The Pros And Cons Of Secularism In Sri Lanka

1710 Words7 Pages
Rights which are believed to belong to every person can be known as Human Rights. According to the United Nations “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status.” Human rights which are recognized in a constitution of a particular state is known as the Fundamental Human Rights of that state. Therefore fundamental human rights differ from state to state. In the international context Human Rights can be recognized with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESR). When we consider the Sri Lankan context in both the 1947…show more content…
Therefore Sri Lanka is not a secular state where as in India under the amendment made for the preamble of Constitution in 1976 it recognizes India as a secular state. Out of the south Asian countries only India is a secular state. But secularism in India differs from both secularism in United States which completely separate State and Church and also it is different to the Secularism concept in France which relegate religion entirely to the private life. In India there is no state religion. And it treats all religion equally. Where as in the context of Sri Lanka, Buddhism has been granted the foremost place while protecting the rights of all other…show more content…
There by claiming she has been violated the right to freedom of the religion. Buddhism is the religion of country’s majority ethnic Sinhalese and Buddhist tattoos are seen culturally insensitive. Hence the magistrate court held the claims valid and ordered her deportation and asked to hold her at an Immigration detention center until the deportation. This decision gave a clear idea to the public that no person shall wear or tattooed religious symbols from which the right to religious freedom of the public gets affected.
When analyzing the position of India it is evident that the term ‘Religion’ has not been defined in the constitution and it is hard to give a rigid definition. The supreme court of India has in various cases tried to define religion. In the case of S.P. Mittal v Union of India and others Supreme Court stated that Religion is not defined in constitution and it is incapable to give a stable definition. Further they identified that through the background of provisions in constitution and in light of judicial precedents that Religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief
Get Access