The 20th century witnessed a socialist challenge to religious guardianship of public morals. In Western Europe (unlike socialist Eastern Europe) this challenge came not through a disavowal of religion, but through a rejection of the establishmentarian role played by religious leaders. Religion was sought to be excluded from having a monopoly over the setting of the ethical agenda, while retaining its role in private life and in the community. This took different forms: in France, the Church was explicitly separated from the State. In Britain this did not happen, but the Labour movement emphasised the importance of secularism in the public domain, even while reaffirming the positive role of religion in private life. India adopted the French relationship between the State and Religion, and for 50 years we have had secularism, guaranteed by the Constitution, and upheld by deeply religious (and astrological) politicians and bureaucrats. Certainly there has been moral decline in Britain, no less than in India, but does the root cause have to do with the decline of the role of religion in the public sphere? I think not. Corrupt, decadent, depraved and venal holders of public office have not generally been atheists, either in Europe, or in India, or anywhere else. Revolutions based on religious fundamentalism have not brought about an enhancement of public virtue, in South America, Iran, Afghanistan. The Confucian ethic has not helped Korea and Japan much on this count.