India 's The Indian State

“India has never been a symbol of unity of Hindu-Muslim civilization. It is not possible for the British Government to create homogeneity between Hindu and Muslim culture and civilization as the two systems are distinctively opposed to each other. There is no way other than the partition of India”

There have been several historically substantial legislative acts passed after World War II. The most significant acts of these were acts that were aimed at three main objectives; to eliminate racial discrimination within the country, to bring equality among the American citizens, and to provide all Americans with the freedom to vote, an integral right afforded to individuals by the Constitution. These were issues that engulfed the majority of peoples concerns at the time, and therefore needed to be taken care of. In the coming paragraphs I will identify and discuss three of these acts and how they came to be and how they have affected the American society to date.

q. This shows that Nationalism still plays a large role in keeping India together, regardless of their diverse religious identities. Secularism

Firstly, it advocated for severe restrictions from Catholic nations. Secondly, it called for a limitation of political office to Native Americans. Thirdly, it called for a compulsory twenty-one years before an immigrant gaining citizenship. Fourthly, it required a restricting of public school teachers against protestants, and finally, restricting the sale of alcohol (Aron, 2006).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The state can't compel supported religious action on its nationals by constraining them to pick amongst participation and their own particular intrinsically secured rights.

legislation that originally prohibited the federal government and the states from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless “application of the burden…is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that…interest.”

respect to religion: the right to be free from government-imposed religion and a right to practice

So now we raise the question, what differentiates a religion-based government versus a secular one? In order to understand this question we must first take into account that there are no universally accepted guidelines for what constitutes a religion. However, there tend to be designated behaviors that are synonymous with religion such as specific practices, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, ethics, organizations, and the aspects that tend to be on the unquantifiable side such as supernatural, transcendental, or any spiritual elements. Taking these general standards into consideration, we can compare it with the definition of what a secular society entails. One manifestation of secularism is “asserting the right to be free from religious

As Peter Berger (1967) explained religion, it is a sacred canopy under which the entirety of life is explained and regulated. Secularization theory as explained by Weber holds that modernity challenges this sacred canopy through two major ways: increased cultural and structural pluralism and increased primacy of economic pursuits (Emerson and Hartman, 2006:129). With globalisation accelerating in the post Cold War era, causing mass migration across borders, increased interstate interaction and huge growth in the global financial market, it was predicted that religious influence would be relegated to the private sectors of social life by ripping the sacred canopy, and leaving people with, at best, sacred umbrellas (Smith 1998). Despite this, what secularization theory did not anticipate is that the demystification of the world provided within it the seeds both for the re-mystification of the world and resistance to the demystification (Berger, 1992:1). Hence the world today, with some exceptions, is as furiously religious as it ever was, in some places more so than ever (Berger, 1999:8). Since the 1970s there has been a particular rise in religious fundamentalist movements, as signalled by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which led to the establishment of the first Islamic State. As Almond et al note, fundamentalist movements have risen to the highest levels of power in Sudan in 1993, Afghanistan and India in 1996, and in India again

“If I were a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern!” (Gandhi). When debating the word “secularism”, many people will dispute that the public has become less religious and stopped believing in God. They assume that a secular government is an anti-religious one: a government that aims to reject religions. However, thinking deeply in the meaning of “secularism” will lead us in another path. In fact, “secularism is the belief that religion should not be

In this essay I hope to look at the issues of conflict in South Asia focusing on India and in particular the continuing Hindu-Muslim tensions, and look at possible reasons for the continuing conflict which appears to have escalated since the withdrawal of British Rule from India. Multiple events had shaped the Indian subcontinent with

On July 12, 2007, for the first time in American history the Senate session that day was opened by a prayer; unlike any other prayer, it was given by a Hindu priest. At first sight, it would seem as though the ideals designed by the framers of the Constitution were alive and well; the pluralization of the United States of America, the land of freedom of religion, and the right to worship without persecution. However, the Christian right wing religious group Operation Save America entered the Senate floor and began to heckle Rajan Zed, the Hindu priest, perpetuating that Hinduism is an “abomination”, as Hindus do not worship “The lord Jesus Christ”. This leads us to ask the question: Is America a land of religious pluralism, or is it a

“I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion.” (Gandhi). When debating the word “secularism”, many people will dispute that the public has become less religious and stopped believing in God. They assume that a secular government is an anti-religious one; a government that aims to reject religions. In fact, “secularism is the belief that religion should not be part of the affairs of the state or part of public education.”(YourDictionary). In other words, secularism is the belief that government and religion don’t influence

A land already divided (to the point of even having been broken up) on religion lines, the last thing one needs in the country is the existence of a law or a body of laws, that actively lay down a different set of rules for people, on the basis of their religion. The Shah Bano case stands as evidence of the unfairness that can arise without a clear-cut separation between the judiciary and the legislation. One set of women (as illustrated in this case, followers of the Islamic religion in India) would have to give up certain rights that were granted to other women in similar circumstances, on the basis of something as arbitrary as the religion that they had been born

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.