The word 'secular' means 'worldly'. Literally speaking, its domain contrasts with the spiritual or transcendental aspects of a person's life. However, the term "secular" does not mean anti-religious, nor does it imply irreligiosity. In no sense does it bear any animosity or grudge towards aspects of life that one considers religious or spiritual. Simply stated, the secular and the religious reflect two different spheres of life, with the possibility of intersection between them. A person's secular concerns relate to his material and earthly life, and include transient subjects such as career, finances, and social relations. They encompass practical knowledge, inter alia, of science, arts, and engineering.
In the realm of politics, that is, in the management of community affairs, or at the highest level where sovereignty predominantly inheres, in the affairs of the State—the term secular connotes keeping the spiritual–religious sphere (and their reciprocal influences) at an arm's length from the governance of the State. Whether these domains are separated by an impervious wall or an osmotic barrier depends on the nature of the polity envisaged in a State's constitutional law.
In modern times, the emergence and normative appeal of the secular state have been shaped by historical experience specifically, by the grave consequences that followed from the absence of secular governance. The principle of secularism has, in this sense, been sanctified through a baptism of blood, most vividly illustrated in the annals of medieval Europe and, closer to us in both time and space, in the partition of the Indian subcontinent. These experiences underscored the destructive potential of religiously inflected state power and reinforced the necessity of institutional separation between religion and the affairs of the state.
