Interventionist

A fourth criticism holds that secularism is coercive — that it interferes too much with the religious freedom of communities. This criticism misreads Indian secularism. It is true that, by rejecting the western idea of separation as mutual exclusion, Indian secularism also rejects blanket non-interference in religious affairs. But it does not follow that Indian secularism is therefore excessively interventionist — Indian secularism follows the idea of principled distance, and principled distance leaves ample room for genuine non-interference as well. Besides, interference does not automatically mean coercive intervention.

It is certainly true that Indian secularism permits state-supported religious reform. But this should not be confused with reform imposed from above by force. A genuine, difficult question does arise here, though: could it be argued that this permission has not been used consistently — why have the personal laws of all religious communities (laws governing marriage, inheritance, and other family matters, which in India are governed separately by different religions) not all been reformed alike? A secularist can look at these personal laws in two quite different ways. They can be seen as legitimate manifestations of community-specific rights, protected by the Constitution as an expression of freedom from inter-religious domination. Or they can equally be seen as an affront to the basic principles of secularism, on the ground that some of these laws treat women unequally and unjustly — in which case they look less like protected community rights and more like instances of intra-religious domination.

Such internal tensions are simply part of any sufficiently complex doctrine; they are real, but they are not something Indian secularism has to live with forever. Personal laws can, in principle, be reformed in a way that continues to honour both minority rights and equality between men and women. But such reform should come about neither through coercion by the state or by any group, nor through the state adopting a policy of total distance from religion. Instead, the state's proper role is that of a facilitator — supporting the liberal and democratic voices that already exist within every religion, and helping reform emerge from within rather than imposing it from outside. …