equality |
| Equal respect | All religions are respected, and communities are supported on an equal footing |
| Freedom of religion | Articles 25 to 28 |
| State religion | None |
| Point | Principled distance |
|---|---|
| Meaning | A distance from all religions, with intervention allowed on principle |
| The principle | Freedom and equality of people, within and between communities |
| Example of intervention | Abolition of untouchability (Article 17); opening places of worship to all castes |
| Example of support | Minorities may run educational institutions (Article 30), with all communities on an equal footing |
| Associated with | The political theorist Rajeev Bhargava |
| Step | Imagined case: the Linden Shrine in Dunmere |
|---|---|
| The practice | A trust keeps the Ostler group, a hereditary group within the Rivermark community, out of the inner hall |
| The kind of domination | Intra-religious: it happens inside one community, by birth into a group |
| The question | Does it deny people equality? Yes, it denies entry on grounds of birth |
| The Indian answer | Principled distance lets the state act, as Article 17 acts against untouchability |
| The limit | The state opens entry to all groups and leaves belief and worship to the community |
| Point | Imagined Torvia chooses between two models |
|---|---|
| The country | Torvia, whose people follow the Sunhold, Rivermark and Tessel faiths and belong to several hereditary groups |
| Model P: mutual exclusion | The state keeps out of religion; individual freedom is the focus |
| Model Q: principled distance | The state keeps a distance but may act on principle for freedom and equality; equal respect for all faiths |
| The test case | A shrine bars a hereditary group: Model P gives the state little ground to act, Model Q allows action on equality |
| A fair conclusion | Q answers domination inside religions better; some may fear excess intervention, which clear principles can limit |
Key terms
- Principled distance
The state keeps a distance from all religions but may intervene on principle to promote freedom and equality.
- Equal respect
Treating every religion and community with the same regard, with support given on an equal footing.
5. The Constitution and secularism
The Constitution was secular in its provisions from the start. Article 15 bars discrimination on grounds of religion. Article 17 abolishes untouchability. Articles 25 to 28 protect freedom of religion. Article 30 lets religious and linguistic minorities set up and run educational institutions.
The word secular was added to the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment (1976).
| Provision | What it provides, in brief |
|---|---|
| Preamble | Describes India as secular; the word was added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976 |
| Article 15 | No discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth |
| Article 17 | Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice |
| Articles 25 to 28 | Freedom of religion, management of religious affairs, no tax for promoting a religion, and a rule on religious instruction in institutions wholly funded by the state |
| Article 30 | Religious and linguistic minorities may set up and run educational institutions of their choice |
| From the start | The Constitution was secular in its provisions from 1950; the Preamble word came later |
Key terms
- 42nd Amendment
The amendment of 1976 that added the word secular to the Preamble.
6. Criticisms of Indian secularism, with replies (1)
Anti-religious. Critics have argued that it is hostile to religion. Supporters respond that it opposes domination, not religion.
A Western import. Critics have argued that it comes from elsewhere. Others argue that it grew from India's own conditions of diversity and differs from the Western model.
Minoritism. Critics have argued that it favours minorities. Supporters respond that minority rights protect vulnerable groups and are part of equal respect, and that fundamental interests deserve protection.
| Point | Anti-religious |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | Indian secularism is hostile to religion and to religious people |
| Supporters respond | It opposes domination, not religion |
| Why | Freedom of religion is protected (Articles 25 to 28) and all religions receive equal respect |
| Imagined case | Torvia lets every faith hold its festivals and opens a shrine to all groups |
| Point | A Western import |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | The idea comes from elsewhere and does not suit Indian society |
| Others argue | It grew from India's own conditions of deep diversity |
| Difference | It differs from the Western model: principled distance and support for communities |
| Test | An idea can be judged by what it does here, and not only by where it began |
| Point | Minoritism |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | Indian secularism favours minorities |
| Supporters respond | Minority rights protect vulnerable groups and are part of equal respect |
| Also argued | Fundamental interests of every group deserve protection |
| Test | Are the protections given on equal terms to every community? |
| Imagined case | Ember School in Pellmoor is recognised on the same terms as every other school |
| Imagined statement | Criticism | Likely reply |
|---|---|---|
| The state keeps stepping into how communities arrange their affairs | Interventionist | Intervention promotes equality and freedom |
| This idea came from far-off lands and cannot suit us | A Western import | It grew from our own diversity and differs from other models |
| It gives protections to small communities that others lack | Minoritism | They guard vulnerable groups and are part of equal respect |
| Differences are so deep that no secular society can exist | An impossible project | An ambitious ideal; partial success is valuable |
Key terms
- Minoritism
The criticism that Indian secularism favours minorities.
7. Criticisms of Indian secularism, with replies (2)
Interventionist. Critics have argued that the state interferes in communities. Supporters respond that intervention promotes equality and freedom, as with untouchability. Debates on personal laws exist, and people hold different views on them.
Vote-bank politics. Critics have argued that communities are promised favours for votes. Supporters respond that groups organising for their interests is part of democracy; the concern is when others are neglected.
An impossible project. Critics have argued that differences run too deep. Supporters respond that it is an ambitious ideal that keeps diverse societies together, and partial success is still valuable.
| Criticism | What critics have argued | What supporters respond |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-religious | Hostile to religion | Opposes domination, not religion |
| Western import | Comes from elsewhere | Grew from India's diversity; differs from the Western model |
| Minoritism | Favours minorities | Protects vulnerable groups; part of equal respect |
| Interventionist | Interferes in communities | Intervenes to promote equality and freedom |
| Vote-bank politics | Favours for votes | Organising is part of democracy; the concern is neglect |
| Impossible project | Cannot be achieved | Ambitious ideal; partial success valuable |
| Point | Interventionist |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | The state interferes in the affairs of communities |
| Supporters respond | Intervention aims to promote equality and freedom, as with untouchability |
| Test | Does the practice deny people equality or freedom, whichever community follows it? |
| A debated area | Debates on personal laws exist, and people hold different views on them |
| Point | Vote-bank politics |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | Communities are promised favours for their votes |
| Supporters respond | Groups organising for their interests is part of democracy |
| The real concern | When this leads to the neglect of other groups |
| Test | Check whether every group gets a fair share of public provision |
| Point | An impossible project |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | Religious differences run so deep that a secular society cannot be achieved |
| Supporters respond | It is an ambitious ideal that helps keep diverse societies together |
| Also argued | Partial success is still valuable, because each reduction of domination helps people |
| Test | Compare a society that works towards the ideal with one that does not |
| Speaker in imagined Quillfield class | Point made | Kind of point |
|---|---|---|
| Perrin | Secularism favours small communities | Criticism: minoritism |
| Ilse | The protections guard groups that could be vulnerable and are part of equal respect | Reply: minority rights as equal respect |
| Wynn | The idea came from other lands, so it cannot suit us | Criticism: Western import |
| Corin | It grew from our own diversity and differs from other models | Reply: own roots, difference from the Western model |
| Step | How the criticisms are weighed |
|---|---|
| Critics have argued | State the criticism fairly, in its strongest form |
| Supporters respond | Give the reply and its reasons |
| Test | Try both against an example |
| Judge | Decide with reasons, and note what remains open |
| Step of a 5-mark answer | Imagined plan for: criticisms of Indian secularism |
|---|---|
| Introduce | Indian secularism has been criticised on several grounds |
| Two or three criticisms | Anti-religious, Western import, minoritism, with the reply to each |
| Another criticism | Interventionist, vote-bank or impossible, with its reply |
| An example | Imagined Dunmere shrine or Pellmoor school to test a criticism |
| Judge | Weigh both sides with reasons, and note what remains open |
Key terms
- Vote-bank politics
Seeking the votes of a community by promising it favours, with the worry that other groups are neglected.
- Interventionist
The criticism that the state interferes in the affairs of communities.
Exam tips
Common mistakes
- Saying secularism means opposing religion: say it opposes domination, between and within religions.
- Describing only inter-religious domination: include intra-religious domination.
- Saying the Indian state keeps total separation: say principled distance allows intervention on principle for freedom and equality.
- Saying the word secular was in the Constitution only from 1976: the word was added in 1976, the provisions were secular from the start.
- Giving a criticism without its reply, or taking a side without reasons.
- Naming a party or a real event: use an imagined example.
Tips: define with both kinds of domination; use the phrases critics have argued and supporters respond; cite Articles by number; weigh both sides, then judge with reasons.