Critiques and Future of Secularism: Is Neutrality a Myth?

Secularism was supposed to settle the question of religion in public life once and for all. Keep faith private, let the state stay neutral, and everyone gets along. That was the theory. In practice, however, secularism has faced relentless criticism – from religious communities who feel sidelined, from postcolonial thinkers who see it as a Western imposition, and from philosophers who question whether true neutrality is even possible. Today, as religious identities surge across the globe and old assumptions crumble, the future of secularism depends on how well it can respond to these critiques.

The public-private divide: can religion really be kept private? 🔗

At the heart of classical secularism lies a simple proposition: religion belongs to the private sphere, and the public sphere should operate on secular, rational principles. This idea traces back to the European Enlightenment and the post-Reformation treaties, especially the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which sought to prevent religious wars by separating spiritual authority from political governance.

The problem is that this division assumes religion is primarily a matter of individual belief – something you hold in your head and practise at home or in your place of worship. For many faith traditions, this simply does not hold. Islam, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and many Indigenous spiritual systems are deeply communal. They shape dress, diet, family law, economic transactions, and community governance. Asking adherents to confine these practices to the private realm effectively asks them to stop being fully religious in any meaningful sense.

As anthropologists of secularism have argued, the very act of defining religion as private belief reflects a particular Protestant Christian history. Within this framework, embodied and material religious practices get relegated to a secondary category, systematically excluded from modern public space. When the state tells citizens that religion is welcome – but only behind closed doors – it is not being neutral. It is privileging one understanding of what religion is over others.

Religion as a communal and cultural force 🔗

The multiculturalist critique, advanced notably by scholars like Tariq Modood, challenges the liberal individualist basis of the public-private divide. Modood’s central argument is that individuals are not isolated entities. They are embedded in communities that give them social and political identities. When secularism insists on granting rights only to individuals and never to communities, it ignores the reality that communal religious identity often cannot be neatly separated from public identity.

This is not just an abstract philosophical point. Consider debates over religious attire in public schools, dietary requirements in state institutions, or family law governed by religious codes. In each case, the public-private boundary collapses because religion is not just something people believe – it is something they do, collectively and visibly.

Secularism as anti-religion? 🔗

A persistent accusation against secularism is that it is not merely neutral toward religion but actively hostile to it. Critics argue that by pushing religion out of the public sphere, secularism devalues religious worldviews and treats them as inferior to secular rationality.

This charge has some historical backing. In countries like France and Turkey, the state has adopted what political scientist Ahmet Kuru calls “assertive secularism” – actively excluding religion from public life and confining it to the private domain. France’s laïcité, for instance, has led to bans on conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and restrictions on face coverings. Turkey’s Kemalist secularism historically went even further, with the state attempting to control and reshape religious practice through institutions like the Presidency of Religious Affairs.

In both cases, the state did not simply ignore religion. It actively intervened in religious life, deciding which forms of religious expression were acceptable and which were not. As scholars at Georgetown’s Berkley Center have noted, dominant secular discourses tend to position the secular as universal and inclusive while framing the religious as subjective and particular, thereby subordinating religious frameworks to secular ones.

The genealogical critique: Talal Asad’s challenge 🔗

The anthropologist Talal Asad has mounted one of the most influential critiques of secularism. His central insight is that “religion” and “secularism” are not natural, timeless categories. They emerged together in modern Western history. The state did not simply discover religion and then decide to separate from it. Rather, the modern state actively constructed the category of religion by defining its boundaries, deciding what counted as legitimate religious practice, and then assigning it a place in public or private life.

This means secularism is not a neutral framework standing above all religions. It is itself a historically specific political arrangement, rooted in Christian European experience, that carries its own assumptions and values. When exported to non-Western societies through colonialism and modernisation, these assumptions often clashed with local realities – a point that has been central to postcolonial critiques of secular governance.

Indian secularism: respect for all religions 🔗

India offers a distinctive model that challenges the Western assumption that secularism requires strict separation of religion and state. The Indian Constitution does not banish religion from public life. Instead, the state engages with all religions, seeking to maintain what the political philosopher Rajeev Bhargava calls “principled distance” – a flexible, context-sensitive approach rather than rigid separation.

In Bhargava’s formulation, Indian secularism did not erect a strict wall between religion and state. Instead, it sought to balance the claims of individuals and communities, never intending a forced privatisation of religion. The state may intervene in religious practices to promote equality – for instance, by challenging caste hierarchies within Hinduism – while simultaneously supporting religious communities through funding for minority educational institutions or facilitating pilgrimages.

Does Indian secularism achieve neutrality? 🔗

The answer is complicated. Indian secularism is often described through the phrase sarva dharma sama bhava – equal respect for all religions. But critics question whether this ideal has been realised in practice. Several concerns persist.

First, India’s approach requires the state to make continuous judgments about when to intervene in religious affairs and when to abstain. As Bhargava himself acknowledges, this makes Indian secularism inherently unstable and ambiguous. There is no fixed rule for resolving conflicts between competing values like liberty, equality, and community rights. Each situation demands contextual reasoning, which leaves room for political manipulation.

Second, the concept of “equal respect” can mask significant inequalities. When the state intervenes more in the practices of one religion than another – say, reforming Hindu personal law while leaving Muslim personal law largely untouched for decades – charges of unequal treatment inevitably arise. Conversely, when the state does intervene in minority religious practices, it risks being seen as majoritarian.

Third, Indian secularism faces the persistent charge of “pseudo-secularism” – the accusation that politicians invoke secularism not out of principled commitment but as a tool for electoral calculation, appeasing religious vote banks rather than genuinely treating all communities equally. This political weaponisation of the concept has, over time, eroded public trust in secularism itself.

Globalization and religious resurgence 🔗

Perhaps the most powerful challenge to secularism in recent decades has come not from philosophers but from history itself. The global resurgence of religion has undermined one of secularism’s foundational assumptions – that modernisation would inevitably lead to religion’s decline.

The sociologist José Casanova was among the first to systematically challenge this secularisation thesis. As scholars have documented, the data showed that religion was not in retreat at all – if anything, it was resurgent around the world. From the rise of evangelical Christianity in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa to the political mobilisation of Islam across the Middle East, from Hindu nationalism in India to the enduring religiosity of the United States, the evidence pointed in one direction: religion was not going away.

How globalization fuels religious identity 🔗

Globalization has played a paradoxical role in this resurgence. On one hand, the rapid spread of Western consumer culture, liberal values, and secular governance models has provoked a backlash. Many communities have turned to religion precisely as a way of asserting identity, authenticity, and community against what they perceive as cultural homogenisation. Religion offers a vertical point of reference – a source of meaning and belonging – in a world that feels increasingly fluid and disorienting.

On the other hand, globalization has given religious movements unprecedented tools for expansion. Modern communication technologies, social media, satellite television, and global migration networks allow religious ideas and organisations to spread far beyond their original contexts. Pentecostal networks, Islamist movements, and Hindu diaspora organisations all operate transnationally, dissolving the nation-state’s monopoly over religious authority.

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas captured this shift with his concept of the “post-secular society.” Habermas argued that modern democracies must adjust to the continued existence of religious communities in an increasingly secularised environment. This does not mean abandoning secular governance. It means recognising that the secular mentality must be open to the moral and cultural contributions of religious citizens, rather than dismissing them as relics of a pre-modern age.

Reimagining rationality: bridging the divide 🔗

If secularism is to have a future, it cannot simply reassert its old claims. It must reimagine the relationship between secular reason and religious conviction. This is where the most creative philosophical work is happening today.

The classical secular framework treated rationality as something that stands in opposition to faith. Enlightenment thinkers positioned scientific reason as the only legitimate basis for public discourse, relegating religious reasoning to the private sphere. But this binary has proven unsustainable. As Habermas recognised in his later work, the secular Enlightenment project has been partially derailed – reason has been co-opted by market interests and political instrumentalism, and it has not delivered the universal moral framework it once promised.

Habermas and the “translation” proposal 🔗

Habermas proposed a practical solution: a “translation process” in which religious arguments entering public debate are reframed in universally accessible language. This is not about silencing religious voices. It is about creating a shared vocabulary in which believers and non-believers can engage meaningfully. Religious citizens would translate their moral convictions into terms that secular citizens can evaluate, while secular citizens would recognise that religious traditions carry valuable moral insights that rational philosophy alone may not generate.

This approach demands effort from both sides. Religious communities must accept that in a pluralist democracy, their truth claims cannot simply be imposed through legislation. They must find ways to articulate their values in terms that resonate across worldview boundaries. At the same time, secular citizens must abandon the assumption that religious reasoning is inherently irrational or backward. The cognitive content of major religious traditions – ideas about justice, compassion, human dignity, and solidarity – remains a vital resource for democratic life.

Bhargava’s “critical respect” 🔗

From the Indian context, Bhargava offers a complementary concept: critical respect. This means the state and society should neither worship religion uncritically nor dismiss it contemptuously. Instead, they should engage with religious traditions selectively – supporting practices that promote dignity and equality while challenging those that perpetuate domination and oppression. This is a form of secularism that is neither hostile nor indifferent to religion, but actively and thoughtfully engaged with it.

The concept of critical respect also addresses one of secularism’s deepest failures: its inability to challenge intra-religious domination. Western secularism, focused on keeping the state separate from religion, has traditionally had little to say about injustices within religious communities – caste oppression, gender discrimination, restrictions on individual freedom of conscience. Indian secularism, at least in principle, gives the state standing to intervene in such matters, though the record of actual intervention remains contested.

What lies ahead for secularism? 🔗

The future of secularism does not lie in doubling down on strict separation or pretending that religion will simply fade away. The evidence of the past half-century makes that position untenable. Nor does the answer lie in abandoning secularism altogether and allowing religious authorities to govern public life – the risks of theocratic governance are well documented.

Instead, the most promising path forward involves what we might call plural secularism – a recognition that there is no single correct model for managing the relationship between religion and the state. Different societies, shaped by different histories, demographics, and power structures, will need different arrangements. The French model is not the Indian model, and neither is the American model. What they share is a commitment to certain core values – preventing religious domination, protecting individual liberty, and ensuring equal citizenship – but how those values are realised must remain flexible and contextual.

This also means taking seriously the voices of religious communities in shaping secular governance, rather than treating them as problems to be managed. It means acknowledging that the public-private divide was never as clean as liberal theory suggested, and that robust democratic life requires genuine dialogue across worldview boundaries – not just tolerance, but active engagement.

What do you think? Can secularism survive without fundamentally rethinking its relationship with religion – or is the very idea of a “neutral” public sphere an illusion rooted in one particular cultural history? And in deeply plural societies like India, is “principled distance” a workable ideal, or does it inevitably collapse into political opportunism?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
2. https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/secularism
3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10017520/
4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11208729/
5. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/posts/the-religious-secular-divide-and-the-global-displacement-crisis
6. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/states-religious-diversity-and-crisis-of-secularism-0/
7. https://www.epw.in/journal/2013/50/revisiting-secularisation-special-issues/reimagining-secularism.html
8. https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/hope-post-secular-age
9. https://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.2/ahmad.html
10. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2008.01017.x
11. https://academic.oup.com/book/26690/chapter/195482141