Secularism, as the western philosophy and the experiences grew, emerged as a *socio-cultural movement.*
It is to be noted that while the West became culturally _Secular_, it established it's own separate church in order to do so.
So it must be drawn as a point by one an all, that SECULARISM does not mean Atheism, nor does it mean that Religion is superflous to the needs of the society .
Secularism, as a socio-cultural movement, came as a result of the fight with the predecessor social and governance conduct , called later by the social scientist as the SACRAMENTALISM.
Sacramentalism is the conduct where the Clergies controlled every aspect of life of the common man, and held powers to approve or disapprove the logic and reason as socially tenable . This is what the people found unacceptable, and protested against, as it was lacking methodical approach.
Infact , under Secularism, so much is the emphasis on the methods, that a separate Socio-religious cult started under the Church , called as the Methodist.
An example of conduct of the state agency under Sacramentalism is like the current scenario of the EVMs. The logic on whether an electronic device can be created hack-proof and tamper-proof , is being governed by closed body, challenging the publically available knowledge on this matter by the common people. The Election Commission is using farce , untenable arguments , such as that the EVMs are tamper-proof by way various on-spot exhibit-test and by randomisations done in use of the machine. The opposition party , the Indian National Congress, eventually had to criticise the Election Commission for creating ' _Sacred Chamber_ " in deciding and conducting the business.
Secularism, as a social conduct, is opposed to such a behavior by any state agency .
In India, the Secularism was adopted into the Constitution by an amendment. It is , therefore, not an original idea from the founding fathers .
The quirky problem is that there is no legal definition for the socio-cultural concept. But then the Constitution of a country contains the idea which may not be legally defined .
The tricky fact is that even the western countries where the movement originated , do not use the term in the Legal business ! And therefore there is no legal definition available.
Strangely, as the way the Indian Parliament adopted the Secularism, it did so understanding the meaning of secularism as _DHARM NIRPEKSH_ , intending to mean that _state agency not taking side with any religion_.
However the opposition of those times, particularly the one coming from the think-tank of the _Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh_, argued that the hindi translation was inagreeable as it truely means _State is religion free_ , the meaning of the _Dharm_ being Religion. They argued that the hindi translation should be _Panth NIRPEKSH_ , a correct term for intending to mean , _not taking sides with any religion_.
Even more strangely as it may happen , the ruling dispensations of India over the years , applied the idea of Secularism as a one-way ticket , giving quite a benefit to the minority community which emerged in India post the episode of Partition of India in 1947.
But yes, in the meanwhile, the government did hotly follow the line of Scientific Tamper, and did not seem to confuse itself out between what is largely called as the *Pseudo Science* and the *Science*.
Around 2010, the Supreme Court of India refused to provide any definition for the term Secularism.
Post May 2014, the opposition of those times has managed to reach and settle into the ruling governance, and now it is itself getting caught either promoting the *Sacramentalism* , or is confusing out between the creditably separate branches of knowledge described as the *Sciences* and the *Pseudo-Science*.
The government is hotly following the promotion of those branches of learning where the human logic has creditably decided to be lacking in coherent methodical thought-process, and therefore not be seriously taken as the *Sciences*. But the government is doing it under the claim that these branches of learning did not receive adequate backing from the previous government because of which their _Scientific development_ could not come around .
An example of the tricky situation that a sincere adherence to the idea of Secularism may bring to the Indian socio-cultural landscape is that eating (consumption) of flesh of animals such as the cow and the pigs is considered scientifically consistent and therefore it is expected of a SECULAR government to allow them !!! The flesh of certain animals is weighed out as prohibited by certain *secular* countries , such as the flesh of horses and dogs, on the Scientific rationale that they carry germs and decompose faster which may cause health problems to the consumers .
So, overall, the prevailing Scientific theories universally, that is India being spared, is that Cow and Pig can be consumed while Horses and Dogs may not be.
The practising of Secularism , in its truest terms, may therefore give certain outcomes which the prevailing society may not admit even today.
The another important point is that even the so called Secular Countries , such as the Ireland, have shown at times , the practising of non-secularm government policies at times .The Abortion debate is completely an anti-thesis to the notion of Secularism. But then, their Laws, in this particular concept, do not confuse away between the Socio-cultural concept and the legal definition . Therefore they do not have Secularism as a Constitutional idea, even when theirs is the country it has originated.
