Diverse Definitions of Secularism Explored

Secularism is one of those terms that gets used constantly in political and academic discussions, yet rarely with any agreement on what it actually means. Depending on where you are in the world – and what problem you are trying to solve – secularism can mean completely different things. Sociologists broadly identify three main forms of secularism: a people-centric approach focused on individual freedom from religious coercion, a state-centric approach focused on governmental neutrality toward all religions, and a uniquely Indian approach that frames secularism as a tool for national unity against colonialism and communal conflict. Each of these definitions reflects a different set of historical pressures and social priorities. Understanding all three helps clarify why secularism looks and functions so differently across societies.

What does secularism actually mean?
People-centric secularism: protecting individual freedom
State-centric secularism: the neutrality of government
How laïcité differs from the U.S. model
India-specific secularism: unity in diversity
Sarva Dharma Samabhava: equal respect, not separation
Secularism as a response to communalism
Comparing the three definitions

What does secularism actually mean?

The term “secularism” was coined by British social reformer George Jacob Holyoake in the 19th century to describe a worldview that grounds human affairs in material and rational concerns rather than religious authority. At its most basic, secularism is a worldview or political principle that separates religion from other realms of human existence, placing greater emphasis on non-religious aspects of life and governance. But as scholars have noted, the conventional definition of secularism as simply “separation of state and religion” can be misleading – it does not capture the full range of what the term encompasses in practice. Modern sociology, since Max Weber, has been preoccupied with how authority functions in secularized societies and with secularization as a broader historical process. Today, the word carries at least three meaningfully distinct definitions.

People-centric secularism: protecting individual freedom

The first and arguably most intuitive definition of secularism is people-centric. This approach focuses on protecting individuals from religious coercion in public life. It argues that religion is a personal matter and that no individual should be compelled to participate in religious acts, face discrimination based on their faith or lack thereof, or encounter religion imposed on them through public institutions like schools or government offices.

At the heart of this definition is individual autonomy. A secular state, from this perspective, allows people the liberty to hold any religious belief – or none at all – without fear of exclusion or pressure. This means that public schools do not promote any particular religion, civic participation is not conditioned on religious identity, and the law protects people equally regardless of their faith. Socio-cultural secularism in this sense refers to the weakening of religion’s role in day-to-day life over time, as more people come to see religious belief as a private rather than public matter.

This form of secularism is closely linked to the Enlightenment tradition. Enlightenment thinkers, particularly Locke, treated the separation of religious power from political power as a condition of individual freedom of belief and tolerance between people of different faiths. The people-centric definition prioritizes the protection of that individual freedom above all else. Where this definition runs into difficulties is in diverse societies where people genuinely disagree about where “private” religion ends and “public” life begins.

State-centric secularism: the neutrality of government

The second definition shifts focus from the individual to the state itself. State-centric secularism, also called political secularism, holds that government must remain strictly neutral toward all religions – neither favoring nor penalizing any religious group. Under this definition, the state does not establish an official religion, does not fund religious institutions selectively, and keeps the machinery of governance free from religious influence.

This is the model most commonly associated with Western liberal democracies. Both the United States and France embedded this principle into their foundational legal documents – the U.S. through the First Amendment in 1791 and France through its landmark 1905 law on the separation of church and state. However, the two countries interpret state neutrality quite differently. In the American model, the state is legally bound to neutrality toward religion, but religion’s open expression in the public sphere is still accepted and even encouraged as part of democratic civic life. The French concept of laïcité, by contrast, keeps religion far more strictly confined to the private sphere, requiring public institutions to be entirely free of religious expression.

How laïcité differs from the U.S. model

The contrast between France and the United States illustrates just how much state-centric secularism can vary in practice. Put simply, the United States guarantees freedom of religion, whereas French laïcité strives for freedom from religion in public institutional spaces. In French public schools, for example, students and teachers are required to keep religious symbols discreet, because the school is treated as a neutral civic space where no religion should influence the shared environment. French security forces protect mosques like any other place of worship under laïcité, but public servants on duty are expected to present themselves as representatives of a religiously neutral state.

Despite these differences, both systems share the core commitment that there should be no domination of the political sphere by religious institutions, and no state discrimination against anyone on the grounds of their religion or non-religious worldview. State-centric secularism is not necessarily hostile to religion – it is about ensuring the state holds the same distance from all religions equally.

India-specific secularism: unity in diversity

The third definition is distinct from both of the above and is deeply shaped by India’s particular historical experience. In India, secularism was not primarily a response to religious wars between Christian denominations, as it was in Europe. Instead, Indian secularism emerged out of the anti-colonial freedom struggle and the urgent need to hold together an extraordinarily diverse, multi-religious nation against the threat of communalism – the political mobilization of religious identity in ways that pit communities against each other.

Colonial rule under the British disrupted India’s tradition of religious coexistence, as colonial administrators pursued divide-and-rule policies that deliberately accentuated communal divisions for political gain. The Indian freedom movement, led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, consciously adopted secularism as a unifying counter-force. Gandhi’s vision of secularism was rooted in equal respect for all religions, while Nehru advocated for a rationalist, state-neutral approach. Both saw secularism as essential to national solidarity.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava: equal respect, not separation

The Indian model is built on the concept of Sarva Dharma Samabhava – equal respect for all religions. This idea holds that all religions are equal in their value and spiritual significance, and that no one religion is superior or inferior to another, with the state actively fostering tolerance and coexistence rather than simply withdrawing from the religious sphere.

This makes Indian secularism fundamentally different from the Western state-centric model. Rather than a strict wall of separation, Indian secularism is popularly understood as the philosophy that enables people of diverse religious backgrounds to live together harmoniously, with the state according the same degree of respect and freedom to all religions. The Indian state does not refuse to engage with religion – it intervenes to prevent religious discrimination within communities, as seen in laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, and it protects minority religious practices. The concept of secularism in India ensures and promotes religious harmony, social justice, and the safeguarding of minority rights to maintain national unity and prevent communalism.

Secularism as a response to communalism

A defining feature of the Indian definition is its direct opposition to communalism. Historian Harbans Mukhia of Jawaharlal Nehru University has argued that secularism and communalism functioned as each other’s negation during India’s freedom struggle, with secularism representing the inclusive nationalist vision and communalism representing the fragmentation of that vision along religious lines. Scholars like Shabnum Tejani have traced how secularism in India became bound up with ideas about nationalism and national identity, explaining why it carries such politically charged meaning in contemporary Indian politics.

The word “secular” was not part of India’s original 1950 constitution; it was formally inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, partly in response to growing communal tensions that posed a threat to national unity and integrity. This history underscores how Indian secularism is not a borrowed Western concept but a home-grown response to the country’s specific challenges. The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of religion through Articles 25-28 while simultaneously ensuring, through Article 15, that the state does not discriminate on the basis of religion.

Comparing the three definitions

These three definitions overlap in important ways – all of them reject theocracy, all of them support religious freedom of some kind, and all of them are concerned with how religion and public life relate to each other. But they diverge sharply in their emphasis and their logic.

People-centric secularism starts from the individual: it asks how citizens can be protected from religious coercion. State-centric secularism starts from the government: it asks how the state can remain equally distant from all religions. Indian secularism starts from society: it asks how a multi-religious nation can hold together against the forces that seek to divide it. It has been acknowledged that secularism in India has at times been too state-centric, failing to engage sufficiently with the actual beliefs and practices of people on the ground – a critique that points to the ongoing tension between these different definitions in practice.

As one contemporary scholar has argued, a more refined understanding of secularism is as a normative political principle of social peace within the context of diversity – a definition that arguably captures something of all three approaches. What is clear is that secularism is not a single, fixed idea but a family of related commitments shaped by history, culture, and the particular problems each society has needed to solve.

What do you think? Does India’s model of “equal respect for all religions” represent a genuinely distinct form of secularism, or is it a compromise that makes the principle too flexible to enforce consistently? And given the very different paths France and the United States have taken on state-religion separation, is there a universal standard for what a secular state should look like – or does context always determine the answer?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What does secularism actually mean? 🔗

People-centric secularism: protecting individual freedom 🔗

State-centric secularism: the neutrality of government 🔗

How laïcité differs from the U.S. model 🔗

India-specific secularism: unity in diversity 🔗

Sarva Dharma Samabhava: equal respect, not separation 🔗

Secularism as a response to communalism 🔗

Comparing the three definitions 🔗