I oppose this statement. Secularism does not threaten religious identity; rather, it protects it by promoting religious freedom and equality. However, secularism does undermine certain negative forms of religious identity—those that are dogmatic, violent, fanatical, exclusivist, and those that foster hatred of other religions. The real question is whether what is undermined is intrinsically worthy or unworthy. Thus, secularism allows individuals to have a religious identity while opposing harmful manifestations of it.

I support this statement. Secularism is fundamentally against institutionalised religious domination and promotes religious freedom and equality. It opposes the domination of one religious group by another and supports state intervention to ensure equality within religious groups. For instance, the state can intervene to ensure the entry of Dalits in temples, addressing inequality within a religious group. Thus, secularism is against both inter-religious and intra-religious inequality.

I oppose this statement. While secularism may have Western origins, this does not make it unsuitable for India. There are millions of things in India today—from trousers to the internet and parliamentary democracy—that have Western origins, yet they are accepted and used. Just as Europeans do not reject the concept of zero because it was invented in India, India need not reject secularism merely due to its Western-Christian origin. The suitability of a concept depends on its relevance and application, not its geographical origin.