Criticisms of Indian secularism

Indian secularism faces fierce criticism. The book answers six charges:

1. 'It is anti-religious.' No: secularism opposes institutionalised religious domination, which is not the same as opposing religion. By promoting religious freedom and equality, it protects religious identity. It does undermine identities that are dogmatic, violent, fanatical, exclusivist or that foster hatred of others, and these are not worth protecting.

2. 'It is a Western import.' A quick reply: so are trousers, the internet and parliamentary democracy; Europeans do not refuse to use zero because it was invented in India. The deeper reply: Western states became secular by challenging the control of established religious authority, so secularism is not a 'Christian' product; and mutual exclusion is not the only form of separation. India evolved its own variant: secularism has both Western and non-Western roots: church-state separation in the West, peaceful coexistence of religious communities in India.

3. 'It favours minorities' (minoritism). Indian secularism does advocate minority rights. Is that justified?

• Imagine four passengers in a train compartment: one wants to smoke, one objects, two mild smokers side with the smoker, and a vote goes 3-1. That seems fair. But now suppose the objector has asthma, and smoke could trigger a life-threatening attack. His interest is now fundamental and urgent, and settling it by majority vote would be wrong.
• Likewise, the most fundamental interests of minorities must not be decided by majority vote; they must be protected by constitutional law, as India's Constitution does. Minority rights protect fundamental interests and need not be special privileges: they let minorities enjoy the same respect and dignity as others.

4. 'It is interventionist.' Indian secularism rejects mutual exclusion, but principled distance also allows non-interference, and interference need not mean coercion. The big dilemma is personal laws (marriage, inheritance, family matters governed by each religion): they can be seen as protecting community rights, or as treating women unequally. Reform should be neither imposed by the state or by groups nor ignored: the state should act as a facilitator, supporting liberal and democratic voices within every religion.

5. 'It encourages vote bank politics.' Seeking votes is normal in a democracy; the question is what the votes are for. If a group gains nothing, or gains at the expense of others' rights, that is wrong. Vote bank politics distorts elections when a diverse group is treated as a single monolithic block, when emotive issues replace real problems, and when short-term gains come before long-term development; it can deepen social divisions and even harm the group it claims to serve.

6. 'It is an impossible project.' The claim that people with deep religious differences can never live together peacefully is false: the history of Indian civilisation, and the Ottoman Empire abroad, show it is possible. Critics reply that past coexistence was unequal. But Indian secularism mirrors the future: with migration and globalisation, Europe, America and parts of West Asia are becoming as diverse as India, and they watch the Indian experiment with keen interest.

Example (new): a hearing-impaired student who gets sign-language support in class is not being 'favoured'; she is being given what others already have, the chance to follow the lesson. Minority rights work the same way.