How the Indian concept of secularism is different from the western model of secularism? Discuss.

Both models deny the state an official religion, but they diverge sharply on the state–religion relationship.

The western model

• Built on a strict “wall of separation” — the US First Amendment bars establishment of religion; French laïcité pushes religion out of the public sphere entirely.
• Religion is privatised; the state neither aids nor reforms it, and rights attach to individuals, not communities.

How the Indian concept differs

• Principled distance, not separation: as Rajeev Bhargava argues, the Indian state keeps a flexible distance — it may engage with or intervene in any religion, provided it acts even-handedly.
• Reformist mandate: the Constitution empowers the state to reform religion — abolition of untouchability (Article 17), throwing open Hindu temples (Article 25(2)(b)), personal-law reforms from the Hindu Code Acts to the triple talaq law (2019).
• Equal respect (sarva dharma sambhava) rather than mutual exclusion: the state recognises festivals of all faiths and may support institutions of all religions.
• Community rights: minorities enjoy cultural and educational rights (Articles 29–30), and denominations manage their own religious affairs (Article 26) — a group dimension absent in the west.
• Anchors: Articles 25–28, the Preamble (“secular” inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976), and S.R. Bommai (1994), which held secularism a basic feature.

Indian secularism is thus an indigenous response to deep religious diversity — reform plus equal respect; its ongoing test is genuine even-handedness in practice.