Open Access Research Article
COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW OF SECULARISM
Published Paper
Article Details
COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW OF SECULARISM
AUTHORED
BY - JAYANTI DHINGRA
Secularism has been recognised by the
Constitution of India. The term secularism is used to define the separation of state
and religion. The practice of secularism has become a much - debated topic in
many countries. India has a diverse culture and contains
various sects in terms of race, religion, creed, language, etc. But the
application of secularism in India also needs to be analysed through looking at
the practice of secularism in other countries. The deeper understanding of
secularism is not confined to understanding and analysing the relationship
between the religion and the state. Instead, thinking comparatively about
secularism helps to analyse the social structure as a whole.
SECULARISM
IN INDIA
The Preamble[1]
of the Indian Constitution declares India as a secular state. This was added
through the 42 Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.[2]
Freedom of religion is also enshrined in the Constitution as a fundamental
right (Part III) under Articles 25-28[3].
The Constitution provides for freedom of conscience and prohibits
discrimination based on religion. It also prohibits state funding to support
any particular religious group. The Constitution also stipulates that endeavour
should be made to adopt Uniform Civil Code for all religions across the
country. The main principles using which the states work on are “Sarva
Dharma Sama Bhava” meaning “all religions are the same” and “Dharma
nirapekshata” meaning the removal of the state from the affairs of
religion.
There
have been many cases in which the debate on freedom of religion came up. In Aruna
Roy v Union of India[4],
the New Education Policy of 2002 was challenged
in the court as violative of Article 28. The court upheld NEP by emphasising on
the positive meaning of secularism and said that secularism can be implemented
if a policy tries to focus on a particular section of a religious group. In S.R Bommai v Union of India[5],
the Supreme Court held that secularism constitutes the ‘basic structure’ of the
Indian Constitution. It is also been recognised that the concept of secularism
is best expressed when linking the right to equality with right to freedom of
religion, protection of minority groups and is considered as a duty of the
State to protect this.[6] Article 25 guarantees the right to freedom of religion to every citizen
of India. The right under article 25(1) are not absolute, but subject to public
order, morality and health. Article 26 tends to protect the minority groups
from dominating groups. Kesavananda
Bharati v State of Kerala[7]
judgement is considered to be the
cornerstone of the idea of secularism in India. It ignites the fire of an
undying discourse on Indian secularism and its fundamental principles. The
court held that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the
Constitution.
There has been quite controversy over
allowing certain groups to enter the temples. In India Young Lawyers
Association v State of Kerala[8],
the Supreme Court held that prohibiting entry of women aged between 10-50 years
to Sabrimala temple is discriminatory. There is also tussle over usage of loud
speakers in temples. In Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman
Barkati v State of West Bengal[9], it was held by the Calcutta High
Court that it is a right for people to live in a noise-free environment and
therefore it upheld the restriction imposed by the police on the use of
loudspeakers during Azaan. The same was upheld in the case of Afzal Ansari and others v State of
Uttar Pradesh[10]
where
it held that using loudpeakers is not an essential practice in Islam.
Similarly, in the case of Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v.
K.K.R. Majestic[11], the court stated
“No religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the
peace of others nor does it preach that voice amplifiers or beating of drums
should used.”
There has also been a growing debate on Uniform Civil Code
(UCC). The British government submitted its report
in 1835 stressing the need for UCC. There was a need to develop a uniform
system of laws for all personal religions relating to marriage, inheritance,
etc. That is why personal laws were created. But disputes arose as to what
constitutes personal law. A debate about the code’s application has been going
on since the Constitution was drafted. Article 35 of the draft constitution,
i.e., the idea of UCC, was added to the Indian Constitution as Article 44[12],
a directive principle of state policy so that it could be incorporated in the
constitution when the country is ready for it. It requires the state to establish uniform set of laws for
all the religions to protect the secular character of the country. But it has
not been without problems. If the code is enacted, it will proceed to
simplify the laws that are currently highly segregated based on religion and
religious beliefs of citizens, like the Hindu Code bill, Sharia Law, and
others. “The code will simplify the complex laws around marriage ceremonies,
inheritance, succession, and adoptions making them one for all. The same civil law will then be applicable to
all citizens irrespective of their faith.”[13] India is a diverse country and it
can be difficult to form a uniform code for people of all the religions. It
could mean encroachment on the religious customs of people. It could also mean
subjugation of religious practices of marginalised groups by the dominant group
which will defeat the entire purpose of secularism that the UCC is purported to
save. But still, there is a growing popularity on UCC. In the case of Mohd Ahmed Khan
v Shah Bano Begum[14],
the court held that a “common civil code” should be adopted for national
integration. The same was reiterated in the case of Jordan Diengdeh v S.S.
Chopra[15], in which the Indian
Christian Marriage Act, 1872 was discussed. Goa is the only state in India in
which all communities have the same personal laws relating to marriage,
inheritance, divorce, etc. The state is governed by the Portuguese Civil Code
of 1867.[16]
There has been rising cases of religious
conversions in India. This has been particularly attractive to marginalised
groups, who have from centuries, faced discrimination from the hands of upper
caste people. The prevalence of caste system in India proves to be a challenge
to the secular identity of the Indian nation. During the British era, many people
began converting themselves to Christianity, as this meant being free from the
shackles of caste system. Due to the rising cases of proselytization, many
states have passed anti-conversion laws like the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.[17]
After
India’s independence in 1947 and following the India and Pakistan partition
conflict, which led to communal riots between Hindus and Muslim, presented a
tough challenge for India. To adjust the different diverse religious beliefs
into one system paved the way for the concept of secularism being enshrined in
the Indian Constitution. Its
commitment towards secularism was an important first step. But it was not
enough. As in Indian society, people have their identities tied to religion,
their religion defines their dignity and self-worth. The state had to make
space for the plurality of religious and cultural practices so that people of
different religions could participate in public life with harmony while also
upholding their beliefs. It gave the minorities the right to set up
religious and educational institutions. It is the duty of the government to
safeguard minorities from perpetration through their policies. But the
incidence of community riots like Muzzaffarnagar in 2013 and Gujarat riots in
2002, can be seen as examples of violence being perpetuated on minorities.
India has its own problems with diversity and religious beliefs, from religious
violence to the existence of caste. According to the USCIRF report 2022[18],
religious freedom conditions in India are taking a drastic turn downward, with
national and various state governments tolerating widespread harassment and
violence against religious minorities. Therefore, efforts should be made
on ensuring harmony in diversity.
SECULARISM IN UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA:
The
Indian Constitution borrowed many features from the American Constitution like
the power of judicial review, the preamble, the concept of fundamental rights,
etc. The concept of fundamental rights being borrowed also brought in the
concept of a secular state from the American Constitution and the idea of
freedom of religion. India and US are both pluralistic societies characterized
by religious diversity. They are both liberal democracies with secularism as a
foundational principle of public life. So, it will be helpful in knowing about
the concept of secular state in the American Constitution and how it has been
applied in the Indian context.
For
a long time, there has been a demand from the people in the U.S. regarding
freedom from religious persecution. This was brought forth in the First
Amendment of 1791. The First Amendment of the American Constitution reads as:
“Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances.” [19]
The
concept of freedom of religion states that one has the right to follow any
religion and the State can’t put any arbitrary restrictions on the practice of
religion. It is people’s choice to practice any religion.
The
‘establishment clause’ in the American Constitution relates to the separation
of Church and State. There will be no religion which will be established by the
State. President Jefferson declared in a letter written to the Baptists in
Danbut that the purpose of the First Amendment was to “create a wall of
separation between the Church and the State.”[20]
This clause prevents the government from establishing an official religion. The
‘strict separation’ between the Church and the State has some problems. The
government will absolutely not infringe upon anyone’s religion. But it is known
that there are frequent mentions of God in oaths, like in the Pledge of
Allegiance. In the Pledge of Allegiance[21],
there is a line saying “under God”. This one line was added to the Pledge of
Allegiance in 1954 by former U.S. President Eisenhower. “By the government
incorporating God into the Pledge of Allegiance, it is favouring religions with
one god and is neglecting people with no religion or those that have religions
with multiple gods. Most public schools are making it mandatory to stand for
the Pledge of Allegiance. Despite this, many public schools are becoming aware
of people with any or no religion. By changing Christmas parties to holiday
parties and morning prayers to the moment of silence public schools are
providing their students with more freedom of religion. While all these changes
are complying more with the First Amendment, activities like the Pledge of
Allegiance and a feeling of underlying religion block public schools from
supplying their students with complete religious freedom.” [22]
The
First Amendment says that the State cannot discriminate against anyone on the
basis of their religious sect. This was laid down in case of Board of
Education of Kiryas JoelVillage School District v Grumet[23],
decided in 1994. Here, the disabled children were given separate public school
districts. This was held to be arbitrary and was consequently struck down. There is a test, called the “Lemon
Test” which assesses the validity and the practice of legislations relating
to the first establishment clause. It is the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman.
[24] It raises the question
whether the state funding to non-secular schools violates the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that funding religious
educational institutions is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause, as
it states that “there should be no funding, financial support, sponsorships
towards any religious institution.” Here, the tripartite Lemon test was laid
down. It said,
1.
“Government’s action must have a
secular purpose.
2.
Government’s action must neither
advance nor prohibit religion.
3.
Government’s action must not result
in the excessive government involvement with religion.” [25]
If any of the above
points are violated, then the order is unconstitutional.
But sometimes, judges in the Supreme Court do surpass the
“wall of separation”. In the case of Bradfield v. Roberts, [26]
the court agreed with the Corporation to set up a hospital for treating poor
patients, although the Corporation was the follower of a particular religion.
As a
whole, the implementation of secularism has remained a problem in America. As
per Statista estimates, “ Although
only 24% of Americans go to church every week, 40% consider themselves as
highly religious.” [27] So,
while the Constitution allows for the separation of Church and State, it is
still mostly a Christian nation. Robert N. Bellah, an American Sociologist
wrote in his 1967 article ‘Civil Religion in America’ gives another
yet not ‘secular’ term to the political dimension of religion in the USA. He
analyses the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy (USA’s President from
1961-1963) as questioning as to “how a president is even justified to utter the
word ‘GOD’ in the system where Church is polarized against State.” He would
reach the conclusion that the U.S. does have a religious political dimension.
“Secular USA's constitution has not denied the political realm a religious
dimension. This becomes clear when we see examples like Americans observing
‘Sunday Holiday’, Church based marriages, and the American system possessing
many religious based institutions, orphanages, food banks etc. which bear
socio-political influence.” [28]
Despite all of this, it still lends
itself to a secular structure. Comparing the language of the Declaration of
Independence[29] and the Constitution, there
are references to religion in phrases like “Divine Providence” and “Nature’s
God” in the Declaration. But in the Constitution, it lends itself more to a
secular structure through the Establishment Clause, which is the main basis for
the separation of the Church and the State.
India borrowed the ‘preferential theory
of American model’, that is, the State will separate religion from Church. The
Constitution of India lays down the mixed approach in which every person is
entitled to due respect and recognition of their religions by the State and
that the State shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of
religion. The
Indian Constitution does not define the separation like that of the Church and
the State as in the U.S. Constitution. In U.S, as it is laid down in
case of Board of Education of Kiryas JoelVillage School District v Grumet, that
there will be no religious funding, but in India, it does allow for religious
instruction in schools through state funds (Article 28). [30]
There is also a difference between the two countries as regards to the clauses
mentioned in their constitutions. Article 25(1) of the Indian Constitution
states that,
"Subject
to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part
(Fundamental Rights) all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”[31]
In
India, the State can put reasonable restrictions on the freedom of conscience
and the freedom of religious practice. But in America, the freedom of
conscience is absolute and the right to religious practice can be interfered
with by the State. Therefore, the Indian Constitution did not adopt the idea of
"separation of church
and state." In India's case, religion is so constantly present in everyday
life that state has to intervene in religious matters to protect different
religious beliefs. Some of the acts passed to regulate religion in India are Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, etc. Therefore, both
the countries’ constitutions have a secular character, but there are still many
issues that need to be addressed with regards to minority groups and their
fundamental rights.
SECULARISM
IN INDONESIA:
In
terms of religion, India and Indonesia are connected in many ways. They are
home to multiple languages, ethnicities, cultural customs and religions. India
and Indonesia have divergent ways of dealing with their respective great diversity.
In India, religious family laws of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Parsis are
incorporated into a legal system and directly applied. “In Indonesia, by
contrast, the legal system is bifurcated: for family matters, Muslims are
subject to jurisdiction of Islamic courts where religious judges apply codified
Islamic law, while non- Muslims are subject to secular law applied by the civil
court.”[32]
In the Indonesian Constitution, Chapter XI relates to
Religion. According to Article 29 of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945,
·
“The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.
·
The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according
to his/her own religion or belief.” [33]
Indonesia has the highest percentage
of Muslims among its total population among countries of the world. “There are
over 200 million Muslims living in Indonesia, accounting for 13% of the world’s
Muslim population. Islam is also the dominant religion in the country with 88%
of the country’s population being Muslims.” [34]
Muslims are in majority in Indonesia, whereas in India, Muslims constitute a
minority. So, India and Indonesia have religions with the majority and minority religions reversed.
While
the Indonesian Constitution enshrines the principle of ‘belief in the one and
only one God’. But with such a high proportion of Muslims in the country, the
only one religion is usually seen to be Islam. Since Indonesia got independence
in 1945, it promoted the ideology of Pancasila (literally, “five principles”),
which comprises: “monotheism, civilized humanity, national unity, deliberative
democracy, and social justice.”[35]
It was first propounded by the first president of Indonesia, Sukarno, on June
1, 1945, on Indonesia’s independence. Article 156A of the Indonesian criminal
code, also known as the Blasphemy Law,[36]says that only six
religions are recognised and protected under the Indonesian Constitution. These
are - Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism.
This means that those religions who belong to the minority groups, that is, who
are not part of these six main religions, are the most vulnerable people facing
punishment. The people belonging to minority groups are considered to be
‘unorthodox’. Offenders can be imprisoned for up to five years.
Article 156?A prohibits
the expression of sentiments or acts:
1.
“That fundamentally and by their
nature are hostile, abuse or disgrace [penodaan] a religion practiced in Indonesia”.
2.
“With the intention that persons
should not practice any religion at all that is based on Belief in Almighty
God”.
A particularly important case which
enhanced the standing of the criminal justice system was Indonesia vs.
Suzethe Margaret[37] which brought forth the
problems faced by minority groups, especially Christians. The majority of the
Muslims in Indonesia are Sunni Muslim, but the country is also home to some
smaller Muslim groups such as Shi’a Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims, etc.[38]
Moreover, there are a lot of other minority groups who are not part of the six
main religions as written in the Blasphemy Law. They face religious
persecution. Most of the people are accused for blaspheming Islam. So even
though, Indonesia’s Constitution protects religious freedom, but members of
religious minorities and atheists are being subjected to discrimination.
Atheists are considered to be ‘godless’. These people are considered as going
against public harmony. The purpose of
the Blasphemy Law was supposed to create harmony and prevent religious
discrimination. But in reality, whatever is considered as going against the
beliefs and tenets of Islam, faces punishment and are not acknowledged by the
state. The Blasphemy Law and its subsequent implementation has raised several
human rights concerns over recent years amid an increasing number of cases and
restrictions of religious freedom. Churches that engage in evangelistic
outreach are constantly at risk of being targeted by Islamic extremist groups.
Christians and other religious minorities are forced to convert to Islam. As a result, the United States Commission on
International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) placed Indonesia on the State
Department’s Special Watch List (SWL) in 2022 to supervise the government which
allows “severe religious restrictions”.[39]
Even though there are many cases of
religious persecution in Indonesia, it also promotes the secular idea. The
Hindus are comprised of a mere 1.7% of the Indonesian population[40]
but there are many instances in which many Hindu gods and goddesses are
portrayed as symbols. In front of the Indonesian Embassy, there is a statue of Saraswati,
the Hindu goddess of learning. The national emblem of Indonesia is Garuda
Pancasila. Garuda is the bird of Lord Vishnu. Hanuman is
the official mascot of Indonesia’s military intelligence. At 1997 South-East
Asian Games conducted by Indonesia at Jakarta, the official mascot was Hanuman.
The National flag of Indonesia, "Sang Saka Merah-Putih" (The Sacred
Red and White) is designed according to a banner of the Majapahit Empire.
Hinduism and Buddhism were the dominant religions in the Majapahit Empire at
that time. “This can be seen in a province of Indonesia, Bali, where many
people have their origins from Hinduism or Buddhism. The epic of Mahabharata
and Ramayana are famous among its people.”[41]
So here, it can be seen the idea of a secular nation that Indonesia holds.
Despite being a Muslim majority country, there are many instances in which
Hindu traditions and Hindu mythological practices can be seen. This can be seen as a lesson for India, where
there are a lot of communal riots and tensions between Hindus and Muslims.
Following the 1947 partition of Indian subcontinent to India and Pakistan,
Hindu - Muslim communal violence is still evident in many parts of the
country. The Citizenship Act, 1955[42]
provides Indian citizenship only to non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, and Pakistan already residing in India. This potentially exposes millions
of Muslims to “detention, deportation and statelessness when the government
completes its planned nationwide National Register of Citizens.”[43]
The othering of non-Hindu people through legislations has turned India’s
diverse and pluralistic society into hostile state for religious communities
like Muslims, Christians, Adivasis, etc.
The Indian Supreme Court has devised the
“Essential Religious Practices Test” to determine the essentiality of religious
practices as integral to a particular religion. For example, in the recent
hijab case, the Karnataka High Court said that wearing hijab is not ‘essential
and integral to the practice of Islam’. While most women in India are demanding
the right to wear hijab and supporting that hijab is an ‘essential practice of
Islam’, the women in Indonesia are seeking freedom from hijab that is being
forced upon them. A similar incident happened in Indonesia when a Muslim
student was forced to wear a hijab by her teachers, which caused her severe
depression and anxiety[44]. This
incident brought forth the issue whether individuals can make their free
decisions in this country as part of their basic human rights. It showed
intolerance prevalent in Indonesia.
Even though both India and Indonesia
uphold and advocate religious freedom, there are still serious cases of
religious persecution being experienced by both the countries. As vibrant
democracies with ethnically diverse populations, both India and Indonesia need
to grapple with issues concerning religious majorities and minorities.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the
doctrine of secularism is applied differently in different countries. The
United States of America has adopted the concept of mutatis mutandis[45], i.e., the principle
of mutual non-interference, non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and
freedom of religious practice.[46] Therefore, western
secularism involves a strict separation of religion and the state. On the other
hand, in India, the state has taken a neutral position on religion. In the
United States, the stance of being secular is more of passive neutrality rather
than an active effort to rid religion of the public indefinitely.[47] Religion is a strong
way of expression in India; it is a part of our everyday life and has extreme
control over the social order. Thus, it made no sense to follow secularism the
way the USA does, in essence, the ‘separation of the church and the state’ was
not a viable choice. The state may support or participate in matters of faith
and religious affairs but at the same time, religion is separated from the
political, economic, social, and cultural spheres of the state. Even though
both USA and India follow the principles of secularism, the social and cultural
differences, i.e., the interactions within the society, make the application
very different.
Similarly
in Indonesia, although it is a Muslim majority country, the application of
secularism is very different in India. India doesn’t have a law similar to
Blasphemy Law, and therefore, lends itself to a secular culture. But the
situation of minority religions needs to be seen critically. To uplift people
from these religions, efforts are made by the government by implementing
affirmative actions. For example, the Tamil Nadu
government has provided Muslims and Christians with 3.5% seats each in the
arenas of education and employment. Kerala Public Service Commission has
a quota of 12% for Muslims.[48]
All these measures are a way of reverse discrimination which helps to uplift
and support minorities.
To
ensure religious freedom, the constitution makers went forward to let citizens follow
religion-based laws. While criminal laws are equally applicable to all citizens
regardless of their religion, some civil laws are different for people of
different religions, such as ‘personal laws.’ Personal laws are laws that are
unique to a particular group of people based on their caste, religion, faith,
and/or beliefs and are formed after careful research of traditions and
religious texts. Personal law in Hinduism and Islam is based on and guided by
ancient religious scriptures. Hinduism applies personal laws to cases involving
legal matters such as inheritance, adoption, succession, marriage, etc.
Personal laws, which have their roots in the Quran, are applicable in Islam
regarding inheritance, wills, succession, legacies, marriage, wakfs, dowry,
guardianship, divorce, gifts, and pre-emption.[49]
The
question which comes up in one’s mind is that, to what extent can neutrality be
practiced in a country in which some religions allow or even mandate certain
practices such as child marriage, untouchability, polygamy, and so on. Do we
make all the citizens follow the same laws regardless of their religion? This
option can lead to a lack of religious freedom and the possibility of one
religion dominating others. Or should we allow different religions to follow
their own religion-based laws? This option will ensure religious freedom but it
can meddle with the rights and individuality of individuals. With time, the views about
religion and religious freedom are changing. Religious freedom is constantly
under attack due to rising religious extremism in the world. It is time that
freedom of religion is considered to be a human right and efforts are made to
protect it.
Eleanor Roosevelt, former First Lady of
the United States, once said “At all times, day by day, we have to continue
fighting for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom from want- for
these are things that must be gained in peace as well as in war.”[50]
So, the fight for religious freedom is still going on and it is high time now
that those countries who are considered as secular, must commit to it, keeping
in mind the needs of minority groups as well.
[1] INDIA CONST.
Preamble
[2] 42 Constitutional Amendment Act,
1976, 42 (India)
[3]
INDIA CONST. art. 25-28
[4]
Aruna Roy v Union of India, AIR
2002 SC 3176
[6]
M. Ismail Faruqui v Union of India, AIR 1995 SC
605 A
[9]
Moulana Mufti Syed Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v State of West Bengal, 1998 SCC
OnLine Cal 73
[10] Afzal Ansari and others v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020 SCC OnLine All 592
[11] Church of God (Full Gospel) in India v. K.K.R.
Majestic, (2000) 7 SCC 282
[12]
INDIA CONSTI, art. 44
[13]
BUSINESS STANDARD, https://www.business-standard.com/about/what-is-uniform-civil-code
(last visited Oct. 19, 2022)
[18] Religious Freedom
Conditions in India | USCIRF, Uscirf, https://www.uscirf.gov/countries/india (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[19] U.S. CONST. AMEND. I
[20] Mount Steve, US
Constitution, https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html#:~:text=He%20was%20a%20staunch%20believer%20in%20the%20separation,copy%20of%20the%20Danbury%20letter%20is%20available%20here (last visited
October 21, 2022)
[21] "The Pledge of
Allegiance", Ushistory https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm?vm=r (last visited
October 21, 2022)
[22] "Freedom of
Religion | Case Study Template", A Case Study. https://acasestudy.com/freedom-of-religion/#:~:text=Biased%20by%20their%20own%20religion%2C%20many%20decisions%20made,the%20saying%20%E2%80%9CIn%20God%20We%20Trust%E2%80%9D%20on%20U (last visited October 24, 2022)
[25] Richard L. Pacelle
Jr, "Lemon Test | The First Amendment Encyclopedia", Mtsu,https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/834/lemon-test (last visited
October 24, 2022)
[27]Erin Duffin, Church
attendance of Americans 2021 | Statista, Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/ (last visited October 24, 2022)
[28]
Robert Bellah, Civil Religion in America, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, http://www.robertbellah.com/articles_5.htm?&$NMW_TRANS$=ext (last visited October 24, 2022)
[29] Declaration of
Independence: A Transcription | National Archives, Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript (last visited October 24, 2022)
[30] INDIA CONST, art 28
[31] INDIA CONST. art.
25(1)
[32] YÜKSEL SEZGIN and
MIRJAM KÜNKLER, Regulation of "Religion" and the
"Religious": The Politics of Judicialization and Bureaucratization in
India and Indonesia, Jstor, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43908509.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A9b1ef548f9c2cefed320e6d40c3b30f0&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=search-results (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[33] Indonesia 1945
(reinst. 1959, rev. 2002) Constitution - Constitute, Constituteproject, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002?lang=en (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[34] John Misachi, Islam
In Indonesia, Islam In Indonesia -
WorldAtlas (April 25, 2017), https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/islam-in-indonesia.html (last visited October 25, 2022)
[35] Indonesia 1945
(reinst. 1959, rev. 2002) Constitution - Constitute, Constituteproject, https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002?lang=en (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[36]
Indonesia-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-1981-eng.pdf, Icj, https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Indonesia-Code-of-Criminal-Procedure-1981-eng.pdf (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[37] Andreas Harsono,
Indonesian Woman Tried for Blasphemy Over Mosque Incident, HRW, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/10/11/indonesian-woman-tried-blasphemy-over-mosque-incident (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[38] Supra
note 34
[39] USCIRF Releases 2022
Annual Report with Recommendations for U.S. Policy | USCIRF, Uscirf, https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/releases-statements/uscirf-releases-2022-annual-report-recommendations-us-policy (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[40] Ajay Mankotia, What India can learn from
Indonesia on religious tolerance, DAILYO, https://www.dailyo.in/politics/indonesia-hindus-islam-intolerance-minorities-religion-sukarno-mahabharata-ramayana-ganesha-secularism-7852 (last visited
October 27, 2022)
[41] Ibid
[43] Supra note 18
[44] Siddhi
Somani, Islamists in Indonesia force schoolgirls to wear hijab: How the symbol
of oppression is first mainstreamed, then becomes a mandate, https://www.opindia.com/2022/09/islamists-in-indonesia-forcing-schoolgirls-to-wear-hijab-howburqa-first-mainstreamed-normalized-then-becomes-a-mandate/ (last visited
October 25, 2022)
[45] U.S. CONST. AMEND. I
[46] C.H. Alexandrowicz, The Secular State in India and In the United
States, 2, JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE, 273, 274, (1960).
[47]
Jordan Sanderson, Legal Secularism and Politics, 8 CORE 90, 104.
[48] S. Viswanathan, A step forward, FRONTLINE (Oct. 18, 2022),
https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/article30193437.ece
[49] Faizan Mustafa, Legal Pluralism in Personal Law, THE
HINDU (Oct. 21, 2022)
[50] Eleanor Roosevelt, "My Day, April 15,
1943," The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Digital Edition (2017), accessed 6/20/2023, https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/myday/displaydocedits.cfm?_y=1943&_f=md056471.
Article Information
COMPARATIVE LAW REVIEW OF SECULARISM
Authors: JAYANTI DHINGRA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/22
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.