Que. Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.

भारत की एक धर्मनिरपेक्ष राज्य के रूप में विवेचना कीजिए और अमेरिकी संविधान के धर्मनिरपेक्ष सिद्धान्तों के साथ तुलना कीजिए।

Structure of the Answer

(i) Introduction: Define “secularism” in India and the US, focusing on India’s “equal respect for all religions” and US “church-state separation.”

(ii) Main Body: Compare both systems of secularism, focusing on “legal frameworks,” “state-religion relationship,” “judiciary’s role,” and “freedom of religion.”

(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the key differences between “Indian positive secularism” and US “negative secularism,” emphasizing their distinct approaches to “religious neutrality.”

Introduction

“Secularism” in India refers to equal respect for all religions, while in the US, it is based on “church-state separation.” India follows a model of “positive secularism” with permissible “state intervention,” unlike the US’s strict non-interference in religious matters.

Legal Framework for Secularism in India and the US

(i) Indian Constitutional Provisions: India’s “secularism” is enshrined in the Preamble and Articles 25-28 of the Constitution, ensuring “freedom of religion” while allowing “state intervention” to maintain public order and morality.

(ii) US Constitutional Provisions: The US Constitution emphasizes “church-state separation” under the First Amendment, prohibiting any law that establishes religion or limits “religious freedom,” ensuring a secular government.

(iii) State and Religion Relationship in India: India practices “positive secularism,” where the state can intervene in religious matters for reforms, like banning untouchability or abolishing triple talaq, ensuring social justice.

(iv) State and Religion Relationship in the US: The US model follows “negative secularism,” where the state is strictly barred from interfering in religious matters, maintaining a complete “separation of church and state.”

(v) Freedom of Religion: Both nations protect “religious freedom,” but India’s model is more “accommodative” of religious expressions in the public sphere, while the US maintains strict neutrality in public institutions.

Role of Judiciary in Maintaining Secularism

(i) Indian Judiciary’s Role: India’s Supreme Court safeguards secularism, ruling that it is part of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. It intervenes in religious matters when public order or fundamental rights are affected.

(ii) US Judiciary’s Role: The US Supreme Court enforces “church-state separation,” ruling on cases like Engel v. Vitale to prohibit religious activities in public schools, ensuring the government remains secular.

(iii) Judicial Interpretation of Religious Freedom in India: Indian courts often interpret religious rights in a way that balances “religious practices” with social justice, as seen in cases like the Sabarimala Temple judgement, allowing entry to women.

(iv) Judicial Interpretation of Religious Freedom in the US: In the US, the judiciary interprets “religious freedom” strictly, limiting religious expressions in government spaces, ensuring that public institutions remain free of religious influence.

(v) Secularism as Part of Constitutional Structure: While India’s judiciary has declared secularism a “basic structure” of the Constitution, the US relies on the First Amendment for maintaining religious neutrality and protecting freedom of belief.

Comparison of Secularism in India and the US

(i) Positive vs. Negative Secularism: India’s “positive secularism” allows for state intervention to reform social practices, while the US follows “negative secularism,” strictly separating church and state, limiting government intervention.

(ii) Public Display of Religion: In India, religious symbols and practices are visible in the public sphere, with state accommodation of festivals and rituals. The US, however, restricts religious expressions in government institutions.

(iii) State’s Role in Religious Reforms: India’s government intervenes in religious practices to ensure social reform, like abolishing untouchability. The US government avoids involvement in religious matters, adhering to strict “non-interference.”

(iv) Religious Diversity and Pluralism: Both countries maintain “religious pluralism,” but India’s model is more inclusive, allowing public displays of faith, while the US promotes private religious practice, limiting it in public spaces.

(v) Protection of Minority Rights: India’s secularism aims to protect religious minorities through affirmative actions like Haj subsidies. The US protects minority religions but maintains an overall hands-off approach to religious matters.

Challenges to Secularism

(i) Majoritarian Influence in India: Secularism in India faces challenges from “religious majoritarianism,” where certain political forces attempt to align state policies with the dominant religion, threatening secular principles.

(ii) Religious Polarization in the US: The US faces challenges from religious polarization, particularly in debates over prayer in schools and religious displays in public spaces, testing the limits of “church-state separation.”

(iii) State Intervention Criticism in India: India’s state intervention in religious practices sometimes draws criticism, with accusations of selective targeting of specific communities for reform, affecting the perception of “neutrality.”

(iv) Balancing Freedom and Secularism in the US: In the US, balancing “religious freedom” with the principle of secularism remains contentious, as religious groups seek greater influence in public policy, challenging the strict separation principle.

(v) Judicial Balancing in Both Nations: Both countries rely on their judiciary to interpret secularism and balance individual religious freedoms with broader societal needs, ensuring that secularism remains intact without infringing on religious rights.

Conclusion

India’s “positive secularism” involves “state neutrality” but allows “state intervention” for religious reforms, ensuring social justice. The US follows strict “church-state separation,” protecting religious freedom through minimal government interference. Both models uphold secularism but operate within distinct “legal frameworks” and socio-political contexts.