Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Let's suppose we ask two qns

1. Would you like the State to be "secular"?
2. Would you like the State to safeguard "religious liberty" of every citizen?

Most liberals (& even many conservatives) would answer a resounding "Yes" to both

But these are 2 very different questions!

How do we understand the difference? Does the difference (even if a semantic one exists) really matter?

Are there instances where you need to cease being "secular" as a State to preserve religious liberty?
OR
You need to violate religious liberties to safeguard "secularism"?

The United States is an example of a country that swears to preserve "religious liberties". It is safeguarded for every citizen by way of the "First Amendment"- which is the 1st of the 10 Bill of Rights introduced in 1791

But US is not quite a secular state. Atleast not formally

India also safeguards "religious freedom" - which is one of the "Fundamental Rights" - loosely analogous to the American Bill or Rights. This safeguard has existed since 1950

However India ALSO is a secular state, as declared by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976

So unlike US, India makes the "dual" constitutional commitment of safeguarding both religious freedom and remaining "secular" as a state.

But is this problematic? Or do these two commitments merely reinforce each other for the most part?

For the most part, the somewhat "devious" introduction of the term "secular" during the Emergency in 1976 does not conflict with the commitment to honor religious liberties

Eg : The State does not discriminate by religion while hiring its employees. Except for the odd minority quota, which is not too big a serious threat to "religious liberty" of Hindus.

But there are instances where the two ideals conflict seriously.

Let's explore one instance

Lately there was a controversy in Madhya Pradesh over cuisine of mid-day meals in schools, on whether to include eggs or not

In an ideal world the state should not be running schools, leave alone offer mid-day meals

But that ideal world does not exist in quasi-socialist India

So the state needs to debate even ridiculous issues as the menu of meals in schools.

Now let's suppose there is a classroom of 100. Where 50 kids are strictly vegetarian and abjure eggs. While the other 50 eat eggs and maybe even meat.

Now eggs are one of the options in the menu for the meal. Its substitutes are probably Milk and maybe even Bananas.

Now let's remind ourselves India is a state that honors both religious liberties and is also secular. How will it determine the menu?

There are three options

Option A : Have a mid day meal without eggs. But with milk and bananas. This option caters to all 100 students. The 50 vegetarian students are free to exercise their religious liberty. The 50 meat eating students also get to eat food (albeit not eggs). But everyone gets to eat!

This option honors the state's commitment to safeguard religious liberties. But in the process of doing so, the state is also baking in the religion angle while running its operations.

Hence it is not a strictly secular state, rather one that benignly honors the Hindu ethos

Option B : The state includes eggs, but NOT any substitute. The 50 "non-veg" kids do have their eggs. The 50 "veg" kids starve!

Here the state is NOT meeting its commitment to safeguard religious liberties

But by being agnostic to religious preferences, it is a Secular state!

Option C : The state includes eggs, but ALSO milk and bananas. So the 50 "veg" kids get their bananas, the other 50 get their eggs.

Here the state is honoring both its commitment to safeguard religious liberties
AND
also manages to remain a strictly secular state.

But Option C is terrible, because the state is being "profligate"! By having 3 items in the menu instead of 1 or 2, it is hurting us tax payers. And making an uneconomical choice, in its quest to meet its two conflicting constitutional commitments!

This is a classic example where the ideal to honor religious liberties conflicts with the ideal to remain "secular"

Being a conservative I favor Option A. To my mind that's the most prudent choice.

Rabid secularists would favor Option B causing much angst and ill will

Some woolly headed liberals may favour Option C notwithstanding its profligacy

This is a classic case study that can be used to demonstrate the deep conflict that does exist between these two constitutional commitments that seem "similar" on the surface, but are nevertheless deeply antagonistic to each other

There are ofcourse numerous such dilemmas caused by this dual commitment! This is a trivial illustration!

The purpose of the thread is not to solicit answers on which option is "right". There is no "right" option - as this is a political decision.

The purpose is to highlight the inherent contradiction between safeguarding "Freedom of Religion" and being a "secular" state.