In an age where ideologies have become labels and labels have become battle cries, few words have undergone such a dramatic transformation as the term secularism. Once a beacon of hope for coexistence and mutual respect, secularism has today become one of the most misunderstood—and in some cases—misused ideas of our time. The most alarming trend? Secularism itself evolving into a silent form of extremism.
The Birth of Secularism: A Noble Idea
The word secular traces its roots to the Latin word saeculum, meaning "worldly" or "temporal," as opposed to the spiritual. In modern political discourse, secularism was first formally defined by British thinker George Jacob Holyoake in 1851. He envisioned it as a principle advocating the separation of religion from state affairs, allowing citizens of all faiths—and of none—to co-exist under a neutral state.
The Oxford English Dictionary included the term later in the 19th century, describing secularism as:
"The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions."
In its ideal form, secularism meant:
- Equal respect for all religions
- Neutral governance, uninfluenced by religious pressures
- A shared public space governed by reason, not dogma
- Protection of individual freedom of belief
But as we often see in history, when ideals are filtered through power, politics, and public sentiment, they begin to erode—and mutate.
The Decline: When Secularism Becomes Selective
In today's socio-political climate, particularly in democracies like India and parts of the West, secularism is no longer about equal distance from all religions. It has morphed into selective silence, where certain forms of religious extremism are condemned loudly while others are ignored, downplayed, or even justified.
This selective morality is not just unethical—it is dangerous.
Take, for instance, the Udaipur killing of 2022. A tailor, Kanhaiya Lal, was publicly beheaded in broad daylight by two men who justified the act on religious grounds. They filmed the killing, shared it, and vowed to repeat it. And yet, the usual chorus of liberal intellectuals, artists, and human rights advocates—who are swift to return awards and hold candlelight vigils—remained eerily silent.
In contrast, had the perpetrators been from the majority community, the reaction would have been swift, loud, and continuous—nationwide protests, prime-time debates, and global coverage.
Such inconsistency erodes trust in institutions, be it the media, academia, or civil society.
The New Face of Extremism
Secularism was meant to be a safeguard against religious domination. Ironically, it is now being used to:
- Justify silence on religiously-motivated violence
- Attack majority concerns as inherently communal
- Promote ideological loyalty over objective truth
- Push political correctness to the point of absurdity
And herein lies the most troubling revelation:
Secularism: The Silent Extremism of Our Times
What makes this more dangerous is that secularism itself has now evolved into a kind of extremism — but not the loud, aggressive kind. It is a quiet, intellectual, and often institutionalized extremism that punishes dissent, marginalizes majority voices, and cloaks ideological agendas under the guise of liberalism. When secularism starts demanding selective sensitivity, unequal justice, and ideological conformity, it loses its essence and becomes just another form of authoritarianism—only more subtle.
This form of extremism is harder to identify, but just as corrosive as religious fanaticism. It doesn't bomb markets or burn buses—but it manipulates narratives, silences victims, and normalizes double standards.
Case Study: West Bengal vs Manipur
In 2023, visuals from Manipur—where women were paraded naked during ethnic conflict—shook the conscience of the nation. Rightly, it led to outrage, media coverage, and legal action.
But around the same time, similar communal violence in West Bengal went under the radar. Victims alleged sexual violence and attacks by mobs from another religious group.
Yet there was no national outcry. No debates. No award returns.
This selective outrage doesn't protect secularism—it undermines it. It tells the victim, "Your pain doesn't fit our agenda."
Case Study: France’s Charlie Hebdo vs India’s Speech Crisis
When Charlie Hebdo published caricatures in France, it triggered violent attacks, but the French government stood by the magazine’s right to free speech.
In contrast, in India, individuals making similar remarks—however insensitive—are often met with mob threats, violence, and legal cases. And secular commentators often justify this, saying, "They should have known better."
Isn't that the very justification extremists give for violence—"You provoked us"?
Freedom of expression, a pillar of secularism, is being replaced with freedom of expression, but only for some.
A Moral Crisis, Not Just Political
This isn’t merely a political issue—it’s a moral one. When a nation starts weighing justice on the scales of religion, community, or vote bank, it chips away at the foundations of democracy.
True secularism isn’t about being anti-religious or pro-minority. It’s about being equally intolerant to all forms of intolerance.
The Gandhian vision of Sarva Dharma Sambhav—equal respect for all religions—is being replaced by Sarva Dharma Sahanubhuti—selective sympathy based on convenience.
Is Secularism Still Relevant?
Absolutely. A diverse nation like India, or any pluralistic society, needs a secular framework to survive and flourish. But what we need is:
- Honest secularism, not convenient silence
- Equal secularism, not one-sided appeasement
- Brave secularism, not political cowardice
We must call out all extremism—be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or atheist. We must ensure justice is served not based on hashtags, but on truth. We must bring back balance to a term that was once meant to unify.
Because when secularism turns selective, it stops being secularism—it becomes strategy.
And when strategy replaces sincerity, justice dies quietly in the background.
Conclusion: Time to Reclaim the Idea
It's time for thinkers, writers, journalists, and ordinary citizens to reclaim secularism—not as a political tool, but as a moral compass.
Let’s stop asking, “Who did it?” and start asking, “Was it wrong?”
Let’s replace silence with sincerity, and agenda with accountability.
Because a society that remains neutral toward injustice is never truly secular.
It is simply—afraid.
