The secularist wants to keep the state out of religion and religion out of the public sphere¹. If I were to sign up for that, I’d at least want a definition of what counts as religion and what counts as culture². Okay, this statement is kind of abstract. So let’s go through 9 real world examples of why it is difficult to separate religion from culture.

1. Yoga, as practiced across the world is actually one part of a multifaceted Ashtanga Yoga³. What’s popularly called Yoga is actually the third step of the way — Asana. It is India’s cultural export to the world. But its roots are undeniably in Hinduism. It is an animist method of worship. Should that not be part of the public sphere? Can that be taught in schools? It is a relatively inexpensive way to inculcate fitness. And it’s highly likely that in a pre-Iron Age society without dumbbells, Asanas were a good way to remain fit and prepare your body for future physical austerities.
2. In India, it’s common to touch the feet of an older relative or respected individual—either as a nod to the divine within them or as a symbolic gesture of acknowledging their superiority in at least one aspect of life (like age, or an impressive ability to recount stories that never seem to end). The act also serves as an opportunity for the ego⁴ to take a step back—though personally, I’d prefer it if my ego could retreat without requiring a full-body bow. This practice is completely steeped in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist theology.
   Politicians in India do it all the time. I consider this a public display of religious symbolism. Notably, some Muslims consider the practice to be Kuffar⁵. I couldn’t find any evidence of the practice existing in Christianity, other than washing Jesus’ feet.
3. Bharatnatyam and Kathak are two of India’s most popular classical dance forms. They are devotional dances with tons of religious symbolism. The government distributes considerable largesse to these dance forms — directly violating Article 27 of the Indian Constitution. Article 27 prohibits the State from imposing taxes to promote a particular religion. At its core, this funding directly contradicts the very essence of secularism—the principle that the state must remain impartial and show no favoritism toward any religion.
4. Recently, India constructed a new Parliament, replacing the old one that was built during British time. The architecture reflects folk and tribal arts and crafts in its ornamentations and other traditional Indian architectural motifs. The entrances to the building sport names like Gaja Dwar, Hamsa Dwar, Garuda Dwar among others — straight out of the Puranas and other Hindu texts⁶. Whatever side of the aisle you may fall on, this is definitely not secular. But if such elements were to be erased, how do you even design the architecture of buildings in India? By imitating Le Corbusier’s design of cube-shaped buildings?
5. In the same Parliament, in the entrance hall, the following verse is engraved:
   अयं निजः परो वेति गणना लघु चेतसाम् | उदारचरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम् |
   Loosely, it translates to “The whole world is one family.” Where is it taken from? The Maha Upanishad — a minor Upanishad — that forms the basis for Hindu philosophy. While the quote is rooted in Hindu scripture, I regard it as the most encompassing declaration of acceptance enshrined in Indian culture.
6. India’s premier engineering institutes, the IITs, have mottos entirely derived from Indic faiths. IIT Kanpur’s motto⁷ is part of a very famous prayer. IIT Kharagpur’s motto directly quotes the Gita⁸. The government heavily funds these IITs. Does this mean that these quotes have to go? These aphorisms are closer to philosophy than religion⁹.
7. All Hindu, Buddhist and Jain scriptures are written in Sanskrit¹⁰. When the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was promulgated, it strongly recommended the inclusion of Sanskrit in school curricula. Outrage arose from the usual quarters. Because Sanskrit is perceived to be tightly knit with Hinduism, the government was accused of Sanskritization —favoring upper caste traditions over lower caste ones. More importantly, the government was accused of favoring one religion and one language over others, violating the principles of secularism. This seems borderline comedic to me. Would a school in the West teaching Latin be accused of violating secularism? Latin is to Western culture as Sanskrit is to Indian. Erasing Sanskrit from curriculum — in the name of secularism — is cultural erasure.
8. The Ramayana and Mahabharata are India’s most popular epics. They are India’s Iliad and Odyssey. While fundamentally religious, they narrate stories of heroes and moral dilemmas. They concretize the abstract philosophy of Hinduism. Rather than teach Aesop’s fables to students, why not use something more culturally relevant? It is always easier to understand stories from your own culture rather than ones that are imported. But include these in the curriculum and the government of the day will be called communal. Why isn’t it secular to teach these epics when they encapsulate the entire philosophical heritage of India in easy-to-digest stories?
9. If religious symbols are to be kept out of the public sphere, does the tilaka go away? What about the bindi?

I haven’t touched the thorny and politically charged issues of the Waqf Act and the Uniform Civil Code — I didn’t want this post to get sidetracked into political battles. While it is much easier to tease out the principles of secularism in the above two Acts, the examples I have shown make it much harder to establish a clear definition of secularism.

Essentially, until there is a clear sphere of separation between culture and religion, applying the principle of secularism is fraught with dangers.

The History of Secularism

Let’s briefly dive into the history of secularism. Secularism by definition meant the separation of church and state. It originated in Western Europe around the late 17th century.

If Western Europe had been colonised by Christianity centuries prior, then what motivated the rise of secularism? The (Protestant) Reformation challenged the authority of the Catholic Church to act as a mediator between God and the individual¹¹. It gave rise to new sects, the most popular of which was Protestantism.

With new sects emerging, they started to compete to get “converts” which quickly led to the Thirty Years War. While other European nations intervened for political and material interests, the primary cause was the competition between different Christian sects.

For us, the most important takeaway is that these wars resulted in the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia. This treaty gave rise to current international law and the rise of the nation-state. Among other significant clauses, the most consequential was that the State was sovereign and that rulers had the exclusive right to govern their territories, without interference from religious authorities. It separated the divine sphere and the political sphere and said that the Pope (or any other religious figure) had no authority over the political sphere.

As part of the Treaty, rulers were also expected to tolerate religious minorities within their territories. I want to emphasize here that minorities here means minorities from other sects of Christianity. For instance, Britain was expected to tolerate Catholics within its territories, despite being a Protestant State. With this treaty, minorities could practice their religion without persecution privately¹².

India’s Wayward Secularism

Armed with this background, secularism’s failure in India becomes clearer.

Firstly, there is no clearly separated cultural and religious sphere. Europe has descended from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christianity, a small group in 50 A.D., quickly colonised Europe¹³ displacing the pagan cultures that had populated it. There was a uniformity across the continent that made it easy to define cultural heritage versus religious practices. Having its origin in the Roman empires, Europe quickly became the epicentre of Roman tradition as well. It was easy for secularists to separate out culture and religion.

In India, Nehruvian secularism was superimposed from the top down. Having gone through the Partition of 1947, Nehru and by extension the Indian National Congress chose to build a nation state, modeled on the Westphalian model of a nation. For Nehru, secularism meant honoring all religions equally, giving them equal opportunities. For him, state-led secularism was the only way to create a common identity for the Indian nation-state.

Because of a lack of agreement on what separates culture and religion, secularism in India has acquired so many meanings that it has lost all meaning. In the 1994 Supreme Court Bommai judgement, one judge concluded that the term ‘Secular’ is so elastic that it is undefinable and perhaps best left undefined.

Secondly, Hinduism — an umbrella term for all faiths practiced in the subcontinent — already accepted all transcendental experiences as valid. It didn’t profess a monopoly on truth — which was the cause for the Thirty Years’ War. So was secularism really needed? It is highly unlikely that the partition would’ve been avoided had colonial India been secular.

Thirdly, for millennia, different Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Baha’i, Zoroastrian and Jain traditions had been coexisting — mostly peacefully. There would’ve probably been some conflicts over the years, but there’s no evidence of prolonged religious wars like the ones that had happened in Europe. But Indian society didn’t disintegrate as a result of the conflicts. What were the successful practices employed by these groups? It wasn’t secularism — that concept wouldn’t be invented for a few millennia at least. Many commentators like to call this concept Pluralism.

Fourthly, in Europe secularism protected the rights of minorities that were similar to existing Christian sects. Catholics couldn’t persecute Protestants, Protestants couldn’t banish Anglicans and so on. All minorities shared a common thread wrapped around the culture of Christianity. India has so many different minorities from almost every faith in the world, that there’s no such thread. How can secularism as a model be expected to work when it didn’t even face such a test in its home ground?

Finally, even in the Constituent Assembly Debates, there are instances of Muslim legislators opposing the Uniform Civil Code because it would oblige them to give up their own personal law. This goes on to show that a significant subset of the population never completely bought into secularism. If secularism was to only be for the Hindu majority, it was bound to fail. I cover this in more detail in my earlier post on Secularism in the Constituent Assembly Debates.

Indian Alternatives

The secularism debate obscures a deeper issue: cultures should be seen as alternatives, but often, Asian cultures are framed through a Western lens. The West is the ideal, and others are deemed lacking until they conform.

For instance, when India emulates the West, liberalism and secularism come to mind. But when the West looks at India, it fixates on caste—not Indic philosophy or spirituality, but a perceived deficiency.

These problems become more apparent with the immigration of Islamic migrants into Western Europe. The French have their version of secularism, called Laïcité. France has banned the use of prominent religious symbols in public. This immediately introduces a problem with the hijab. Is the hijab a cultural Islamic practice or is it a religious practice mandated by the Quran?

As Western Europe becomes multicultural, secularism is unequipped to deal with such thorny issues even in its place of origin. How can it be expected to succeed in India?

The main counter-argument defends a unique “Indian Secularism.” First, why overload “secularism” with multiple meanings? This is a classic motte-and-bailey tactic: redefine the term for an easy defense, then revert to the original meaning once the argument is settled.

Second, “Indian secularism” argues that the approach India takes is to have a principled distance from all religions in practice. Leave aside the fact that it hasn’t worked out in practice¹⁴. If the meaning of secularism changes in the Indian context, then the principle itself doesn’t work out. A different term is needed. Words matter and smuggling in a foreign concept might serve as a virtue signal for elites¹⁵, but broader society suffers.

The other counter-argument is that Indian society refuses to accept secularism because of its Western origins. If that was the case, Indians that reject secularism would also reject modern science because that was discovered in the West. India would also reject the concept of individual rights. These concepts are widely embraced even though they are the product of modern Western thought because they don’t conflict with the culture.

Then there are others who say that “Indian secularism” means borrowing principles and concepts from every religion. Why not just use Pluralism for that concept?

These counter-arguments show that, since the West is seen as ideal, cultural elites cling to secularism to avoid appearing inferior.

I’ll end with a quote by Ashis Nandy — who summarizes this better than I could¹⁶.

It is time to recognize that, instead of trying to build religious tolerance on the good faith of a small group of de-ethnicized, middle class politicians, bureaucrats and intellectuals, a far more serious venture would be to explore the philosophy, the symbolism and the theology of tolerance in the faiths of the citizens and hope that the state systems in South Asia may learn something about religious tolerance from everyday Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism or Sikhism rather than wish that ordinary Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and Sikhs will learn tolerance from the various fashionable secular theories of state craft.

---

1 Put simply, the public sphere is a place where citizens come to discuss and shape public affairs. So an institution like a garden would be a public sphere. A mosque isn’t part of the public sphere, but if it broadcasts azaan through its loudspeakers, then the action becomes a part of the public sphere. Similar arguments can be made for public processions on the occasion of Ganpati Visarjan.

2 There is a very nuanced difference. Because of Western cultural hegemony, the idea of culture has been reduced to different type of food (which aren’t all that different) and different clothes — which are influenced by the type of environment. Is that all there is to it? I don’t think so.

3 Eightfold Yoga. Ashtanga Yoga is a way to achieve Samadhi by following eight steps. The eight steps are: Yama, Niyama, Asana (which is what is called Yoga), Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dhyana, Dharana, Samadhi.

4 Commonly called ahankara. The word is loosely translated to Ego, but ahankara is a non-translatable. Ahankara refers to the sense of “I” that a person experiences when conscious and all Indic faiths emphasize the dissolution of the “I”.

5 Or Kafir.

6 Strangely, this slipped right past the usual secular watchdogs. That’s like the US Senate putting up a giant cross and everyone just shrugging. But what really sent the secularism brigade into a frenzy? The inauguration ceremony’s religious rituals. The funniest part? They completely overlooked the building’s actual design.

7 तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय — Lead me from darkness into the light.

8 योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् — Excellence in action is yoga.

9 Which raises another pertinent question. What is the difference between religion and philosophy? I’ll explore this briefly towards the end, but a full treatment deserves a post of its own.

10 Some Buddhist and Jain scriptures are also written in Prakrit which is a vernacular cousin of Sanskrit. I am not a language expert here, but my understanding is that Prakrit and Sanskrit were pretty close to each other.

11 I am not well versed with Christianity, so there might be inaccuracies here, but the broader would still hold.

12 For an accessible treatment of the history of secularism, refer to J. Sai Deepak’s India that is Bharat and Jakob de Roover’s India, Europe and the Limits of Secularism.

13 How did Christianity grow so fast? Check Alexander Scott’s excellent post on the matter.

14 Case in point: Hajj subsidies and government control of Hindu places of worship.

15 To prove that they’re sufficiently Western.

16 Quote taken from Secularism and its Critics, pg 388.