speech on religion in india

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

The term Hinduism

• General nature of Hinduism
• Veda, Brahmans, and issues of religious authority
• Doctrine of atman - brahman
• Karma, samsara, and moksha
• Dharma and the three paths
• Ashrama s: the four stages of life
• Indo-European sources
• Other sources: the process of “Sanskritization”
• Indigenous prehistoric religion
• Religion in the Indus valley civilization
• Survival of archaic religious practices
• The Vedic period (2nd millennium–7th century bce )
• Challenges to Brahmanism (6th–2nd century bce )
• The rise of the major sects: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism
• The development of temples
• The spread of Hinduism in Southeast Asia and the Pacific
• Questions of influence on the Mediterranean world
• The rise of devotional Hinduism (4th–11th century)
• The challenge of Islam and popular religion
• Temple complexes
• Sectarian movements
• Bhakti movements
• Brahmo Samaj
• Ramakrishna Mission
• Theosophical Society
• Aurobindo Ashram
• Other reform movements
• Mahatma Gandhi
• The religious situation after independence
• Hinduism outside India
• Importance of the Vedas
• The components of the Vedas
• The Rigveda
• The Yajurveda and Samaveda
• The Atharvaveda
• The Brahmanas and Aranyakas
• Cosmogony and cosmology
• Ethical and social doctrines
• The sacred: nature, humanity, and God
• Vedic and Brahmanic rites
• The Upanishads
• The Vedangas
• Dharma-sutras and Dharma-shastras
• Smriti texts
• The Ramayana
• The Mahabharata
• The Bhagavadgita
• Myths of time and eternity
• Stories of the gods
• Vaishnavism
• Narratives of culture heroes
• Myths of holy rivers and holy places
• Philosophical sutras and the rise of the Six Schools of philosophy
• Shaiva Agamas
• Vaishnava Samhitas
• Shakta Tantras
• Nature of Tantric tradition
• Tantric and Shakta views of nature, humanity, and the sacred
• Tantric ritual and magical practices
• Tantric and Shakta ethical and social doctrines
• Vernacular literatures
• Divination, spirit possession, and healing
• Women’s religious practices
• Samskara s: rites of passage
• Daily offerings
• Other private rites
• Temple worship
• Shaiva rites
• Vaishnava rites
• Sacred times and festivals
• Social structure
• Social protest
• Renunciants and the rejection of social order
• Sectarian symbols
• Yantra and mandala
• Lingam and yoni
• Visual theology in icons
• Religious principles in sculpture and painting
• Religious organization of sacred architecture
• Theater and dance
• Hinduism and religions of Indian origin
• Hinduism and Islam
• Hinduism and Christianity
• Diasporic Hinduism

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• HistoryWorld - History of Hinduism
• McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia - Hinduism or Hindu Religion
• World Religious and Spirituality Project - Hinduism
• IndiaNetzone - Hinduism
• World History Encyclopedia - Hinduism
• Texas State Historical Association - Handbook of Texas - Amarillo, Texas, United States
• Hinduism - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Hinduism - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Recent News

Hinduism , major world religion originating on the Indian subcontinent and comprising several and varied systems of philosophy , belief, and ritual . Although the name Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium bce or possibly earlier. If the Indus valley civilization (3rd–2nd millennium bce ) was the earliest source of these traditions, as some scholars hold, then Hinduism is the oldest living religion on Earth. Its many sacred texts in Sanskrit and vernacular languages served as a vehicle for spreading the religion to other parts of the world, though ritual and the visual and performing arts also played a significant role in its transmission. From about the 4th century ce , Hinduism had a dominant presence in Southeast Asia , one that would last for more than 1,000 years.

In the early 21st century, Hinduism had nearly one billion adherents worldwide and was the religion of about 80 percent of India ’s population. Despite its global presence, however, it is best understood through its many distinctive regional manifestations .

The term Hinduism became familiar as a designator of religious ideas and practices distinctive to India with the publication of books such as Hinduism (1877) by Sir Monier Monier-Williams, the notable Oxford scholar and author of an influential Sanskrit dictionary. Initially it was an outsiders’ term, building on centuries-old usages of the word Hindu. Early travelers to the Indus valley , beginning with the Greeks and Persians, spoke of its inhabitants as “Hindu” (Greek: ‘indoi ), and, in the 16th century, residents of India themselves began very slowly to employ the term to distinguish themselves from the Turks. Gradually the distinction became primarily religious rather than ethnic, geographic, or cultural.

Since the late 19th century, Hindus have reacted to the term Hinduism in several ways. Some have rejected it in favor of indigenous formulations. Others have preferred “ Vedic religion ,” using the term Vedic to refer not only to the ancient religious texts known as the Vedas but also to a fluid corpus of sacred works in multiple languages and an orthoprax (traditionally sanctioned) way of life. Still others have chosen to call the religion sanatana dharma (“eternal law”), a formulation made popular in the 19th century and emphasizing the timeless elements of the tradition that are perceived to transcend local interpretations and practice. Finally, others, perhaps the majority, have simply accepted the term Hinduism or its analogues , especially hindu dharma (Hindu moral and religious law), in various Indic languages .

Since the early 20th century, textbooks on Hinduism have been written by Hindus themselves, often under the rubric of sanatana dharma . These efforts at self-explanation add a new layer to an elaborate tradition of explaining practice and doctrine that dates to the 1st millennium bce . The roots of Hinduism can be traced back much farther—both textually, to the schools of commentary and debate preserved in epic and Vedic writings from the 2nd millennium bce , and visually, through artistic representations of yaksha s (luminous spirits associated with specific locales and natural phenomena) and naga s (cobralike divinities), which were worshipped from about 400 bce . The roots of the tradition are also sometimes traced back to the female terra-cotta figurines found ubiquitously in excavations of sites associated with the Indus valley civilization and sometimes interpreted as goddesses.

The U.S. Just Released a Scathing Report on Religious Freedom in India

I n India, police dressed in plainclothes in the Western state of Gujarat flogged four Muslim men accused of injuring Hindu worshippers during a festival last October. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, the government bulldozed Muslim-owned homes and shops last April. And throughout 2022, police arrested Christians accused of forcefully converting others and even aided crowds as they disrupted worship services.

These are just a few of the many damning instances highlighted in the U.S. Department’s newly released Religious Freedom Report for 2022. The report annually surveys religious freedoms around the world and aims to provide a “fact-based, comprehensive view of the state of religious freedom” in nearly 200 countries and territories.

Read More: A Crucial State Election Loss Underscores Modi’s Waning Grasp in South India

At an event in Washington on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken told reporters that the report includes “the rise of very troubling trends.” Among its key findings, the report calls out several countries including India, China, Russia, and Iran for violations of explicitly targeting members from certain faith communities. Although Blinken did not specifically mention India in his speech, a detailed section of the report—as well as a background briefing that followed— highlighted the continual targeted attacks against religious minorities in India. An anonymous spokesperson at the briefing also noted how India currently ranks eighth among 162 countries for the highest risk of mass killing, according to a project by the U.S. Holocaust museum.

The report’s release comes a month before the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to Washington for his first official state visit , which will include a state dinner at the White House. He has previously visited the U.S. on five other occasions classified as “working visits.”

What did the report find in India?

India, the world’s most populous country with 1.4 billion people, is known to be both diverse and devout, comprising many different faiths including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. The Indian Constitution declares the country as secular and the last Census conducted in 2011 revealed that 80% of the Indian population is Hindu, while 14% is Muslim and 2% is Christian.

The report expresses a number of concerns over India’s religious freedom. It highlights how religious conversion is legally prohibited in multiple states, how religious minorities are attacked on a regular basis, and how Muslims have alleged systemic discrimination—including “cow vigilantism,” which often results in attacks for alleged cow slaughter or beef trade.

At Monday’s press briefing, a senior State Department official told reporters how the report outlines “continued, targeted attacks against religious communities” that promote “dehumanizing rhetoric” and “hate-fueled violence.” The official mentioned the international community’s response to the situation in India, including from the U.S. Holocaust museum and several human rights organizations.

When asked how the U.S. would address these concerns with the Indian government ahead of Modi’s visit next month, the official told reporters, “We’re continuing to encourage the government to condemn violence and hold accountable and protect all groups who engage in rhetoric that’s dehumanizing towards religious minorities and all groups who engage in violence against religious communities and other communities in India.”

Has the Indian government responded?

The Indian government responded to the report by issuing an official statement from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which stated that “such reports continue to be based on misinformation and flawed understanding.”

It said that “motivated and biased commentary” by some U.S. officials continued to undermine further the credibility of such reports, adding that it would continue to have “frank conversations” on “issues of concern” with the U.S. government.

Last year the country was singled out by the Secretary of State, who referred to “rising attacks on people and places of worship” in India. The remarks led to a furious response from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, which accused Washington of practicing “vote bank politics” in “international relations.”

New Delhi has also pushed back against criticism in other instances, especially from the bipartisan U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) which, since 2020, has advised the State Department to put India on a blacklist over its record. USCIRF once again made the recommendation earlier this month when it released its annual report on May 1st, which the State Department has so far rejected.

Despite the reports, the State Department does not currently officially designate the country as a “Country of Particular Concern.”

Read More: Deepika Padukone Is Bringing the World to Bollywood

Why does the U.S. State Department compile this report?

By law, the State Department is required to submit a report on international religious freedoms annually to Congress. The law was signed into effect by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1998 to promote religious freedom around the world. The report is prepared by the office of International Religious Freedom in Washington and based on information collected from government officials, religious groups, NGOs, human rights monitors, media reports, and others both domestically and abroad. The report states that the department’s guiding principle is ensuring that all information is presented as “objectively, thoroughly, and fairly as possible.”

What were the report’s key takeaways in other countries?

The report unveils how governments use anti-conversion, blasphemy and apostasy laws around the world to “justify harassment against those who don’t follow their particular interpretation of a theology,” Blinken told reporters. Religious violations include the targeting of faith-based groups in Russia against those who speak out against the war in Ukraine; the imprisonment and exile of Muslim Uyghurs in China, as well as the repression of Tibetan Buddhists, Christians and Falun Gong practitioners; and attacks against those who do not toe the Taliban’s “narrow theological line” in Afghanistan.

Blinken also spoke of Islamic theocracy in Iran, including draconian laws and punishments for religious offenses, as well as the ongoing wave of protests led by women against compulsory hijab, inspired by the death of Mahsa Amini last September. The report mentions how Iranian forces have killed 512 protestors, including 69 children, arrested 19,204 individuals and executed at least one person linked to the demonstrations on the charge of “enmity against God” in the aftermath of Amini’s death.

Along with these instances, Blinken also said that the report captured examples of progress, citing how Belgium formally recognized its Buddhist minority and how Brazilian lawmakers codified religious freedom guarantees for Afro-Brazilian indigenous communities. “More broadly, civil society and other concerned governments around the world have successfully secured the release of many who have been detained, even in prison for exercising their freedom of religion or belief,” he said.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?
• How Ukraine Beat Russia in the Battle of the Black Sea
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• How Project 2025 Would Jeopardize Americans’ Health
• What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Write to Astha Rajvanshi at [email protected]

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation

11. religious beliefs, table of contents.

• The dimensions of Hindu nationalism in India
• India’s Muslims express pride in being Indian while identifying communal tensions, desiring segregation
• Muslims, Hindus diverge over legacy of Partition
• Religious conversion in India
• Religion very important across India’s religious groups
• Near-universal belief in God, but wide variation in how God is perceived
• Across India’s religious groups, widespread sharing of beliefs, practices, values
• Religious identity in India: Hindus divided on whether belief in God is required to be a Hindu, but most say eating beef is disqualifying
• Sikhs are proud to be Punjabi and Indian
• Most Indians say they and others are very free to practice their religion
• Most people do not see evidence of widespread religious discrimination in India
• Most Indians report no recent discrimination based on their religion
• In Northeast India, people perceive more religious discrimination
• Most Indians see communal violence as a very big problem in the country
• Indians divided on the legacy of Partition for Hindu-Muslim relations
• More Indians say religious diversity benefits their country than say it is harmful
• Indians are highly knowledgeable about their own religion, less so about other religions
• Substantial shares of Buddhists, Sikhs say they have worshipped at religious venues other than their own
• One-in-five Muslims in India participate in celebrations of Diwali
• Members of both large and small religious groups mostly keep friendships within religious lines
• Most Indians are willing to accept members of other religious communities as neighbors, but many express reservations
• Indians generally marry within same religion
• Most Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Jains strongly support stopping interreligious marriage
• India’s religious groups vary in their caste composition
• Indians in lower castes largely do not perceive widespread discrimination against their groups
• Most Indians do not have recent experience with caste discrimination
• Most Indians OK with Scheduled Caste neighbors
• Indians generally do not have many close friends in different castes
• Large shares of Indians say men, women should be stopped from marrying outside of their caste
• Most Indians say being a member of their religious group is not only about religion
• Common ground across major religious groups on what is essential to religious identity
• India’s religious groups vary on what disqualifies someone from their religion
• Hindus say eating beef, disrespecting India, celebrating Eid incompatible with being Hindu
• Muslims place stronger emphasis than Hindus on religious practices for identity
• Many Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists do not identify with a sect
• Sufism has at least some followers in every major Indian religious group
• Large majorities say Indian culture is superior to others
• What constitutes ‘true’ Indian identity?
• Large gaps between religious groups in 2019 election voting patterns
• No consensus on whether democracy or strong leader best suited to lead India
• Majorities support politicians being involved in religious matters
• Indian Muslims favor their own religious courts; other religious groups less supportive
• Most Indians do not support allowing triple talaq for Muslims
• Southern Indians least likely to say religion is very important in their life
• Most Indians give to charitable causes
• Majorities of Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Jains in India pray daily
• More Indians practice puja at home than at temple
• Most Hindus do not read or listen to religious books frequently
• Most Indians have an altar or shrine in their home for worship
• Religious pilgrimages common across most religious groups in India
• Most Hindus say they have received purification from a holy body of water
• Roughly half of Indian adults meditate at least weekly
• Only about a third of Indians ever practice yoga
• Nearly three-quarters of Christians sing devotionally
• Most Muslims and few Jains say they have participated in or witnessed animal sacrifice for religious purposes
• Most Indians schedule key life events based on auspicious dates
• About half of Indians watch religious programs weekly
• For Hindus, nationalism associated with greater religious observance
• Indians value marking lifecycle events with religious rituals
• Most Indian parents say they are raising their children in a religion
• Fewer than half of Indian parents say their children receive religious instruction outside the home
• Vast majority of Sikhs say it is very important that their children keep their hair long
• Half or more of Hindus, Muslims and Christians wear religious pendants
• Most Hindu, Muslim and Sikh women cover their heads outside the home
• Slim majority of Hindu men say they wear a tilak, fewer wear a janeu
• Eight-in-ten Muslim men in India wear a skullcap
• Majority of Sikh men wear a turban
• Muslim and Sikh men generally keep beards
• Most Indians are not vegetarians, but majorities do follow at least some restrictions on meat in their diet
• One-in-five Hindus abstain from eating root vegetables
• Fewer than half of vegetarian Hindus willing to eat in non-vegetarian settings
• Indians evenly split about willingness to eat meals with hosts who have different religious rules about food
• Majority of Indians say they fast
• More Hindus say there are multiple ways to interpret Hinduism than say there is only one true way
• Most Indians across different religious groups believe in karma
• Most Hindus, Jains believe in Ganges’ power to purify
• Belief in reincarnation is not widespread in India
• More Hindus and Jains than Sikhs believe in moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth)
• Most Hindus, Muslims, Christians believe in heaven
• Nearly half of Indian Christians believe in miracles
• Most Muslims in India believe in Judgment Day
• Most Indians believe in fate, fewer believe in astrology
• Many Hindus and Muslims say magic, witchcraft or sorcery can influence people’s lives
• Roughly half of Indians trust religious ritual to treat health problems
• Lower-caste Christians much more likely than General Category Christians to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs
• Nearly all Indians believe in God
• Few Indians believe ‘there are many gods’
• Many Hindus feel close to Shiva
• Many Indians believe God can be manifested in other people
• Indians almost universally ask God for good health, prosperity, forgiveness
• Acknowledgments
• Questionnaire design
• Sample design and weighting
• Precision of estimates
• Response rates
• Significant events during fieldwork
• Appendix B: Index of religious segregation

India is home to a wide range of religious traditions, which is evident in the blend of beliefs held by its people – some of which cross religious lines.

For instance, not only do most Hindus and Jains believe the Ganges River has the power to purify – a belief with roots in Hindu scripture – but substantial minorities of Indian Christians and Muslims believe this as well. And Muslims are just as likely as Hindus (77% each) to believe in the concept of karma, which is not inherent to Islam. Meanwhile, a majority of Hindus, Muslims and Christians all believe in some form of heaven.

At the same time, some beliefs that may seem mainstream for a certain group are not held by most members of that group. Although many people might consider reincarnation a core teaching in several religions native to South Asia, in no religious community does a majority express belief in reincarnation. Just 40% of Hindus, 23% of Jains and 18% of both Buddhists and Sikhs in India say they believe in reincarnation. Similarly, although miracles are central to the story of Jesus in Christian scripture, only about half of India’s Christians (48%) say they believe in miracles.

On a variety of religious beliefs measured by the survey, there are consistent patterns. In general, men, younger adults (ages 18 to 34) and those who have a college education are less likely to hold these beliefs. For instance, while a minority of men say they believe in the evil eye – the idea that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen to others – most Indian women believe this (44% vs. 55%). And college-educated Hindus are less likely than other Hindus to believe the Ganges has the power to purify (73% vs. 82%).

Politics plays a role as well. Hindu supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are more likely than Hindus who have an unfavorable view of the party to express devotion to various tenets of their religion. For example, Hindus who hold a favorable view of the BJP are more likely than other Hindus to say they believe in reincarnation, karma and the purifying power of the Ganges.

In addition, members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes are more likely than members of General Category castes to hold a variety of religious beliefs, with a particularly notable gap among Christians (see “ Lower-caste Christians much more likely than General Category Christians to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs ” below). And those who have faced a financial hardship in the previous year – that is, those who did not have enough money to pay for food, medical care or housing – are more often believers than other Indians.

The rest of this chapter looks in more detail at individual religious beliefs, including what types of treatments people trust for their and their family’s health problems. For information about the nuances of Indians’ belief in God, including whether God can be manifest in people, see Chapter 12 .

The survey asked respondents whether there is “only one true way” or “more than one true way” to interpret the teachings of their religion.

Most of India’s Muslims (63%) say there is only one true way of interpreting Islam, while fewer (28%) feel there are multiple ways of interpreting their religion. Christians also lean toward the view that there is one true way to interpret their faith.

Hindus are the sole religious group in India whose followers are more likely to say there are multiple ways of interpreting their religion (47%) than that there is only one correct interpretation (38%).

At least one-in-ten Indians in all religions do not offer a clear answer to this question. For example, among Sikhs, 44% say there is only one true way to interpret Sikh teachings, 35% say there are multiple ways, and roughly one-in-five do not take either position (21%).

Hindus differ regionally in their views on this theological question. In the South, a majority of Hindus (56%) say there are multiple ways to interpret the teachings of the religion. By comparison, Hindus in the Northern and Central parts of the country are more evenly divided: 44% of Hindus in the North say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of Hinduism, and a nearly identical share (45%) say there can be multiple understandings of the religion.

Hindu college graduates are somewhat less inclined than other Hindus to say there is only one true interpretation of Hinduism (31% vs. 39%). And Hindus who say religion is very important in their lives are significantly more likely than others to express this view (41% vs. 23%). Similarly, Sikhs who say religion is very important also are more likely to say there is only one true interpretation of Sikh teachings (46% vs. 30%).

Among Hindus, partisanship makes a difference as well. A majority of those who have an unfavorable view of the BJP (54%) say there are multiple ways to interpret Hinduism, while those with a favorable view of the party are more evenly divided on the question: 43% say there is only one true interpretation of the religion, compared with 46% who see multiple understandings.

Majorities of Muslims across different regions say there is only one true way to interpret Islam. And older Muslims (i.e., those ages 35 and older) are slightly more likely than younger Muslim adults to see a singular interpretation of their religion (65% vs. 60%). Muslim men are also slightly more inclined than women to say that there is only one true interpretation of Islam (65% vs. 60%). Among Christians, the gender pattern is reversed: Christian men are less likely than Christian women to say Christianity has only one true interpretation (49% vs. 56%).

Most Indians of all religions surveyed believe in karma, the idea that people will reap the benefits of their good deeds, and pay the price for their bad deeds, often in their next life. This includes roughly three-quarters of Hindus (77%), Muslims (77%) and Jains (75%) who share this belief.

Indian adults of different ages and educational backgrounds generally believe in karma. The one exception to the widespread belief in karma is the Southern region: About half of Southern Indians say they believe in karma (51%), compared with much higher percentages in other parts of the country (72% or more). This regional pattern holds true for Hindus as well as Muslims.

Among Hindus, those who have a favorable view of the BJP are slightly more likely than those who have an unfavorable view of the party to believe in karma (79% vs. 70%). And among Indians overall and Hindus specifically, those who pray daily are more inclined to believe in karma. But the opposite is true among Muslims: Those who pray daily are less likely than other Muslims to believe in karma (75% vs. 83%).

The Ganges River originates in the Himalayan mountains, crosses the Northern, Central and Eastern parts of India, and has special significance in Hinduism. Indeed, the vast majority of Indian Hindus (81%) say that the Ganges has the power to purify, and most Jains (66%) share this view. This belief is considerably less common among other religious groups in India, but, still, about one-third of Christians (32%) and Sikhs (32%) and roughly a quarter of Muslims (26%) feel that the Ganges has the power to purify.

Large majorities of Hindus across all regions of India believe that the Ganges River can purify. Hindus in the Central region, which includes some of the Ganges’ most sacred cities, such as Varanasi, are especially inclined to hold this belief (90%). Rural Hindus also are somewhat more likely than those who live in urban locations to believe the Ganges can purify (83% vs. 76%), while college-educated Hindus are somewhat less inclined than other Hindus to believe in the Ganges’ purifying properties (73% vs. 82%).

Hindus who have a favorable opinion of the BJP are more likely than Hindus who have an unfavorable view of the party to believe the Ganges can purify (84% vs. 74%). Similarly, among Muslims, BJP supporters are more likely than BJP detractors to say the Ganges purifies (34% vs. 24%). And while just under half of Christian BJP supporters say the Ganges purifies (46%), fewer than one-quarter of Christians who view the ruling party unfavorably believe this (21%).

Reincarnation is a mainstream teaching in Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism. But fewer than half of Indians in each of these groups say they believe in reincarnation. 22 For example, 40% of India’s Hindus believe in reincarnation. And Christians (29%) and Muslims (27%) are more likely than Sikhs (18%) to hold this belief.

Personal religious observance makes little difference: 38% of both Indians who pray daily and those who pray less often believe in reincarnation. Among Hindus, those who say religion is very important in their personal lives are only slightly more likely than other Hindus to hold this belief (41% vs. 37%).

Older Indians are a bit more inclined than younger Indians to believe in reincarnation: 40% of Indians ages 35 and older believe in reincarnation, compared with 35% of those 18 to 34. Conversely, older Buddhists are less likely than younger Buddhists to believe in reincarnation (13% vs. 22%).

College-educated Indians are slightly less likely than others to say they believe in reincarnation (32% vs. 38%). While people in different caste categories do not vary much in their belief in reincarnation, there are bigger differences within the Christian community (see “ Lower-caste Christians much more likely than General Category Christians to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs ” below).

Among Hindus, those who favor the BJP are somewhat more likely than those who hold an unfavorable view of India’s ruling party to believe in reincarnation (42% vs. 34%). Muslim supporters of the BJP also are slightly more likely than other Muslims to hold this belief (29% vs. 22%).

Different religions or traditions teach that people can escape reincarnation’s cycle of rebirth through various means. Achieving this liberation is often referred to as moksha , or the related concept of kaivalya . The survey asked Hindus, Sikhs and Jains if they believe in moksha and kaivalya; Buddhists were asked if they believe in nirvana , a term more often used in Buddhist teachings to refer to the state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth (see below).

Nearly half of Hindus (47%) and a majority of Jains (56%) say they believe in moksha. And among both groups, much larger shares believe in moksha than kaivalya. Sikhs are the least likely of the three groups to believe in both moksha (17%) and kaivalya (5%).

The concept of kaivalya is more closely associated with Jain teachings. And the survey finds that nearly a quarter of Jains (23%) believe in the concept. Jains also are the most likely to answer the question at all when asked about their belief in kaivalya, suggesting a higher level of familiarity with the term. Only about one-in-ten Jains do not answer this question (11%), compared with about three-in-ten Hindus (31%) and Sikhs (28%).

Older Hindus are somewhat more likely than younger Hindus to believe in moksha and kaivalya. For example, nearly half of older Hindus (ages 35 and older) believe in moksha, while closer to four-in-ten younger Hindu adults (ages 18 to 34) hold this belief (49% vs. 43%).

About four-in-ten Indian Buddhists believe in nirvana (39%).

Buddhist women are significantly more likely than men to believe in nirvana (45% vs. 34%). And Buddhists with a favorable view of the BJP are more inclined than other Buddhists to say they believe (46% vs. 31%).

Most Indians say they believe in heaven (55%), though teachings about heaven vary widely across India’s religions. Some religions teach that heaven is the final destination for those who have lived a good life, others teach that it is a  temporary home between rebirths , and still others teach that heaven is a state of being that people can aspire to experience during this life .

Majorities of Christians (64%), Muslims (58%) and Hindus (56%) believe in heaven. Among other religious groups, belief in heaven is less common, particularly among Buddhists (24%).

As with many other religious beliefs, those with more education are less likely to believe in heaven: 47% of Indians with a college degree say they believe in heaven, compared with 56% of those with less education.

Among the Muslim community, members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes are significantly more likely than General Category Muslims to believe in heaven (63% vs. 51%).

Belief in angels more prevalent than belief in demons

About half of Indians (49%) believe in angels or benevolent spirits. This includes roughly two-thirds of Christians (68%), about half of Muslims (53%) and Hindus (49%), and far fewer among Jains (25%), Buddhists (24%) and Sikhs (17%).

Across religious groups, Indians are generally less likely to believe in demons or evil spirits (37%). For instance, just four-in-ten Christians (41%) say they believe in demons, far lower than the share who believe in angels.

Indian women are slightly more likely than men to believe in both angels and demons. And among Buddhists, women are twice as likely as men to believe in angels (32% vs. 16%).

A majority of Indians who have recently faced financial hardship believe in angels, compared with fewer than half of those who have not faced such challenges in the past year (56% vs. 43%). And Indians who pray daily are more likely than others to believe in angels or benevolent spirits (52% vs. 44%); this contrast is especially strong within the Christian community (71% vs. 57%). At the same time, Muslims who pray daily are slightly less likely than other Muslims to believe in demons or evil spirits (43% vs. 50%).

Roughly four-in-ten Indians (41%), including nearly half of Christians (48%), say they believe in miracles. Among Hindus and Muslims, about four-in-ten hold this belief (42% and 38%, respectively). Similar to belief in angels and demons, far fewer Sikhs (20%), Jains (15%) and Buddhists (14%) believe in miracles.

Across India, women are slightly more likely than men to profess belief in miracles (43% vs. 39%), with gender differences particularly pronounced among Christians (53% vs. 43%).

Different caste groups generally believe in miracles at similar rates. Among Muslims, however, members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes are significantly more likely than other Muslims to believe in miracles (42% vs. 32%).

Hindus with a favorable view of the BJP are more likely than other Hindus to believe in miracles (45% vs. 34%).

Often considered a core doctrine of both Islam and Christianity, Judgment Day refers to an end-of-time belief that the dead shall rise and be judged for their life’s works. A majority of Indian Muslims (71%) say they believe in Judgment Day, as do about half of Christians (49%).

Across a wide range of personal characteristics, including age group, education level and gender, majorities of Muslims believe in Judgment Day. And the Northeast is the only region where fewer than half of Muslims believe in Judgment Day (46%).

Among Christians, women are more likely than men to believe in Judgment Day (53% vs. 44%). And Christians who say religion is very important in their lives are more likely than other Christians to say they hold this end-times belief (52% vs. 40%).

Indians generally (70%) say they believe in fate, the idea that events in one’s life are largely predestined. Majorities of Hindus (73%), Muslims (63%) and Sikhs (59%) say they believe in fate.

Fewer Indians believe in astrology (44%), or the idea that the position of the planets and the stars can influence events in people’s lives. (Still, 83% of Indians say they fix important dates based on auspicious dates or times. See Chapter 7 .)

Hindus are the most likely of India’s six major religious groups to say they believe in both fate (73%) and astrology (49%).

Both beliefs are more common among those who are older. For example, roughly two-thirds of Indians ages 18 to 25 (65%) believe in fate, compared with nearly three-quarters of those ages 35 and older (73%).

The Northeast is the only region where fewer than half believe in fate (40%), and Western Indians are the least likely to believe in astrology (32%).

Many Indians say people’s lives can be influenced through the evil eye (49%) or through magic, witchcraft and sorcery (39%).

About half of both Hindus and Muslims (51% each) say they believe in the evil eye – the notion that certain people can cast curses or spells that cause bad things to happen to others. And roughly four-in-ten among both Hindus (40%) and Muslims (43%) say that magic, sorcery or witchcraft can influence people’s lives. Among other religious groups, these beliefs are less common. For example, 27% of Sikhs say they believe in the evil eye, and 15% say they believe in the influence of magic, witchcraft or sorcery.

Women are more likely than men to hold both beliefs: A majority of Indian women say they believe in the evil eye, compared with fewer than half of men (55% vs. 44%). And those with less education are much more likely than other Indians to say they believe in both magic and the evil eye. For example, just under half of those who did not receive any formal education believe in magic’s influence on people’s lives, but fewer than a third of college graduates share this view (46% vs. 29%).

Members of General Category castes are less likely than Indians in Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes to say they believe that magic can influence people’s lives (33% vs. 42%). Caste differences are particularly pronounced among Christians (see “ Lower-caste Christians much more likely than General Category Christians to hold both Christian and non-Christian beliefs ” below for full analysis).

The survey asked the Indian public how much they trust different types of treatments for their own health or their family’s health – medical science, ayurveda or home remedies, homeopathy, or religious rituals.

Nearly all Indians (94%) trust medical science at least to some degree, including 81% who say they trust medical science “a lot.” A majority of Indians (60%) also trust ayurvedic treatments. Meanwhile, roughly half say they trust homeopathy or religious rituals at least somewhat (47% each) to treat their or their family’s health problems.

An overwhelming 98% of Buddhists trust medical science, but they are much less inclined than members of other religious communities to trust religious ritual to treat health problems (22%).

As might be expected, Indians who say religion is very important or who pray daily tend to trust religious ritual more than other Indians. But these highly religious individuals are also more likely than other Indians to trust the other forms of treatment.

Similarly, people who invite religious leaders to their home to conduct religious rites are more likely than other Indians to trust religious rituals and other treatments to manage their family members’ health problems.

Members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes are slightly more likely than those in General Category castes to trust religious rituals to treat health conditions (48% vs. 44%). And Indians who have received less education are more likely than college-educated adults to trust religious rituals (47% vs. 39%).

Trust in religious rituals also varies widely by region. While majorities in the North (57%) and Northeast (64%) trust religious ritual to some degree, only about one-third of Indians in the West say they trust religious rituals to treat health problems (31%).

Those who have faced financial hardship in the last year are more inclined than other Indians to trust religious ritual for health care needs (52% vs. 42%).

Members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes are more likely than others to hold a variety of religious beliefs. For example, about half of lower-caste Indians believe in angels or benevolent spirits (52%), while roughly four-in-ten of those in General Category castes share this belief (41%).

This pattern certainly applies to the Hindu majority. For instance, 43% of lower-caste Hindus believe that magic, sorcery or witchcraft can influence people’s lives, compared with 33% of General Category Hindus.

But the belief gap between lower and upper castes is considerably larger among Christians – and this applies to beliefs that are typically associated with Christianity as well as with those that are not.

For example, a majority of Christian members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other lower castes say they believe in karma (58%), compared with 44% among upper-caste Christians – a gap of 14 percentage points. And about half (51%) of lower-caste Christians believe in demons or evil spirits, while just 12% of upper-caste Christians do. In both cases, these gaps in belief are much less pronounced among Hindus.

The vast majority of Christians in India identify with either Scheduled Castes (33%), Scheduled Tribes (24%) or Other Backward Classes (17%); see Chapter 4 for details.

• While reincarnation broadly is understood as a belief that after physical death, the essence of a being will be reborn into another physical body, there are many interpretations of how this occurs. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Beliefs & Practices
• Christianity
• International Political Values
• International Religious Freedom & Restrictions
• Interreligious Relations
• Other Religions
• Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures Project
• Religious Characteristics of Demographic Groups
• Religious Identity & Affiliation
• Religiously Unaffiliated
• Size & Demographic Characteristics of Religious Groups

Where is the most religious place in the world?

Rituals honoring deceased ancestors vary widely in east and southeast asia, 6 facts about religion and spirituality in east asian societies, religion and spirituality in east asian societies, 8 facts about atheists, most popular, report materials.

• Questionnaire
• இந்தியாவில் மதம்: சகிப்புத்தன்மையும், தனிமைப்படுத்துதலும்
• भारत में धर्म: सहिष्णुता और अलगाव
• ভারতে ধর্ম: সহনশীলতা এবং পৃথকীকরণ
• भारतातील धर्म : सहिष्णुता आणि विलग्नता
• Related: Religious Composition of India
• How Pew Research Center Conducted Its India Survey
• Questionnaire: Show Cards
• India Survey Dataset

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Hinduism, Indian culture, Vedic Science, Yoga, Spirituality, India

Swami Vivekananda’s Speech on Hinduism

Three religions now stand in the world which have come down to us from time prehistoric—Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. They have all received tremendous shocks and all of them prove by their survival their internal strength.

But while Judaism failed to absorb Christianity and was driven out of its place of birth by its all-conquering daughter, and a handful of Parsees is all that remains to tell the tale of their grand religion, sect after sect arose in India and seemed to shake the religion of the Vedas to its very foundations, but like the waters of the seashore in a tremendous earthquake it receded only for a while, only to return in an all-absorbing flood, a thousand times more vigorous, and when the tumult of the rush was over, these sects were all sucked in, absorbed, and assimilated into the immense body of the mother faith. From the high spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy, of which the latest discoveries of science seem like echoes, to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists, and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a place in the Hindu’s religion.

The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas . They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous to this audience, how a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons in different times. Just as the law of gravitation existed before its discovery, and would exist if all humanity forgot it, so is it with the laws that govern the spiritual world. The moral, ethical, and spiritual relations between soul and soul and between individual spirits and the Father of all spirits, were there before their discovery, and would remain even if we forgot them.

The discoverers of these laws are called Rishis, and we honour them as perfected beings. I am glad to tell this audience that some of the very greatest of them were women. Here it may be said that these laws as laws may be without end, but they must have had a beginning.The Vedas teach us that creation is without beginning or end. Science is said to have proved that the sum total of cosmic energy is always the same. Then, if there was a time when nothing existed, where was all this manifested energy? Some say it was in a potential form in God. In that case God is sometimes potential and sometimes kinetic, which would make Him mutable. Everything mutable is a compound, and everything compound must undergo that change which is called destruction. So God would die, which is absurd. Therefore there never was a time when there was no creation. If I may be allowed to use a simile, creation and creator are two lines, without beginning and without end, running parallel to each other. God is the ever active providence, by whose power systems after systems are being evolved out of chaos, made to run for a time and again destroyed. This is what the Brahmin boy repeats every day: “The sun and the moon, the Lord created like the suns and moons of previous cycles.” And this agrees with modern science. 

Here I stand and if I shut my eyes, and try to conceive my existence, “I”, “I”, “I”, what is the idea before me? The idea of a body. Am I, then, nothing but a combination of material substances? The Vedas declare, “No”. I am a spirit living in a body. I am not the body. The body will die, but I shall not die. Here am I in this body; it will fall, but I shall go on living. I had also a past. The soul was not created, for creation means a combination which means a certain future dissolution. If then the soul was created, it must die. Some are born happy, enjoy perfect health, with beautiful body, mental vigour and all wants supplied. Others are born miserable, some are without hands or feet, others again are idiots and only drag on a wretched existence.

Why, if they are all created, why does a just and merciful God create one happy and another unhappy, why is He so partial? Nor would it mend matters in the least to hold that those who are miserable in this life will be happy in a future one. Why should a man be miserable even here in the reign of a just and merciful God? In the second place, the idea of a creator God does not explain the anomaly, but simply expresses the cruel fiat of an all-powerful being. There must have been causes, then, before his birth, to make a man miserable or happy and those were his past actions.

Are not all the tendencies of the mind and the body accounted for by inherited aptitude? Here are two parallel lines of existence—one of the mind, the other of matter. If matter and its transformations answer for all that we have, there is no necessity for supposing the existence of a soul. But it cannot be proved that thought has been evolved out of matter, and if a philosophical monism is inevitable, spiritual monism is certainly logical and no less desirable than a materialistic monism; but neither of these is necessary here.

There is another suggestion. Taking all these for granted, now is it that I do not remember anything of my past life? This can be easily explained I am now speaking English. It is not my mother tongue, in fact no words of my mother tongue are now present in my consciousness; but let me try to bring them up, and they rush in. That shows that consciousness is only the surface of the mental ocean, and within its depths are stored up all our experiences. Try and struggle, they would come up and you would by conscious even of your past life.

This is direct and demonstrative evidence. Verification is the perfect proof of a theory, and here is the challenge thrown to the world by the Rishis. We have discovered the secret by which the very depths of the ocean of memory can be stirred up-try it and you would get a complete reminiscence of your past life.

So then the Hindu belives that he is a spirit. Him the sword cannot pierce-him the fire cannot burn-him the water cannot melt-him the air cannot dry. The Hindu belives that every soul is a circle whose circumference is nowhere, but whose centre is located in the body, and that death means the change of this centre from body to body. Not is the soul bound by the conditions of matter. In its very essence it is free. unbounded. holy, pure, and perfect. But somehow of other it finds itself tied down to matter and thinks of itself as matter.

Why should the free, perfect, and pure being be thus under the thraldom of matter, is the next question. How can the perfect soul be deluded into the belief that it is imperfect? We have been told that the Hindus shirk the question and say that no such question can be there. Some thinkers want to answer it by positing one or more quasi-perfect beings, and use big scientific names to fill up the gap. But naming is not explaining. The question remains the same. How can the perfect become the quasi-perfect; how can the pure, the absolute, change even a microscopic particle of its nature? But the Hindu is sincere. He does not want to take shelter under sophistry. He is brave enough to face the question in a manly fashion; an the question and say that no such question can be there. Some thinkers want to answer it by positing one or more quasi-perfect beings, and use big scientific names to fill up the gap. But naming is not explaining. The question remains the same. How can the perfect become the quasi-perfect; how can the pure, the absolute, change even a microscopic particle of its nature? But the Hindu is sincere. He does not want to take shelter under sophistry. He is brave enough to face the question in a manly fashion; an immortal, perfect and infinite, and death means only a change of centre from one body to another.

The present is determined by our past actions, and the future by the present. The soul will go on evolving up or reverting back from birth to birth and death to death. But here is another question: Is man a tiny boat in a tempest, raised one moment on the foamy crest of a billow and dashed down into a yawning chasm the next, rolling to and fro at the mercy of good and bad actions—a powerless, helpless wreck in an ever-raging, ever-rushing, uncompromising current of cause and effect; a little moth placed under the wheel of causation which rolls on crushing everything in its way and waits not for the widow’s tears or the orphan’s cry? The heart sinks at the idea, yet this is the law of Nature. Is there no hope? Is there no escape?—was the cry that went up from the bottom of the heart of despair. It reached the throne of mercy, and words of hope and consolation came down and inspired a Vedic sage, and he stood up before the world and in trumpet voice proclaimed the glad tidings: “Hear, ye children of immortal bliss! even ye that reside in higher spheres! I have found the Ancient One who is beyond all darkness, all delusion: knowing Him alone you shall be saved from death over again.”

And what is His nature? He is everywhere, the pure and formless One, the Almighty and the All-merciful. “Thou art our father, Thou art our mother, Thou art our beloved friend, Thou art the source of all strength; give us strength. Thou art He that beareth the burdens of the universe; help me bear the little burden of this life.” Thus sang the Rishis of the Vedas . And how to worship Him? Through love. “He is to be worshipped as the one beloved, dearer than everything in this and the next life.”

This is the doctrine of love declared in the Vedas , and let us see how it is fully developed and taught by Krishna, whom the Hindus believe to have been God incarnate on earth. He taught that a man ought to live in this world like a lotus leaf, which grows in water but is never moistened by water; so a man ought to live in the world—his heart to God and his hands to work.

It is good to love God for hope of reward in this or the next world, but it is better to love God for love’s sake, and the prayer goes: “Lord, I do not want wealth, nor children, nor learning. If it be Thy will, I shall go from birth to birth, but grant me this, that I may love Thee without the hope of reward—love unselfishly for love’s sake.” One of the disciples of Krishna, the then Emperor of India, was driven from his kingdom by his enemies and had to take shelter with his queen in a forest in the Himalayas, and there one day the queen asked him how it was that he, the most virtuous of men, should suffer so much misery. Yudhishthira answered, “Behold, my queen, the Himalayas, how grand and beautiful they are; I love them. They do not give me anything, but my nature is to love the grand, the beautiful, therefore I love them. Similarly, I love the Lord. He is the source of all beauty, of all sublimity. He is the only object to be loved; my nature is to love Him, and therefore I love. I do not pray for anything; I do not ask for anything. Let Him place me wherever He likes. I must love Him for love’s sake. I cannot trade love.”

The Vedas teach that the soul is divine, only held in the bondage of matter; perfection will be reached when this bond will burst, and the word they use for it is therefore, Mukti— freedom, freedom from the bonds of imperfection, freedom from death and misery. And this bondage can only fall off through the mercy of God, and this mercy comes on the pure. So purity is the condition of His mercy. How does that mercy act? He reveals Himself to the pure heart; the pure and the stainless see God, yea, even in this life; then and then only all the crookedness of the heart is made straight. Then all doubt ceases. He is no more the freak of a terrible law of causation. This is the very centre, the very vital conception of Hinduism. The Hindu does not want to live upon words and theories. If there are existences beyond the ordinary sensuous existence, he wants to come face to face with them. If there is a soul in him which is not matter, if there is an all-merciful universal Soul, he will go to Him direct. He must see Him, and that alone can destroy all doubts. So the best proof a Hindu sage gives about the soul, about God, is: “I have seen the soul; I have seen God.” And that is the only condition of perfection. The Hindu religion does not consist in struggles and attempts to believe a certain doctrine or dogma, but in realising—not in believing, but in being and becoming.

Thus the whole object of their system is by constant struggle to become perfect, to become divine, to reach God and see God, and this reaching God, seeing God, becoming perfect even as the Father in Heaven is perfect, constitutes the religion of the Hindus. And what becomes of a man when he attains perfection? He lives a life of bliss infinite. He enjoys infinite and perfect bliss, having obtained the only thing in which man ought to have pleasure, namely God, and enjoys the bliss with God.

So far all the Hindus are agreed. This is the common religion of all the sects of India; but, then, perfection is absolute, and the absolute cannot be two or three. It cannot have any qualities. It cannot be an individual. And so when a soul becomes perfect and absolute, it must become one with Brahman, and it would only realise the Lord as the perfection, the reality, of its own nature and existence, the existence absolute, knowledge absolute, and bliss absolute. We have often and often read this called the losing of individuality and becoming a stock or a stone. “He jests at scars that never felt a wound.”

Therefore, to gain this infinite universal individuality, this miserable little prison individuality must go. Then alone can death cease when I am one with life, then alone can misery cease when I am one with happiness itself, then alone can all errors cease when I am one with knowledge itself; and this is the necessary scientific conclusion. Science has proved to me that physical individuality is a delusion, that really my body is one little continuously changing body in an unbroken ocean of matter; and Advaita (unity) is the necessary conclusion with my other counterpart, soul.

Science is nothing but the finding of unity. As soon as science would reach perfect unity, it would stop from further progress, because it would reach the goal. Thus Chemistry could not progress farther when it would discover one element out of which all others could be made. Physics would stop when it would be able to fulfil its services in discovering one energy of which all the others are but manifestations, and the science of religion becomes perfect when it would discover Him who is the one life in a universe of death, Him who is the constant basis of an ever-changing world. One who is the only Soul of which all souls are but delusive manifestations. Thus is it, through multiplicity and duality, that the ultimate unity is reached. Religion can go no farther. This is the goal of all science.

All science is bound to come to this conclusion in the long run. Manifestation, and not creation, is the word of science today, and the Hindu is only glad that what he has been cherishing in his bosom for ages is going to be taught in more forcible language, and with further light from the latest conclusions of science.

Descend we now from the aspirations of philosophy to the religion of the ignorant. At the very outset, I may tell you that there is no polytheism in India. In every temple, if one stands by and listens, one will find the worshippers applying all the attributes of God, including omnipresence, to the images. It is not polytheism, nor would the name henotheism explain the situation. “The rose called by any other name would smell as sweet.” Names are not explanations.

I remember, as a boy, hearing a Christian missionary preach to a crowd in India. Among other sweet things he was telling them was that if he gave a blow to their idol with his stick, what could it do? One of his hearers sharply answered, “If I abuse your God, what can He do?” “You would be punished,” said the preacher, “when you die.” “So my idol will punish you when you die,” retorted the Hindu.

The tree is known by its fruits. When I have seen amongst them that are called idolaters, men, the like of whom in morality and spirituality and love I have never seen anywhere, I stop and ask myself, “Can sin beget holiness?”

Superstition is a great enemy of man, but bigotry is worse. Why does a Christian go to church? Why is the cross holy? Why is the face turned toward the sky in prayer? Why are there so many images in the Catholic Church?

The Hindus have associated the idea of holiness, purity, truth, omnipresence, and such other ideas with different images and forms. But with this difference that while some people devote their whole lives to their idol of a church and never rise higher, because with them religion means an intellectual assent to certain doctrines and doing good to their fellows, the whole religion of the Hindu is centred in realisation. Man is to become divine by realising the divine. Idols or temples or churches or books are only the supports, the helps, of his spiritual childhood: but on and on he must progress.

He must not stop anywhere. “External worship, material worship,” say the scriptures, “is the lowest stage; struggling to rise high, mental prayer is the next stage, but the highest stage is when the Lord has been realised.” Mark, the same earnest man who is kneeling before the idol tells you, ”Him the sun cannot express, nor the moon, nor the stars, the lightning cannot express Him, nor what we speak of as fire; through Him they shine.” But he does not abuse any one’s idol or call its worship sin. He recognises in it a necessary stage of life. ” The child is father of the man.”  Would it be right for an old man to say that childhood is a sin or youth a sin?

If a man can realise his divine nature with the help of an image, would it be right to call that a sin? Nor even when he has passed that stage, should he call it an error. To the Hindu, man is not travelling from error to truth, but from truth to truth, from lower to higher truth. To him all the religions, from the lowest fetishism to the highest absolutism, mean so man attempts of the human soul to grasp and realise the Infinite, each determined by the conditions of its birth and association, and each of these marks a stage of progress; and every soul is a young eagle soaring higher and higher, gathering more and more strength, till it reaches the Glorious Sun.

One thing I must tell you. Idolatry in India does not mean anything horrible. It is not the mother of harlots. On the other hand, it is the attempt of undeveloped minds to grasp high spiritual truths. The Hindus have their faults, they sometimes have their exceptions; but mark this, they are always for punishing their own bodies, and never for cutting the throats of their neighbours. If the Hindu fanatic burns himself on the pyre, he never lights the fire of Inquisition. And even this cannot be laid at the door of his religion any more than the burning of witches can be laid at the door of Christianity.

To the Hindu, then, the whole world of religions is only a travelling, a coming up, of different men and women, through various conditions and circumstances, to the same goal. Every religion is only evolving a God out of the material man, and the same God is the inspirer of all of them. Why, then, are there so many contradictions? They are only apparent, says the Hindu. The contradictions come from the same truth adapting itself to the varying circumstances of different natures.

It is the same light coming through glasses of different colours. And these little variations are necessary for purposes of adaptation. But in the heart of everything the same truth reigns. The Lord has declared to the Hindu in His incarnation as Krishna,”I am in every religion as the thread through a string of pearls. Wherever thou seest extraordinary holiness and extraordinary power raising and purifying humanity, know thou that I am there.”

And what has been the result? I challenge the world to find, throughout the whole system of Sanskrit philosophy, any such expression as that the Hindu alone will be saved and not others. Says Vyasa, “We find perfect men even beyond the pale of our caste and creed. ” One thing more. How, then, can the Hindu, whose whole fabric of thought centres in God, believe in Buddhism which is agnostic, or in Jainism which is atheistic?

The Buddhists or the Jains do not depend upon God; but the whole force of their religion is directed to the great central truth in every religion, to evolve a God out of man. They have not seen the Father, but they have seen the Son. And he that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father also. This, brethren, is a short sketch of the religious ideas of the Hindus. The Hindu may have failed to carry out all his plans, but if there is ever to be a universal religion, it must be one which will have no location in place or time; which will be infinite like the God it will preach, and whose sun will shine upon the followers of Krishna and of Christ, on saints and sinners alike; which will not be Brahminic or Buddhistic, Christian or Mohammedan, but the sum total of all these, and still have infinite space for development; which in its catholicity will embrace in its infinite arms, and find a place for, every human being, from the lowestgrovelling savage not far removed from the brute, to the highest man towering by the virtues of his head and heart almost above humanity, making society stand in awe of him and doubt his human nature. It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or intolerance in its polity, which will recognise divinity in every man and woman, and whose whole scope, whose whole force, will be created in aiding humanity to realise its own true, divine nature.

Offer such a religion, and all the nations will follow you. Asoka’s council was a council of the Buddhist faith. Akbar’s, though more to the purpose, was only a parlour-meeting. It was reserved for America to proclaim to all quarters of the globe that the Lord is in every religion. May He who is the Brahman of the Hindus, the Ahura-Mazda of the Zoroastrians, the Buddha of the Buddhists, the Jehovah of the Jews, the Father in Heaven of the Christians, give strength to you to carry out your noble idea! The star arose in the East; it travelled steadily towards the West, sometimes dimmed and sometimes effulgent, till it made a circuit of the world; and now it is again rising on the very horizon of the East, the borders of the Sanpo, a thousandfold more effulgent than it ever was before.

Hail, Columbia, motherland of liberty! It has been given to thee, who never dipped her hand in her neighbour’s blood, who never found out that the shortest way of becoming rich was by robbing one’s neighbours, it has been given to thee to march at the vanguard of civilisation with the flag of harmony.

~  Swami Vivekananda, Read at the Parliament on 19th September, 1893,Chicago.

You may also like

Navratri Series – Day 8: Goddess Mahagauri – The Beacon of Purity and Serenity

The Ram Temple in Ayodhya: A Confluence of Historical Faith and Modern Progress

Remembering Famous Fathers in Hinduism on Fathers Day

Sanskriti calendar 2024.

Search the website

Like us on facebook.

Get daily updates via Email

Enter your email address:, recent posts.

Ganesh Chaturthi Recipes: Modaks and More

Ganesh Chaturthi is synonymous with delicious offerings, particularly the beloved modak, Lord Ganesha’s favorite sweet.

Ganesh Chaturthi Rituals and Traditions Explained

Ganesh Chaturthi is a grand festival celebrating the birth of Lord Ganesha, the remover of

Book Review: Kaveri Celebrates Ganesh Chaturthi

“Kaveri Celebrates Ganesh Chaturthi” by Ketaki Karnik is a charming children’s book that blends tradition,

Detailed Review: MODI TOYS Hanuman Mantra Singing Plush Toy

The MODI TOYS Hanuman Mantra Singing Plush Toy is a delightful blend of tradition and

Kahaani Rangeeli (Hindi Edition)

“Kahaani Rangeeli” is an interactive board book in Hindi that brings the vibrant story of

Sanskriti comes from the Sanskrit root “kr” which means to do or to make prefix “sam” is applied before it to convey a sense of embellishment.  It means actions done for the holistic refinement and perfection all the potentialities within a human being.

Important Links

“The term “Rishi” in Sanskrit originates from a root that means “To See.” Rishis, quite literally, “see” truths that are unveiled to them in elevated states of consciousness. .These   are recorded in Sacred texts called   Upanishads , Vedas etc. The wisdom imparted by ancient Rishis has not only enriched the realm of inner science but has also played a pivotal role in shaping and advancing modern scientific understanding.   Let us Explore……

Sanskriti Social

Copyright © 2024. Sanskriti Magazine

Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Religious regulation in india.

• Kristina M. Teater Kristina M. Teater Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati
•  and  Laura Dudley Jenkins Laura Dudley Jenkins Department of Political Science, University of Cincinnati
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.845
• Published online: 26 April 2019

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in India, but this religiously diverse democracy regulates religion in several ways, including enforcing religious personal laws, regulating religious minority educational institutions, monitoring conversions, limiting religious appeals during political campaigns, and outlawing acts that outrage religious feelings. The 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 added the word “secular” to the Indian constitution, which provides a distinctive model of religion-state relations and regulation that is rooted in historical struggles with colonial rule and abundant religious diversity. The “personal law” system grants major religious communities distinct family laws. Religious minorities have regulated autonomy in the sphere of education based on constitutional commitments to minority colleges and educational institutions. The religious freedom clause in the Indian constitution is one of the most comprehensive in the world, yet several state-level “freedom of religion” acts prohibit “forcible” or “induced” conversions. Affirmative action or “reservation” policies also necessitate regulating conversions, as low castes lose their eligibility upon conversion to Islam or Christianity. Appealing for votes on the basis of religion or caste is a “corrupt practice.” A colonial-era statute continues to outlaw “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” Constitutional and state regulations of cow slaughter also protect the religious beliefs of some Hindus. Whether defending “religious freedom” by limiting conversions, or criminalizing insults to religious beliefs, laws in India to “protect” religions and religious persons at times threaten the practice and expression of diverse religious perspectives.

• religious regulation
• minority rights
• minority education
• religious conversion
• religious speech
• politics and religion

Introduction

Freedom of religion is a constitutional right in India, but this religiously diverse democracy regulates religion in several ways, including enforcing religious personal laws, regulating religious minority educational institutions, monitoring conversions, limiting religious appeals during political campaigns, and outlawing acts that insult religious beliefs. The 42nd constitutional amendment in 1976 added the word “secular” to the Indian constitution, which provides a distinctive model of religion-state relations and regulation, rooted in historical struggles with colonial rule and abundant religious diversity.

Religious “personal laws” emerged under British colonialism, granting major religious communities some distinct family laws pertaining to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, among others; this system continued after independence. Judges and administrators interpreting and enforcing these laws are not necessarily devotees of the religion in question. These religious civil laws have sparked controversies over gender equity and the political impediments to reform. Various religious communities also have some regulated autonomy in the sphere of education based on constitutional commitments to minority colleges and educational institutions.

The religious freedom clause in the Indian constitution is one of the most comprehensive in the world, even protecting the right to “propagate” religions. Yet an increasing number of state-level “freedom of religion” acts prohibit “forcible” or “induced” conversions. Officials and activists use these laws to impede lower-caste, tribal, or female converts to minority religions based on assumptions that they are too naïve to exercise true religious freedom. Affirmative action or “reservation” policies for lower castes have resulted in regulation of conversions as well, as low-caste beneficiaries of these policies lose their eligibility upon conversion to Islam or Christianity, despite arguments that this denies their religious freedom.

Another contentious arena is the regulation of religious appeals in the context of political campaigns. In 2017 , the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of a law that makes appealing for votes on the basis of religion or caste a “corrupt practice.” Religious speech is also limited by a statute of the Indian penal code (295-A) passed in 1927 , which outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” Hindu nationalists have increasingly used this statute to harass and threaten authors, including American scholar of Hinduism Wendy Doniger and Tamil novelist Perumal Murugan, who addresses caste and gender issues. Other threats have been inspired by constitutional and state regulations of cow slaughter. Hindu activists have attacked Muslims and Dalits (low castes, formerly known as untouchables) after rumors or accusations of slaughtering cows. Whether defending “religious freedom” through outlawing conversions by groups assumed to be gullible, or criminalizing insults to “religious feelings,” laws in India to “protect” religions and religious persons increasingly threaten the practice and expression of diverse religious perspectives.

Religious regulation must be understood in the context of India’s Constitution, which came into effect in 1950 and includes a detailed religious freedom clause:

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution ( 1950 ) (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law— (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II.—In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

Clause 1 has typical caveats (public order, morality, and health) but wide-ranging protected activities (to profess, practice, and propagate). The former provide many reasons to restrict religious freedom, while the latter provide a broad right to freely practice religion, setting up tensions such as challenges to propagation in the name of preserving public order. Clause 2 retains the state’s broad regulatory rights (part [a]) and ability to redress caste discrimination (part [b]).

Explanations I and II reveal that India’s religious diversity immediately complicated religious regulation. Sikhs ensured that carrying the kirpan (a sword or knife, and one of five articles of faith in Sikhism) was specifically protected as religious profession. Explanation II, subsuming other religions (Sikhism, Jainism, and Buddhism) into Hinduism, set up legal debates about the definitions of religions, and the relationships between majority and minority religions, for years to come. A majority Hindu country, India is the birthplace of Buddhism and has the third largest Muslim population in the world, millions of Christians, and the majority of the world’s Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis (Sen, 1999 , p. 157).

Balancing majority (Hindu) and minority (Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi, Jewish, etc.) concerns about religious freedom and religious regulation remain an ongoing political project and potentially rewarding focus for future research. Religious regulation in India also reveals tensions between constitutional law and state laws within India’s federal system. Several states have implemented laws such as cow slaughter bans and conversion statutes, which restrict religious minority communities and test the limits of religious freedom under India’s Constitution. This article will focus on legal and administrative regulations, but social forces can also impact what different communities are permitted to do, as discussed in the section “ Cow Protection .” Those interested in the social enforcement of religious stances will find a vibrant literature examining the interplay of party politics and social activism in the name of Hindu nationalism and the ideology of Hindutva , a potent force despite India’s constitutional secularism (Basu, 2015 ; Khalidi, 2008 ; Udayakumar, 2005 ; Van der Veer, 1994 ; Williams & Moktan, 2018 ).

Indian Secularism

Partition along religious lines into predominately Muslim Pakistan and Hindu-majority India influenced the overarching sentiment at the time that secularism was an idea that newly independent India should embrace. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, strongly emphasized the importance of India being “secular” in the Constituent Assembly debates. Nehru’s emphasis on secularism was informed in part by his religious skepticism as well as his commitment to minority rights in the wake of partition and its resulting mass migrations, which meant India was even more predominantly Hindu than before (Bajpai, 2002 , p. 184; Tejani, 2008 , pp. 258–259).

Although the framers of the Indian Constitution provided for the plurality of religious belief and practice, the term “secular” was initially not included in the constitution and was only added to its preamble 27 years later with the inclusion of the 42nd amendment. In 1991 , the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India ( 1994 ) further reinforced secularism by stating that it is part of the basic structure of the constitution. Despite the constitutional inclusion of the term “secular” and judicial reinforcement that India is indeed a secular state, debates persist as to whether secularism is the right path for India, and an agreed-upon definition of Indian secularism remains elusive.

For some scholars, secularism as a concept is flawed—a borrowed idea that cannot be transplanted to the Indian context without recognition of its traditions. One of the most evident challenges is the pervasiveness of religion and the role it plays in the lives of South Asians (Madan, 1987 , pp. 747–759; Nandy, 1998 , pp. 321–344). Unlike some Western democracies where a “wall of separation” exists between church and state, Indian secularism is described in less concrete ways. In the absence of a Hindi word for “secular,” Indian secularism is described as being more in line with the Hindi phrase sarva dharma samabhava or equal respect (Singhvi, 2009 , p. 332). Others describe the relationship between the state and religion as one of equidistance, whereby there is an equal distance between the state and religion and where one religion is not favored over another. Amartya Sen describes this as a “basic symmetry of treatment,” where “in so far as the state has to deal with different religions and members of different religious communities there must be a basic symmetry of treatment” (Sen, 2005 , p. 296).

Others see the relationship between the Indian state and religion not as one of neutrality or equidistance—or as the state engaging with all religions equally and in the same manner—but rather as what Rajeev Bhargava terms “principled distance.” In this iteration, nonestablishment of religion does not mean religion is wholly separate from public life. Instead, “the state intervenes or refrains from interfering in religion depending entirely upon whether or not some values are protected or advanced” (Bhargava, 2007 , p. 40). Since independence, the nature of the relationship between the state and religion has varied. Williams and Jenkins’s research on Indian secularism concludes that “at times, under certain leaders, it meant equidistance between the state and religion, while at other times, under other leaders, it devolved into periods of state-religion entanglements” (Williams & Jenkins, 2015 , p. 35).

The constitution allows for religious plurality and state interference. On the one hand, Article 25(1) grants citizens freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice freely, and propagate religion, while Articles 15, 16, and 29(2) center on the equality of citizens regardless of religion, race, sex, or caste. The constitution also makes room for the state to interfere in religious matters in Article 25(2a), which states, “Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice.” A 21st-century example of this involvement is a Supreme Court ruling on the issue of Muslim personal law and “triple talaq,” discussed in the section “ Personal Laws .” However, interference by the state into religious matters is not limited to minority religions. Government involvement in the management of religious institutions, and specifically the involvement of the state in the management of Hindu temples, is another example (Chatterjee, 1994 , p. 1770). Beyond family law rulings and temple regulations, other interference by the state into religious matters affects religious practice in a more indirect manner, such as through restrictions on foreign funding.

Restrictions placed on foreign funds in countries around the globe have increased in recent years. While vital to a variety of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), governments often view foreign funding with suspicion. Concerned with potential challenges to their authority and cultural conflicts, governments tend to justify restricting the inflow of funds as necessary for state security and establishing accountability (Mayer, 2018 ). These regulations, enacted outside the sphere of religion, can in practice impact religious practices and organizations even more than overtly religious regulations. An example is the Indian government’s regulation of foreign funds via the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA).

Originally passed in 1976 under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and established under emergency rule, the FCRA monitors the inflow of foreign funds sent from individuals and associations into India. The law’s intent at first was to limit foreign interference in national elections; it was portrayed as an issue of national security and targeted political parties. Subsequent amendments, and a broadening of the scope of the FCRA in 2010 , have increased the number of regulatory guidelines, which now impact thousands of NGOs. Foreign funds are vital to many NGOs, and the FCRA has become the “first tool any ruling government uses to control NGOs not in its favor” (Jalali, 2008 , p. 184).

Government approval of the receipt of foreign funds is granted only after “prior permission” is granted from the Home Ministry or through a five-year renewable license. Reporting obligations are extensive, and the foreign funds are not to be used for activities that are likely to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interest of the state, the public interest, free and fair elections, friendly relations with any foreign state, or harmony between religious, racial, social, linguistic, regional or caste groups. The FCRA’s stated purpose is “to prohibit acceptance and utilization of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality for any activities detrimental to the national interest and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto” (Foreign Contribution [Regulation] Act, 2010 ). However, references to “national interest” and “public interest” are not defined and left to the interpretation of the government, prompting allegations that the FCRA is used as a tool of reprisal against dissenting voices in civil society that are critical of the government or do not align with its ideology (Amnesty International, 2017 ). The tightening of foreign funding has negatively impacted the activities of NGOs including religious organizations. One such example is Compassion International, a Christian charitable child welfare organization. The Christian charity, which had operated in India for 48 years, was accused of alleged proselytization and required to receive funds only with prior permission from the Home Ministry. Due to this financial restriction, Compassion International, despite advocacy efforts to defend it, closed its operations in India in 2017 .

Personal Laws

Personal laws in India are distinct sets of family laws for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Parsis (also known as Zoroastrians). For purposes of personal laws, the category of Hindus is supersized to include Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , section 2), an issue featured in our discussion of Jains demanding to be recognized as a religious minority for purposes of education regulations. In a system originating under British colonial rule, these distinct family laws apply in certain civil cases, such as marriage, divorce, maintenance (akin to alimony), guardianship, adoption, inheritance, and succession. Regular civil judges (not religious authorities) oversee and interpret cases falling under these laws, which are adjudicated through the state court system. Although British colonial rulers considered personal laws to be part of their policy of neutrality in religious affairs in India and hoped thereby to avoid religious unrest, in practice the “very process of ‘preserving’ family laws effected fundamental transformations of them,” as varied texts, customs, and interpretations became codified (Williams, 2006 , p. 607). Determining who was in which religious community and thus subject to which laws was complicated, as documented by historian Chandra Mallampalli in his analysis of the mid- 19th-century case Abraham v. Abraham , involving lower-caste brothers married to Eurasian women and a lengthy dispute over inheritance (Mallampalli, 2011 ).

Personal laws continued after independence. Article 44 of the constitution calls for India to create a uniform civil code—“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”—but this is in the non-justiciable “Directive Principles” section of the constitution. The Constituent Assembly used Directive Principles to urge state action, but these are not mandatory. The government of India still has not standardized the civil code. The Special Marriage Act of 1954 created a religiously neutral option for interfaith couples or those not wanting to marry under one of the religious personal law systems, but familial or social pressures have impeded its widespread use. Even reforming personal laws has been an extraordinarily difficult political project. The tensions between personal laws and women’s rights, as well as the trajectories of related reform movements, have inspired much of the scholarship on personal laws (Solanki, 2011 ).

Shortly after independence, India’s first law minister, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, fought for the reform of Hindu personal laws, particularly parts that perpetuated sex discrimination. His arguments “reveal Ambedkar’s commitment to the democratic struggles for women’s rights against the Brahmanical [upper caste] patriarchy of the state” (Rege, 2013 , p. 219). In 1951 , he resigned to protest the parliament’s failure to pass the Hindu Code Bill (Williams, 2006 , pp. 104–105). Some limited Hindu reforms eventually took place. These bills contained so many concessions that Rina Verma Williams, in her book on postcolonial politics and personal laws, characterizes the idea of Hindu law being significantly reformed as a “myth” used to this day to criticize other communities for “lagging behind” (Williams, 2006 , pp. 113, 119–120).

Although all Indian personal laws have elements that have been disadvantageous for women, Flavia Agnes’s nuanced analysis of each religion’s personal laws combats common perceptions that problems for women are rooted in regressive religious traditions, particularly Islam, in contrast to supposedly progressive government legislation, including the reformed Hindu code. Agnes challenges

a tendency to project all customary laws as anti-women and state enactments or official laws as pro-women. Contrary to popular belief, the history of women’s rights is not linear, with scriptural and customary laws forming one end of the scale and statutory reforms slowly and steadily progressing towards the other. The history is complex with various interactive forces constantly at play. Women’s rights are not only constrained by certain patriarchal norms, but are also shaped and moulded by several social, economic, and political underpinnings. (Agnes, 2011 )

These complex histories and interactive forces call for more research on the various personal laws in India.

For example, after much pressure from Christian feminist activists, the Christian marriage law of 1872 was partially reformed in 2000 . But beyond Flavia Agnes’s overview of all personal laws, Christian laws in India need more scholarly attention. The same can be said of Jewish laws. Even scholars comparing India and Israel’s approaches to religious family laws tend to ignore Jewish law in India (Lerner, 2014 ). Future research on these minorities could use legal historian Mitra Sharafi’s research on Parsis and their personal law as a model. She reveals that it was “invented by elite male Parsis of colonial Bombay, who excelled as lobbyists, lawyers, and judges,” and her contemporary overview includes ongoing debates over parentage, patrilinearity, and defining who is a Parsi (Sharafi, 2015 , p. 305, 307).

The laws of the largest religious minority community, Muslims, have come under the most political fire from Hindu nationalist politicians, and much academic literature on personal law likewise focuses on Muslim personal law. A 1985 Indian Supreme Court case over maintenance for a divorced Muslim woman, Shah Bano, brought the issue of personal laws to national and scholarly attention ( Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and Ors , 1985 ; Engineer, 1987 ; Hasan, 1999 ; Jenkins, 2000 ). In addition to disputes over maintenance, divorce cases have provoked other controversies. Because one’s religious community determines which personal laws one is subject to, conversions shortly before divorces have come under scrutiny to assess whether conversions are genuine or a ruse to secure a divorce or remarry under a different personal law system (Jenkins, 2001 , p. 115). The pluralism of India’s family law has contributed to the scrutiny and regulation of religious conversion and community membership.

In 2017 , Muslim divorce law made headlines again with an Indian Supreme Court decision banning “triple talaq.” Until recently, India has been one of only a few countries that allow this practice of instant divorce. The practice, abrogated by national governments in several Muslim-majority countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, allows a Muslim man to legally and instantly divorce his wife by stating the word “talaq” (the Arabic word for divorce) three times in one sitting. Some men, aided by technology, have even sought instant divorce via e-mail, text message, and social media (Ahmad, 2009 , p. 56). Instant divorce or Talaq-e-Biddat allows for talaq to be repeated in one sitting instead of over a longer period. In India, religious interests including the All India Muslim Personal Law Board—a vocal nongovernmental entity that has frequently defended this set of laws against criticism or potential reforms—claimed that intervention by the state in this practice would be a violation of religious liberty. Other organizations of Muslims in India, such as the women’s advocacy group Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), argued against this form of divorce to protect women’s rights.

In late August 2017 , the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India ruled in favor of the government’s intervention in Muslim Personal Law on the basis that “triple talaq is not integral to religious practice and violates constitutional morality” ( Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others , 2017 ). The decision was made by a five-judge panel but was not unanimous, with two judges stating in the minority opinion that the issue was for the legislature to solve. Nevertheless, instant divorce in India is now unconstitutional. Many activists, politicians, and journalists hailed the decision as a triumph for women’s rights. The significance of the verdict lies in the court’s willingness to deem unconstitutional a practice that has historically been seen as a part of Muslim Personal Law. Monitoring the trajectory of this precedent is an important subject for future research. While even the All India Muslim Personal Law Board said it would not challenge the court’s decision, the overturning of triple talaq opens the door for further intervention by the state into religious matters.

Education and Religious Minority Institutions

The line between religion and state also blurs in the regulation of education. Of the 1.5 million schools in India, the central or individual state governments manage more than half (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2016 ). While the constitution guarantees the educational rights of citizens, the responsibility for implementation is shared by the central, state, and local governments.

A number of constitutional provisions address the relationship between religion, the state, and education. Article 28(1) addresses religious instruction in schools and universities and states that “no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution if wholly maintained out of state funds.” Article 28(2) offers an exception for educational institutions administered by the state but established by a trust or endowment that requires religious instruction, but the following Article 28(3) grants citizens the right to not participate in religious instruction or attend religious worship in such institutions. One of the most contentious educational provisions is found in Article 30, which protects the rights of minorities to establish educational institutions based on either language or religion. Article 30 (in part) states:

All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.

The state shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the grounds that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

While the constitution makes clear the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions, it is less clear as to who constitutes a minority.

Without an enshrined constitutional definition of “minority,” who qualifies as a minority is left to the courts, and judgments have been more contextual than consistent. Religious minority status not only affords a group constitutional rights and protections under the National Commission for Minorities but can also make minority individuals eligible for social benefits, thus making it a sought-after designation. The lack of a precise definition has been a point of contention among religious minorities (Jain, 2005 , p. 2430). One such example is the Jain community, which although awarded minority status by several states, has advocated for decades for minority status at the national level. In Bal Patil v. Union of India ( 2005 ), the Supreme Court denied the petition put forth by a Jain organization to recognize the community as a “minority” under section 2(c) of the National Commission of Minorities Act 1992 .

In that case, the court held that minority status should be determined by a group’s numerical proportion at the state rather than the national level and by their socioeconomic status within the state. In short, the court opined that the socioeconomic standing of the majority of the Jain minority group mitigated the need for official minority status. Furthermore, the court also questioned the legitimacy of Jains as a distinct religious community and instead, in its decision, subsumed Jainism under Hinduism (Jenkins, 2009 , pp. 928–929). The giving and taking away of religious minority status as a regulatory mechanism is ambiguous and can become politicized. Nine years later, Jains gained minority status on the national level, joining five other nationally recognized minority religions, namely, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians (Ministry of Minority Affairs, 2014 ). More recently, the Jewish community has initiated steps to gain minority status at the national level, but they still await a decision (Press Information Bureau Government of India, 2016 ).

Minority religious educational institutions, although guaranteed by the constitution to be self-administered, can also be subject to the actions of the state. State involvement in minority educational institutions has over time centered on the “increasing regulation of the management of state-aided and other schools and colleges, sometimes as a price for state aid, and the assimilation of state-aided and other schools into the general educational framework” (Dhavan, 1987 , p. 233). An example of the state’s impact on minority educational institutions is the regulation of Aligarh Muslim University via its on-again-off-again minority status (Akhtar, 2014 ). Originally established in the 19th century as the Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), was reconstituted by the state as Aligarh Muslim University by the Aligarh Muslim University Act of 1920 . Its university powers, according to the act, include, among others, the ability “to promote especially the educational and cultural advancement of the Muslims of India” (Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 ).

The minority status of the institution came into question when petitioners to the Supreme Court in Azeez Basha v. Union of India ( 1968 ) argued that “the Muslim minority had established the University and had a right to administer it under Article 30 of the Constitution” ( S. Azeez Basha and Anr. v. Union of India , 1968 ). The Supreme Court in response contended that the university was established not only by Muslims but also by the government via a statute ( Azeez Basha at 664). Since 1967 , the institution has lost and regained its minority status at different times through legal judgments and initiatives put forth by ruling political parties. The university is once again at risk of losing its minority status after the ruling government rescinded the support of minority status offered by its predecessor. The government withdrew its support on the basis that the university was established by a secular government and not by the Muslim community and therefore could not be considered a minority educational institution (Rajagopal, 2016 ). Such arguments based on legal technicalities show that while the constitution guarantees religious minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions, the government, by regulating which educational institutions qualify, continues to wield authority over those protections.

Regulation of religious conversions comes up in at least two contexts: religious freedom acts and reservation policies. First, state-level “Freedom of Religion” statutes in several Indian states prohibit conversion via force, inducement, or allurement. The rules associated with these acts require reports to district magistrates and in some cases their prior permission for conversions. Second, the caste and religious certification needed to access “reservations” (affirmative action quotas for lower castes in legislatures, government employment, and higher education) mean conversions can be scrutinized and, in some cases, conversion can make one ineligible for reservations (Jenkins, 2003 , pp. 35–38, 79–81, 111–123). Dalits are the lowest castes. The government lists them on a schedule (the British colonial term for official list), so recognized Dalit communities are officially known as scheduled castes (SCs). Scheduled caste individuals who convert to Christianity or Islam lose their SC status and are not eligible for reservations.

Laws regulating conversion preceded independence in the form of colonial public safety, apostasy, and conversion laws. Over a dozen princely states had laws regulating conversions (Ghose, 2001 ). For instance, Goldie Osuri discusses the Prince of Raigarh’s regulations on conversions in her book on colonial and postcolonial anticonversion laws and discourses. Chakradhar Singh ruled the small, northern princely state of Raigarh from 1925 to 1947 . The 1936 Raigarh State Conversion Act was the precursor for several subsequent acts. Osuri’s analysis of the Raigarh Act traces the “twin discourses of order and protection” used to justify limits on conversion (Osuri, 2013 , pp. 35, 29–35). Although these limits on conversion actually did more to protect the status quo, narratives about protecting supposedly naïve and vulnerable lower castes and tribes continued in the Constituent Assembly debates and were reflected in the conversion laws to follow.

After independence, the Constituent Assembly’s Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights considered but ultimately rejected a constitutional clause against conversion by “coercion or undue influence” (Kim, 2003 , pp. 43–50). Instead, they delegated this issue to future legislators (Constituent Assembly Debates, 1947 ; Granville, 1999 , p. 344). From the 1960s to the 2000s legislators in several Indian states, including Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh, passed “Freedom of Religion” acts and related rules. Tamil Nadu’s 2002 act was repealed after only a few years, but most of these remain. In several other states, lawmakers proposed similar bills, but they have not yet become law.

These laws prohibit conversion by force, inducement, allurement, or fraudulent means. Registration rules associated with these laws range from requirements to report a conversion afterward to the district magistrate (as in Madhya Pradesh), to giving notice 30 days ahead (as in Himachal Pradesh, prior to a successful legal challenge), to obtaining prior permission from the district magistrate (as in Gujarat). Twenty-first-century anticonversion laws are championed not only by overtly Hindu nationalist politicians but also by other political elites, such as the Congress Party–led state government in Himachal Pradesh that passed that state’s act and rules in 2006 and 2007 . Proposed national anti-conversion bills have failed, and state laws have faced legal challenges, reflecting the tension between these “freedom of religion” initiatives and the religious freedom clause of the Indian Constitution.

Banning conversion in the name of protecting religious freedom rests on the premise that certain converts are duped or incapable of exercising religious freedom. Critics of the “Freedom of Religion” acts limiting and monitoring conversions argue that the laws are paternalistic and discriminatory (Adcock, 2014 ; Coleman, 2008 ; Jenkins, 2008 ). Pratap Bhanu Mehta, for instance, writes, “Anti-conversion legislation is illegitimately paternalistic. It sets up the state as an agency that is in the business of saving our souls by putting it in judgement of our motives when we ‘choose’ our religion” (Mehta, 2003 ). The laws are discriminatory because they cast extra suspicion on the motives and agency of certain communities, namely lower castes (Dalits), tribes (Adivasis), and women by including higher fines for conversions of these communities in Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, and Himachal Pradesh (and previously in Tamil Nadu).

Evangelical Fellowship of India and Act Now for Harmony and Democracy v. State of Himachal Pradesh ( 2012 ) challenged that state’s Freedom of Religion Act and Rules. The 2012 Himachal Pradesh High Court decision upheld the ban on conversions by force, fraud, or inducement but struck down the 1,000-rupee fine for not reporting one’s conversion 30 days in advance. In addition, the two-judge bench found unconstitutional the clause that converts do not need to report their conversions if they are converting to their “original” religion, on the grounds that this clause was discriminatory and violated Article 14: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Another policy arena in which conversions face scrutiny and regulation is that of reservations, which is a form of affirmative action. In order to qualify for various social welfare protections and benefits including reservations, which are quotas in government jobs, legislative seats, and higher education, Dalit communities must be officially listed as “Scheduled Castes.” In addition, individual members of a Scheduled Caste must be Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist to qualify for SC reservations. Potential beneficiaries need to produce Scheduled Caste certificates, and if they are in reserved positions, they are supposed to notify the government if they convert to a religion, such as Islam or Christianity, which would disqualify them from their position. Dalit Christians and Muslims have pressed the government for decades to remove the religious limitations on eligibility for SC reservations but have not been successful, despite documented caste disparities in their communities (Jenkins, 2003 , pp. 79–80, 111–126).

In a comparative assessment of the impact of “judicializing religious freedom,” a study of eighty High Court and Supreme Court decisions related to conversions from 1950–2006 in India showed that 42% were about affirmative action, 38% about personal laws, and 15% about religious propagation. Of the affirmative action cases, over half resulted in stripping Muslim or Christian converts of welfare benefits, but Hindu converts found it relatively easy to regain them (Schonthal, Moustafa, Nelson, & Shankar, 2016 , p. 973). More recently, a 2015 Supreme Court decision about the grandson of Dalits who had converted to Christianity allowed him to “regain” his SC status by converting to Hinduism, even generations after it was lost ( K. P. Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for the Verification of Community Certificate , 2008 ). The grandson of Christian converts, K. P. John converted to Hinduism in 1984 at age 24, changed his name to K. P. Manu, and received a community certificate documenting that he had changed from Christian Pulaya to Hindu Pulaya. The Scrutiny Committee did not accept that he was a member of the Hindu Pulaya community and removed his SC status. The High Court of Kerala upheld their decision. K. P. Manu appealed. The Supreme Court overruled the High Court by arguing that his caste could be resurrected generations later via reconversion to Hinduism. The decision selectively linked and delinked caste and religion via an “eclipse” metaphor, in which caste (the sun) was for a time in the shadow of Christianity but emerged upon conversion to Hinduism. This narrative enabled the judges to materially reward a convert to Hinduism by granting him SC status, while acknowledging but disregarding caste discrimination within Christian communities, thus avoiding the implication that he or his family merited SC reservations even when they were Christians.

Several pending cases, including one Dalit Muslim plaintiff and several Dalit Christian plaintiffs, demand SC status for these communities. They are asking for the removal of religion from the definition of who is an SC. Dalit Christian and Muslim litigation and social movement petitions have sparked various government inquiries, including “Dalits in the Muslim and Christian Communities,” a report documenting caste discrimination and disparities among Muslims and Christians, prepared for the National Commission for Minorities (Deshpande & Bapna, 2008 ). The cases remain in limbo at the Supreme Court level (Jenkins, 2019 ).

Religious Speech and Protections Against Outraging Religious Feelings

Regulations of religious appeals in political campaigns and limitations on outraging “religious feelings,” even if defended as a means to keep the peace in a multireligious society, spark disputes and debates in India. Article 123 of the 1951 Representation of the People Act (RPA) limited religious appeals in political campaigns to prevent separatist or communal political mobilizations in the newly independent India. Under the RPA, corrupt practices in elections include: appealing for votes on the grounds of religion or religious symbols, inducing voters to fear divine displeasure or spiritual censure, or promoting enmity on the grounds of religion. In addition, the Election Commission’s Model Code of Conduct—which unlike the RPA is monitored by the Election Commission rather than adjudicated by the courts—does not allow candidates to “create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic” (Sen, 2010 , p. 15).

Ronojoy Sen ( 2010 ) brilliantly synthesized many of the cases and Supreme Court rulings stemming from the RPA and religion in Indian elections. These rulings address several issues, such as Sikh and Hindu religious leaders endorsing candidates, Muslim candidates’ statements regarding their religion or that of their rival candidates, religious or ethnic agendas of political parties (which are allowed) and implications for permitted election discourse, and the choice of party symbols for ballots. Some of the most controversial rulings in this area have become known as the Hindutva judgments. These seven decisions in 1996 allowed some electoral appeals to Hindu identity, based on the argument that references to Hinduism or Hindutva in elections are not necessarily religious appeals but could refer to the Indian “way of life” (Sen, 2010 , pp. 160–164). Hindutva is a term originated by Hindu nationalists and subsequently equated with the ideology of the Hindu right (Nussbaum, 2007 , pp. 156–164).

The scope of the RPA was central to Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen , and in a 4–3 decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled in 2017 that appealing for votes on the basis of religion (or race, caste, community, or language) is a corrupt practice that can disqualify a winning candidate from taking office even if the appeal is not about the candidates’ or their rivals’ own identities ( Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen [Dead] by Lrs. and Ors , 2017 ; Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa and Ors , 2017 ). By seeming to limit any appeals to these social categories, this ruling troubled the dissenting justices, who anticipated that the majority decision could be used to ban dialogues about deprivations along any of these societal lines. In the words of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, “How can this be barred from being discussed in an election? Religion, caste and language are as much a symbol of discrimination imposed on large segments of our society” (Rajagopal, 2017 ). The parameters of what an impermissible religious appeal is will be a sphere of religious regulation to watch.

A statute of the Indian penal code (295-A), which originated under colonialism in 1927 but persists in postcolonial law, outlaws “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” This regulation, initiated to control a colony, became a tool to keep the peace in postcolonial India. But increasingly Hindu nationalist activists use it to harass and threaten people who write about Hinduism in ways that challenge dominant or upper-caste Hindu perspectives (Truschke, 2017 ). Noted Tamil novelist Perumal Murugan’s books, including Seasons of the Palm , Pyre , and One Part Woman (Murugan, 2014 , 2016 , 2017a ), address caste and gender issues in direct and compelling detail. Hindu nationalists accused him of outraging religious feelings, threatening him to the point that he publically announced in 2015 his decision to give up writing. He nevertheless went on to publish a book of essays by writers from over 20 castes in Tamil Nadu (Murugan, 2017b ). A lawsuit against an eminent American scholar of Hinduism, Wendy Doniger, and her book The Hindus: An Alternative History ( 2009 ), prompted Penguin Books India to stop publishing—and destroy remaining copies of—Doniger’s book in India (Public Radio International, 2016 ). Doniger has also faced death threats.

Portrayals of religious epics, figures, and images in film and television are also politically fraught (Rajagopal, 1994 ). In 2017 , activists from the Rajput community (a Hindu caste) sued the makers of the Bollywood film Padmaavati (subsequently titled Padmaavat ) under several statutes, including 295-A, before it was even completed or released. Threats of death or physical harm to its actors and director precipitated a title change and possibly directorial adjustments to the content of the film itself to avoid retribution. Based on news accounts that the characters of a Rajput princess and a Muslim king would be in a song or love scene together, the Rajput litigants argued that the film hurt their feelings, but the Rajasthan High Court and Indian Supreme Courts found that Rajputs were portrayed in a heroic light ( Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors , 2017 ; Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. v. State & Ors , 2018 ). Noting that it was the Muslim character who was depicted as “beast,” an Economic and Political Weekly editorial observed that “only when you have the power, can you afford to be hurt and to show it” and critiqued “this game of ‘hurt sentiments’ that includes casual communalism, entrenched patriarchy, and caste pride” ( Economic and Political Weekly , 2017 ).

While scholars, authors, and filmmakers have previously faced harassment and attacks for their depictions of religious or social issues, the recent use of a colonial-era regulation to take legal action against people for outraging religious feelings illustrates how the state regulation of religion in India can pave the way for additional threats from society. These legal actions also show how religious regulations can repress dissenting or nondominant narratives and groups. The growing number of regulations pertaining to cows, considered holy by many (especially upper-caste) Hindus, alongside increasing attacks on Muslims and lower-caste communities in the name of cow protection, are other examples of the repression that can be triggered by regulation (Nadal, 2016 ).

Cow Protection

The framers of the constitution extensively debated the issue of cow slaughter. While some called for the ban of cow slaughter on religious grounds, others argued in favor of limiting cow slaughter and made arguments on economic grounds. These types of arguments extend back to colonial-era debates over cow protection (Adcock, 2010 ). In the Constituent Assembly, the arguments about the economic utility of limiting cow slaughter won, yet various scholars acknowledge that the underlying foundation for protecting cows in India is religion (Chigateri, 2011 , pp. 142–146; Chiriyankandath, 2000 , p. 16).

The religious sentiment underlying cow protection has at different times been used as a political tool to accommodate majoritarian sensibilities and for electoral gains. Even Mughal emperors Akbar and Aurangzeb, in the mid- 16th and 17th centuries , respectively, implemented temporary bans on cow slaughter to accommodate other groups (Jha, 2002 , p. 18). In the 19th century , the prohibition of cow slaughter as a movement emerged. While the movement stayed clear from advocating against cow slaughter on religious grounds, the activities of the movement did have an undeniable anti-Muslim tone (Adcock, 2010 , pp. 297–300). More recently, political parties have engaged in cow protection rhetoric, including a call for a national ban on cow slaughter. Amrita Basu notes that the Bharatiya Janata Party, in close collaboration with Hindu right-wing organizations, has pursued three Hindu nationalist commitments—namely educational reform, cow protection, and religious conversion—in ways that have discriminated against minorities (Basu, 2015 , p. 301).

Article 48 of the Indian Constitution, a directive principle of state policy, supplies the legislative foundation for the prohibition of cow slaughter:

The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows, and other milch and draught cattle. (Constitution of India, Article 48)

Despite the linkage of cow protection and economic concerns in the constitution, on the whole, states have used the license provided in Article 48 to restrict the slaughter of cows based on religion (Chigateri, 2011 , pp. 137–159). However, state laws vary significantly, with some states completely banning the slaughter of all cattle and others instituting partial bans. And still others, like the state of Kerala with its large Muslim and Christian populations, have no ban at all. State laws vary on whether one can slaughter, consume, possess, or transport cows or the flesh of cows, and what a cow is (whether the term encompass bulls, bullocks, heifers, calves, oxen, etc.).

The constitutional protection of cows has been challenged over the years and remains a contentious issue. The constitutional validity of state laws banning cow slaughter has been questioned and brought before the Supreme Court by various groups representing both economic and religious interests. In Mohd Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar ( 1958 ), Muslim cattle dealers, butchers, and vendors from Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh unsuccessfully argued that the acts from these states banning cow slaughter violated their fundamental rights. These rights included the right to equality, the right to practice any profession, and the right to freedom of religion (Chigateri, 2011 , p. 147). More recently, the issue of cow protection has taken a violent turn, with self-appointed cow vigilantes committing heinous attacks against Muslims, based on rumors that they consumed beef or engaged in the sale or purchase of cows (Raj, 2016 ). As in riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002 , this antiminority violence stems from the interplay between society and state action (or strategic inaction) and appears to have an electoral logic (Dhattiwala & Biggs, 2012 ). The increased outbreaks of violence prompted the Supreme Court to intervene in response to a private petition and order the central government to direct each state to appoint a senior officer to curb the violence (Ananthakrishnan, 2017 ).

Key problems motivating extant research on the regulation of religion in India include perennial tensions over the nature of Indian secularism, religious personal laws, minority educational institutions, religious conversion, limitations on religious speech in political campaigns and on words or actions that outrage religious feelings, and antiminority violence. Further research should continue to document the regulations themselves, their roots, and the ways they are (or are not) implemented in the 21st century . Within India’s federal system, tensions between constitutional law and state laws as well as different state regulations or degrees of implementation merit further comparative scrutiny. Particularly urgent is further research on the varied impact of regulations on the many different religious communities in India, as well as on groups within each community, which vary tremendously due to gender, caste, region, ethnicity, and other factors. Finally, societal responses to religious regulations in the form of compliance, resistance, vigilantism, litigation, or protest are a promising area for future research within this fascinating field of study.

Primary Sources

Central Government Act, Aligarh Muslim University Act (1920).

Central Government Act, The Hindu Marriage Act (1955).

Constituent Assembly Debates On 30 August 1947 Part I, Transcript of Debates about Supplementary Report on Fundamental Rights (1947).

Engineer, A. A. ( 1987 ). The Shah Bano controversy . Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman.

Sharafi, M. South Asian Legal History Resources.

The Constitution of India (1950).

Further Reading

• Ahmed, F. (2016). Religious freedom under the personal law system . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Galanter, M. (1997). Hinduism, secularism, and the judiciary . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Human Rights Watch . (2019). Violent cow protection in India: Vigilante groups attack minorities .
• Jenkins, L. D. (2000). Shah Bano: Muslim women’s rights . Teaching human rights online .
• Jenkins, L. D. (2019). Religious freedom and mass conversion in india . Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
• Mallampalli, C. (2004). Christians and public life in colonial South India, 1863–1937: Contending with marginality . New York, NY: Routledge Curzon.
• Needham, A. D. , & Sunder Rajan, R. (Eds.). (2007). The crisis of secularism in India . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Sharafi, M. (2014). Law and identity in colonial South Asia: Parsi legal culture, 1772–1947 . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, R. V. (2006). Postcolonial politics and personal laws: Colonial legal legacies and the Indian state . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors (Civil Appeal np. 37 of 1992, 2017).
• Adcock, C. S. (2010). Sacred cows and secular history: Cow protection debates in colonial north India. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East , 30 (2), 297–311.
• Adcock, C. S. (2014). Debating conversion, silencing caste: The limited scope of religious freedom. Journal of Law and Religion , 29 (3), 363–377.
• Agnes, F. (2011). Family law volume 1: Family laws and constitutional claims (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Ahmad, N. (2009). A critical appraisal of “triple divorce” in Islamic law. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family , 53 , 53–61.
• Akhtar, S. (2014). Constitutional provisions for minority institutions and the case of Aligarh Muslim University: The legal search for a solution since 1965. Social Scientist , 42 (5–6), 63–68.
• Amnesty International . (2017). NGO Foreign Funding Law used as reprisal tool by government. London, UK: Amnesty International.
• Ananthakrishnan, G. (2017, September 7). Supreme court to states: Pick officers to stop cow vigilantism. The Indian Express .
• Bajpai, R. (2002). The conceptual vocabularies of secularism and minority rights in India. Journal of Political Ideologies , 7 (2), 179–197.
• Bal Patil and Anr v. Union of India & Ors (6 SCC 690, 2005).
• Basu, A. (2015). Violent conjunctures in democratic India . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Bhargava, R. (2007). The distinctiveness of Indian secularism. In T. N. Srinivasan (Ed.), The future of secularism (pp. 20–53). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Chatterjee, P. (1994). Secularism and toleration. Economic and Political Weekly , 29 (28), 1768–1777.
• Chigateri, S. (2011). Negotiating the “sacred” cow: Cow slaughter and the regulation of difference in India. In Democracy, religious pluralism and the liberal dilemma of accommodation (pp. 137–159). New York, NY: Springer.
• Chiriyankandath, J. (2000). Creating a secular state in a religious country: The debate in the Indian Constituent Assembly. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics , 38 (2), 1–24.
• Coleman, J. (2008). Authoring (in)authenticity, regulating religious tolerance: The implications of anticonversion legislation for Indian secularism. Cultural Dynamics , 20 (3), 245–277.
• Deshpande, S. , & Bapna, G. (2008). Dalits in the Muslim and Christian communities: A status report on current social scientific knowledge . New Delhi, India: National Commission for Minorities.
• Dhattiwala, R. , & Biggs, M. (2012). The political logic of ethnic violence and the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, 2002. Politics and Society , 40 (4), 483–516.
• Dhavan, R. (1987). Religious freedom in India. American Journal of Comparative Law , 35 (1), 209–254.
• Doniger, W. (2009). The Hindus: An alternative history . New York: NY: Penguin Press.
• Economic and Political Weekly . (Ed). (2017, November 25). The game of hurt sentiments. Economic and Political Weekly , 52 (47), 7–8.
• Engineer, A. A. (1987). The Shah Bano controversy . Hyderabad, India: Orient Longman.
• Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act . (2010, September 27). The Gazette of India .
• Ghose, S. (2001). Unsustainable laws . New, Delhi, India: The Lawyers Collective.
• Granville, A. (1999). The Indian constitution: Cornerstone of a nation . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Hasan, Z. (Ed.) (1999). Muslim women and the debate on legal reforms . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Jain, R. (2005). Minority rights in education: Reflections on Article 30 of the Indian Constitution. Economic and Political Weekly , 40 (24), 2430–2437.
• Jalali, R. (2008). Bringing the state back. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , 19 (2), 161–188.
• Jenkins, L. D. (2001). Personal law and reservations: Volition and religion in contemporary India. In G. J. Larson (Ed.), Religion and personal law in secular India: A call to judgement . New Delhi, India: Social Science Press.
• Jenkins, L. D. (2003). Identity and identification in India: Defining the disadvantaged . London, UK: Routledge.
• Jenkins, L. D. (2008). Legal limits on religious conversion in India. Law and Contemporary Problems , 71 (2), 109–127.
• Jenkins, L. D. (2009). Diversity and the constitution in India: What is religious freedom? Drake Law Review , 57 (4), 913–947.
• Jenkins, L. D. (2019). Religious freedom and mass conversion in India . Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.
• Jha, D. N. (2002). The myth of the holy cow . New York, NY: Verso.
• K. P. Manu v. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for the Verification of Community Certificate (No. Civil Appeal no. 7065, 2008).
• Khalidi, O. (2008). Hinduising India: Secularism in practice. Third World Quarterly , 29 (8), 1545–1562.
• Kim, S. C. H. (2003). In search of identity: Debates on religious conversion in India . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Lerner, H. (2014). Critical junctures, religion, and personal status regulations in Israel and India. Law & Social Inquiry , 39 (2), 387–415.
• Madan, T. N. (1987). Secularism in its place. Journal of Asian Studies , 46 (4), 747–759.
• Mallampalli, C. (2011). Race, religion and law in colonial India: Trials of an interracial family . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Manohar Lal Sharma v. Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors (W.P. Cri. No. 191, 2017).
• Mayer, L. H. (2018). Globalization without a safety net: The challenge of protecting cross-border funding for NGOs. Minnesota Law Review , 102 (3), 1205–1271.
• Mehta, P. B. (2003). Passion and constraint . Seminar , 521 .
• Ministry of Human Resource Development . (2016). Education statistics at a glance . New Delhi. Government of India.
• Ministry of Minority Affairs . (2014, February 27). Ministry of Minority Affairs Notification, The Gazette of India . New Delhi: Government of India.
• Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum & Ors (AIR 945, 1985).
• Mohd Hanif Quareshi & Ors. v. State of Bihar (and connected petition) (AIR 731, 1958).
• Murugan, P. (2014). One part woman ( A. Vasudevan , Trans.). Haryana, India: Penguin Books.
• Murugan, P. (2016). Seasons of the palm ( V. Geetha , Trans.). Haryana, India: Tara Publishing.
• Murugan, P. (2017a). Pyre ( A. Vasudevan , Trans.). Haryana, India: Penguin Books.
• Murugan, P. (2017b). Black coffee in a coconut shell: Caste as lived experience ( C. S. Lakshmi , Trans.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Nadal, D. (2016). Cows caught in the crossfire: Provisional remarks on India’s current cow-slaughter debate. religions of South Asia , 10 (1), 79–102.
• Nandy, A. (1998). The politics of secularism and the recovery of religious toleration. In R. Bhargava (Ed.), Secularism and its critics . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
• Narayan Singh v. Sunderlal Patwa & Ors (Civil Appeal no. 8339 of 1995, 2017).
• Nussbaum, M. (2007). The clash within: Democracy, religious violence, and India’s future . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Osuri, G. (2013). Religious freedom in India: Sovereignty and (anti) conversion . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Press Information Bureau of India, Ministry of Minority Affairs . (2016, May 4). Minority Status to Jewish Community (Press release), New Delhi: India.
• Public Radio International (PRI) . (2016, February 2). The Hindus: An alternate history . Minneapolis, MN: Public Radio International.
• Raj, S. (2016, August 11). Indian state to license cow protection groups to aid police. New York Times .
• Rajagopal, A. (1994). Ram Janmabhoomi, consumer identity and image-based politics. Economic and Political Weekly , 29 (27), 1659–1668.
• Rajagopal, K. (2016, April 5). Government backs verdict denying AMU minority status. The Hindu .
• Rajagopal, K. (2017, January 2). Seeking votes on religious basis a corrupt act: SC. The Hindu .
• Rege, S. (2013). Against the madness of Manu: B.R. Ambedkar’s writings on Brahmanical patriarchy . New Delhi, India: Navayana.
• S. Azeez Basha And Anr. v. Union of India (AIR 662, 1968).
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (AIR 1918, 1994).
• Sanjay Leela Bhansali & Ors. v. State & Ors, S.B. Cr.M.P. No. 737 of 2017 (Raj. H.C., 2018).
• Schonthal, B. , Moustafa, T. , Nelson, M. , & Shankar, S. (2016). Is the rule of law an antidote for religious toleration? The promise and peril of judicializing religious freedom. American Behavioral Scientist , 60 (8), 966–986.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Sen, A. (2005). The argumentative Indian . New York, NY: Allen Lane.
• Sen, R. (2010). In the name of God: Regulating religion in Indian elections. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies , 33 (1), 151–167.
• Sharafi, M. (2015). Law and modern Zoroastrians. In M. Stausberg & Y. Vevaina (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to Zoroastrianism (pp. 299–312). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
• Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors (SCR 963, 2017).
• Singhvi, A. (2009). India’s constitution and individual rights: Diverse perspectives. The George Washington International Law Review , 40 (2), 327–360.
• Solanki, G. (2011). Adjudication in religious family laws: Cultural accommodation, legal pluralism and gender equality in India . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Tejani, S. (2008). Indian secularism: A social and intellectual history, 1890–1950 . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Truschke, A. (2017). Censoring Indian history. History Today , 67 (8), 14–17.
• Udayakumar, S. P. (2005). “Presenting” the past: Anxious history and ancient future in Hindutva India . Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Van der Veer, P. (1994). Hindu nationalism and the discourse of modernity: The Vishva Hindu Parishad. In M.E. Marty & R.S. Appleby (Eds.), Accounting for fundamentalisms (pp. 653–668). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Williams, R. V. , & Jenkins, L. D. (2015). Secular anxieties and transnational engagements in India. In M. Wohlrab-Sahr Marian Burchardt & M. Middell (Eds.), Multiple secularities beyond the West: Religion and modernity in the global age (pp. 19–37). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.
• Williams, R. V. , & Moktan, S. (2018). Political aspects of Hinduism: India, Nepal and beyond. In Encyclopedia of politics and religion . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Related Articles

• Religious Nationalism and Religious Influence
• Religious Establishment as a Subject of Political Science

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 01 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

Swami Vivekananda and His 1893 Speech

Photo of Swami Vivekananda in Chicago in 1893 with the handwritten words “one infinite pure and holy—beyond thought beyond qualities I bow down to thee”

Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902) is best known in the United States for his groundbreaking speech to the 1893 World’s Parliament of Religions in which he introduced Hinduism to America and called for religious tolerance and an end to fanaticism. Born Narendranath Dutta, he was the chief disciple of the 19th-century mystic Ramakrishna and the founder of Ramakrishna Mission. Swami Vivekananda is also considered a key figure in the introduction of Vedanta and Yoga to the West and is credited with raising the profile of Hinduism to that of a world religion.

Speech delivered by Swami Vivekananda on September 11, 1893, at the first World’s Parliament of Religions on the site of the present-day Art Institute

Sisters and Brothers of America,

It fills my heart with joy unspeakable to rise in response to the warm and cordial welcome which you have given us. I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world, I thank you in the name of the mother of religions, and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects.

My thanks, also, to some of the speakers on this platform who, referring to the delegates from the Orient, have told you that these men from far-off nations may well claim the honor of bearing to different lands the idea of toleration. I am proud to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance. We believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth. I am proud to tell you that we have gathered in our bosom the purest remnant of the Israelites, who came to Southern India and took refuge with us in the very year in which their holy temple was shat­tered to pieces by Roman tyranny. I am proud to belong to the religion which has sheltered and is still fostering the remnant of the grand Zoroastrian nation. I will quote to you, brethren, a few lines from a hymn which I remember to have repeated from my earliest boyhood, which is every day repeated by millions of human beings: “As the different streams having their sources in different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.”

The present convention, which is one of the most august assemblies ever held, is in itself a vindication, a declaration to the world of the wonderful doctrine preached in the Gita: “Whosoever comes to Me, through whatsoever form, I reach him; all men are struggling through paths which in the end lead to me.” Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descen­dant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with vio­lence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal.

Sign up for our enewsletter to receive updates.

• News and Exhibitions Career Opportunities Families
• Public Programs K-12 Educator Resources Teen Opportunities Research, Publishing, and Conservation

Gallery actions

Image actions, suggested terms.

• Free Admission
• O'Keeffe
• My Museum Tour
• What to See in an Hour

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• Speech Writing /

Speech on Religion in English

• Updated on  
• Dec 27, 2023

Religion is our social and cultural identity. According to the Oxford Dictionary, religion refers to our faith and belief in superhuman powers, especially in God. Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘Before the throne of the Almighty, man will be judged not by his acts but by his intentions. For God alone reads our hearts.’ Our religion teaches us a way of living, what we will accomplish in life and how our actions will determine our afterlife. International sources estimate the existence of more than 4000 religions in the world, the popular being, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. But did you know that there is a large section of people who identify themselves as secular/ nonreligious/ agnostic? Today, we have brought to you a speech on religion in English. Stay tuned!

Table of Contents

• 1 Popular Religions in the World
• 2 10 Lines to Add in Speech on Religion
• 3 2-Minute Speech on Religion

‘All Religions Must Be Tolerated…For Every Man Must Go To Heaven In His Way.’ -Epictetus

Popular Religions in the World

The table below highlights some of the popular religions in the world with the total number of followers.

Also Read: Right to Freedom of Religion

10 Lines to Add in Speech on Religion

Here are 10 lines that you can add to your speech on religion. Feel free to use them in your speech or writing topics related to religion. 

• Every religion has its holy texts, where rules and rituals are mentioned.
• There are four Hindu holy texts or Vedas: the Rig Veda , the Yajur Veda , the Sama Veda , and the Atharva Veda .
• In India, there are eight major religions.
• Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world and was mentioned as ‘Sanathana’ in ancient Hindu texts.
• Christians and Muslims are monotheistic, meaning they believe there’s only one God, and he created the heavens and the earth.
• There are around 330 million gods in the Hindu culture.
• Jews are more highly educated than any other major religious group around the world.
• Religious tolerance and freedom are necessary to build a pluralistic society.
• Religions around the world offer moral guidelines and ethical principles that shape the behaviour and conduct of their adherents.
• Rituals and ceremonies are integral parts of religious expression.

Also Read: Best Speech on Christmas

Also Read: How to Prepare for UPSC in 6 Months?

2-Minute Speech on Religion

‘Hello and welcome to everyone present here. Today, I stand before you to present my speech on religion. We all have grown up hearing the phrase, ‘Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Isai, sab apas me bhai bhai.’ Today, there are more than 4000 religions in the world, and the most popular ones are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Since India is a Secular country, several religions co-exist. There are eight major religions in India, such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism Buddhism, etc.’

‘Religion is not a physical entity. Instead, they are rules and regulations, giving us a social and cultural identity to live in harmony with other religions. Every religion teaches us to find the meaning of existence; the purpose of our life. Different religions have their customs and celebrations, where people follow their belief practices, and pray to the god for the goodwill of their family’s health and overall wellbeing.’

‘In our country, some of the popular religious places are Varanasi (Kashi), Haridwar, Ujjain, Amritsar, Tirupati, etc. All these cities are holy places where millions of people every year gather to participate in religious practices. The famous Kumbh Mela is a Hindu pilgrimage and festival which is conducted every 12 years at four places in India. 

‘Our religion teaches us a lot of life lessons like being kind to others, telling the truth or following the path of righteousness, etc. Different religions have their learned men, who act as the medium between people and god. Christians have a Father in church, an Imam in the Mosque, a Pujari in the Hindu Temple, a Granthi in Gurudwaras, and so on. Although these people have different names, their job is the same; performing rituals in holy places to connect with god or deity.’

‘We respect religion and abide by all our religious practices. Religion is not just about visiting temples and celebrating festivals. It is a way of living, it’s our identity, it defines who we are and teaches us what we can achieve in our life. Every religion offers moral guidelines and ethical principles that shape the behavior and conduct of adherents.

Thank you.’

Ans: Religion refers to the beliefs and practices people follow, which connect them with their social and cultural identity. International sources estimate the existence of more than 4000 religions in the world, the popular being, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. ‘Religion is not a physical entity. Instead, they are rules and regulations, giving us a social and cultural identity to live in harmony with other religions. Every religion teaches us to find the meaning of existence; the purpose of our life.

Ans: The top three religions in the world are Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.

Ans: People who don’t follow any religion identify themselves as secular/ nonreligious/ agnostic. More than a billion people in the world identify themselves as secular/ nonreligious

Related Articles

For more information on such interesting speech topics for your school, visit our speech writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Jump to main content

Jump to navigation

• Latest News Read the latest blog posts from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave
• Share-Worthy Check out the most popular infographics and videos
• Photos View the photo of the day and other galleries
• Video Gallery Watch behind-the-scenes videos and more
• Live Events Tune in to White House events and statements as they happen
• Music & Arts Performances See the lineup of artists and performers at the White House
• Your Weekly Address
• Speeches & Remarks
• Press Briefings
• Statements & Releases
• White House Schedule
• Presidential Actions
• Legislation
• Nominations & Appointments
• Disclosures
• Cabinet Exit Memos
• Criminal Justice Reform
• Civil Rights
• Climate Change
• Foreign Policy
• Health Care
• Immigration Action
• Disabilities
• Homeland Security
• Reducing Gun Violence
• Seniors & Social Security
• Urban and Economic Mobility
• President Barack Obama
• Vice President Joe Biden
• First Lady Michelle Obama
• Dr. Jill Biden
• The Cabinet
• Executive Office of the President
• Senior White House Leadership
• Other Advisory Boards
• Office of Management and Budget
• Office of Science and Technology Policy
• Council of Economic Advisers
• Council on Environmental Quality
• National Security Council
• Joining Forces
• Reach Higher
• My Brother's Keeper
• Precision Medicine
• State of the Union
• Inauguration
• Medal of Freedom
• Follow Us on Social Media
• We the Geeks Hangouts
• Mobile Apps
• Developer Tools
• Tools You Can Use
• Tours & Events
• Jobs with the Administration
• Internships
• White House Fellows
• Presidential Innovation Fellows
• United States Digital Service
• Leadership Development Program
• We the People Petitions
• Contact the White House
• Citizens Medal
• Champions of Change
• West Wing Tour
• Eisenhower Executive Office Building Tour
• Video Series
• Décor and Art
• First Ladies
• The Vice President's Residence & Office
• Eisenhower Executive Office Building
• Air Force One
• The Executive Branch
• The Legislative Branch
• The Judicial Branch
• The Constitution
• Federal Agencies & Commissions
• Elections & Voting
• State & Local Government

Search form

Briefing room.

• Executive Orders
• Presidential Memoranda
• Proclamations
• Pending Legislation
• Signed Legislation
• Vetoed Legislation

Remarks by President Obama in Address to the People of India

Siri Fort Auditorium New Delhi, India

11:02 A.M. IST   PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Namaste!  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Thank you so much, Neha, for what a wonderful introduction.  (Applause.)  Everybody, please have a seat.  Nothing fills me with more hope than when I hear incredible young people like Neha and all the outstanding work that she’s doing on behalf of India’s youth and for representing this nation’s energy and its optimism and its idealism.  She makes me very, very proud.  And I’m sure -- I think they may be her -- is that somebody related to you?  Okay.  Because we just had a chance to meet, and she’s beaming with pride right now sitting next to you.  Give Neha a big round of applause once again.  (Applause.)   Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, to all the students and young people who are here today, to the people of India watching and listening across this vast nation -- I bring the friendship and the greetings of the American people.  On behalf of myself and Michelle, thank you so much for welcoming us back to India.  Bahoot dhanyavad.  (Applause.)      It has been a great honor to be the first American President to join you for Republic Day.  With the tricolor waving above us, we celebrated the strength of your constitution.  We paid tribute to India’s fallen heroes.  In yesterday’s parade, we saw the pride and the diversity of this nation -- including the Dare Devils on their Royal Enfields, which was very impressive.  Secret Service does not let me ride motorcycles.  (Laughter.)  Especially not on my head.  (Laughter.)   I realize that the sight of an American President as your chief guest on Republic Day would have once seemed unimaginable.  But my visit reflects the possibilities of a new moment.  As I’ve said many times, I believe that the relationship between India and the United States can be one of the defining partnerships of this century.  When I spoke to your Parliament on my last visit, I laid out my vision for how our two nations can build that partnership.  And today, I want to speak directly to you -- the people of India -- about what I believe we can achieve together, and how we can do it.   My commitment to a new chapter between our countries flows from the deep friendship between our people.  And Michelle and I have felt it ourselves.  I recognized India with the first state visit of my presidency -- where we also danced to some pretty good Bhangra.  (Laughter.)  For the first time, we brought Diwali to the White House.  (Applause.)  On our last celebration here, we celebrated the Festival of Lights in Mumbai.  We danced with some children.  Unfortunately, we were not able to schedule any dancing this visit.  Senorita, bade-bade deshon mein.  You know what I mean.  (Laughter and applause.)  Everybody said, by the way, how much better a dance Michelle was than me -- (laughter) -- which hurt my feelings a little bit.  (Laughter.)   On a more personal level, India represents an intersection of two men who have always inspired me.  When Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was protesting racial segregation in the United States, he said that his guiding light was Mahatma Gandhi.  When Dr. King came to India, he said that being here -- in “Gandhi’s land” -- reaffirmed his conviction that in the struggle for justice and human dignity, the most potent weapon of all is non-violent resistance.   And those two great souls are why we can gather here together today, Indians and Americans, equal and free.   And there is another link that binds us.  More than 100 years ago, America welcomed a son of India -- Swami Vivekananda.  (Applause.)  And Swami Vivekananda, he helped bring Hinduism and yoga to our country.  And he came to my hometown of Chicago.  And there, at a great gathering of religious leaders, he spoke of his faith and the divinity in every soul, and the purity of love.  And he began his speech with a simple greeting:  “Sisters and brothers of America.”   So today, let me say:  Sisters and brothers of India -- (applause) -- my confidence in what our nations can achieve together is rooted in the values we share.  For we may have our different histories and speak different languages, but when we look at each other, we see a reflection of ourselves.    Having thrown off colonialism, we created constitutions that began with the same three words -- “we the people.”  As societies that celebrate knowledge and innovation, we transformed ourselves into high-tech hubs of the global economy.  Together, we unlock new discoveries -- from the particles of creation to outer space -- two nations to have gone to both the Moon and to Mars.  (Applause.)  And here in India, this dynamism has resulted in a stunning achievement.  You’ve lifted countless millions from poverty and built one of the world’s largest middle classes.   And nobody embodies this progress and this sense of possibility more than our young people.  Empowered by technology, you are connecting and collaborating like never before -- on Facebook and WhatsApp and Twitter.  And chances are, you’re talking to someone in America -- your friends, your cousins.  The United States has the largest Indian diaspora in the world, including some three million proud Indian-Americans.  (Applause.)  And they make America stronger, and they tie us together -- bonds of family and friendship that allow us to share in each other’s success.   For all these reasons, India and the United States are not just natural partners.  I believe America can be India’s best partner.  I believe that.  (Applause.)  Of course, only Indians can decide India’s role in the world.  But I’m here because I’m absolutely convinced that both our peoples will have more jobs and opportunity, and our nations will be more secure, and the world will be a safer and a more just place when our two democracies -- the world’s largest democracy and the world’s oldest democracy -- stand together.  I believe that.  (Applause.)    So here in New Delhi, Prime Minister Modi and I have begun this work anew.  And here’s what I think we can do together.  America wants to be your partner as you lift up the lives of the Indian people and provide greater opportunity.  So working together, we’re giving farmers new techniques and data -- from our satellites to their cell phones -- to increase yields and boost incomes.  We’re joining you in your effort to empower every Indian with a bank account.    And with the breakthroughs we achieved on this visit, we can finally move toward fully implementing our civil nuclear agreement, which will mean more reliable electricity for Indians and cleaner, non-carbon energy that helps fight climate change.   (Applause.)  And I don’t have to describe for you what more electricity means.  Students being able to study at night; businesses being able to stay open longer and hire more workers; farmers being able to use mechanized tools that increase their productivity; whole communities seeing more prosperity.  In recent years, India has lifted more people out of poverty than any other country.  And now we have a historic opportunity with India leading the way to end the injustice of extreme poverty all around the world.  (Applause.)   America wants to be your partner as you protect the health of your people and the beauty of this land, from the backwaters of Kerala to the banks of Ganges.  As we deliver more energy, more electricity, let’s do it with clean, renewable energy, like solar and wind.  And let’s put cleaner vehicles on the road and more filtration systems on farms and villages.  Because every child should be able to drink clean water, and every child should be able to breathe clean air.  (Applause.)  We need our young people healthy for their futures.  And we can do it.  We have the technology to do it.   America wants to be your partner in igniting the next wave of Indian growth.  As India pursues more trade and investment, we want to be first in line.  We’re ready to join you in building new infrastructure -- the roads and the airports, the ports, the bullet trains to propel India into the future.  We’re ready to help design “smart cities” that serve citizens better, and we want to develop more advanced technologies with India, as we do with our closest allies.     We believe we can be even closer partners in ensuring our mutual security.  And both our nations have known the anguish of terrorism, and we stand united in the defense of our people.  And now we’re deepening our defense cooperation against new challenges.  The United States welcomes a greater role for India in the Asia Pacific, where the freedom of navigation must be upheld and disputes must be resolved peacefully.  And even as we acknowledge the world as it is, we must never stop working for the world as it should be -- a world without nuclear weapons.  That should be a goal for all of us.  (Applause.)   I believe that if we’re going to be true global partners, then our two nations must do more around the world together.  So to ensure international security and peace, multilateral institutions created in the 20th century have to be updated for the 21st.  And that’s why I support a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.  (Applause.)      Of course, as I’ve said before, with power comes responsibility.  In this region, India can play a positive role in helping countries forge a better future, from Burma to Sri Lanka, where today there’s new hope for democracy.  With your experience in elections, you can help other countries with theirs.  With your expertise in science and medicine, India can do more around the world to fight disease and develop new vaccines, and help us end the moral outrage of even a single child dying from a preventable disease.  Together, we can stand up against human trafficking and work to end the scourge of modern day slavery.  (Applause.)      And being global partners means confronting the urgent global challenge of climate change.  With rising seas, melting Himalayan glaciers, more unpredictable monsoons, cyclones getting stronger -- few countries will be more affected by a warmer planet than India.  And the United States recognizes our part in creating this problem, so we’re leading the global effort to combat it.  And today, I can say that America’s carbon pollution is near its lowest level in almost two decades.    I know the argument made by some that it’s unfair for countries like the United States to ask developing nations and emerging economies like India to reduce your dependence on the same fossil fuels that helped power our growth for more than a century.  But here’s the truth:  Even if countries like the United States curb our emissions, if countries that are growing rapidly like India -- with soaring energy needs -- don't also embrace cleaner fuels, then we don’t stand a chance against climate change.   So we welcome India’s ambitious targets for generating more clean energy.  We’ll continue to help India deal with the impacts of climate change -- because you shouldn’t have to bear that burden alone.  As we keep working for a strong global agreement on climate change, it's young people like you who have to speak up, so we can protect this planet for your generation.  I'll be gone when the worst effects happen.  It's your generation and your children that are going to be impacted.  That's why it's urgent that we begin this work right now.   Development that lifts up the lives and health of our people.  Trade and economic partnerships that reduce poverty and create opportunity.  Leadership in the world that defends our security, and advances human dignity, and protects our planet -- that’s what I believe India and America can do together.  So with the rest of my time, I want to discuss how we can do it.  Because in big and diverse societies like ours, progress ultimately depends on something more basic, and that is how we see each other.  And we know from experience what makes nations strong. And Neha I think did a great job of describing the essence of what’s important here.    We are strongest when we see the inherent dignity in every human being.  Look at our countries -- the incredible diversity even here in this hall.  India is defined by countless languages and dialects, and every color and caste and creed, gender and orientations.  And likewise, in America, we’re black and white, and Latino and Asian, and Indian-American, and Native American.  Your constitution begins with the pledge to uphold “the dignity of the individual.”  And our Declaration of Independence proclaims that “all men are created equal.”   In both our countries, generations have worked to live up to these ideals.  When he came to India, Martin Luther King, Jr. was introduced to some schoolchildren as a “fellow untouchable.”  My grandfather was a cook for the British army in Kenya.  The distant branches of Michelle’s family tree include both slaves and slave owners.  When we were born, people who looked like us still couldn’t vote in some parts of the country.  Even as America has blessed us with extraordinary opportunities, there were moments in my life where I’ve been treated differently because of the color of my skin.    Many countries, including the United States, grapple with questions of identity and inequality, and how we treat each other, people who are different than us, how we deal with diversity of beliefs and of faiths.  Right now, in crowded neighborhoods not far from here, a man is driving an auto-rickshaw, or washing somebody else’s clothes, or doing the hard work no one else will do.  And a woman is cleaning somebody else’s house.  And a young man is on a bicycle delivering lunch. A little girl is hauling a heavy bucket of water.  And I believe their dreams, their hopes, are just as important, just as beautiful, just as worthy as ours.  And so even as we live in a world of terrible inequality, we’re also proud to live in countries where even the grandson of a cook can become President, or even a Dalit can help write a constitution, and even a tea seller can become Prime Minister.  (Applause.)    The point is, is that the aim of our work must be not to just have a few do well, but to have everybody have a chance, everybody who is willing to work for it have the ability to dream big and then reach those dreams.    Our nations are strongest when we uphold the equality of all our people -- and that includes our women.  (Applause.)  Now, you may have noticed, I’m married to a very strong and talented woman.  (Applause.)  Michelle is not afraid to speak her mind, or tell me when I’m wrong -- which happens frequently.  (Laughter.) And we have two beautiful daughters, so I’m surrounded by smart, strong women.  And in raising our girls, we’ve tried to instill in them basic values -- a sense of compassion for others, and respect for themselves, and the confidence that they can go as far as their imaginations and abilities will carry them.  And as part of Michelle’s work as First Lady, she’s met with women and girls around the world, including here in India, to let them know that America believes in them, too.   In the United States, we’re still working to make sure that women and girls have all the opportunities they deserve, and that they’re treated equally.  And we have some great role models, including here today the former speaker of our House of Representatives -- Nancy Pelosi -- (applause) -- the first woman speaker of the House, and my great partner.  (Applause.)   And here in India, it’s the wives and the mothers who so often hold families and communities together.  Indian women have shown that they can succeed in every field -- including government, where many of your leaders are women.  And the young women who are here today are part of a new generation that is making your voice heard, and standing up and determined to play your part in India’s progress.   And here’s what we know.  We know from experience that nations are more successful when their women are successful.  (Applause.)  When girls go to school -- this is one of the most direct measures of whether a nation is going to develop effectively is how it treats its women.  When a girl goes to school, it doesn’t just open up her young mind, it benefits all of us -- because maybe someday she’ll start her own business, or invent a new technology, or cure a disease.  And when women are able to work, families are healthier, and communities are wealthier, and entire countries are more prosperous.  And when young women are educated, then their children are going to be well educated and have more opportunity.    So if nations really want to succeed in today’s global economy, they can’t simply ignore the talents of half their people.  And as husbands and fathers and brothers, we have to step up -- because every girl’s life matters.  Every daughter deserves the same chance as our sons.  Every woman should be able to go about her day -- to walk the streets or ride the bus -- and be safe, and be treated with respect and dignity.  (Applause.)  She deserves that.  (Applause.)      And one of the favorite things about this trip for me has been to see all these incredible Indian women in the armed forces, including the person who commanded the Guard that greeted me when I arrived.  (Applause.)  It's remarkable, and it's a sign of great strength and great progress.   Our nations are strongest when we see that we are all God’s children -- all equal in His eyes and worthy of His love.  Across our two great countries we have Hindus and Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and Jews and Buddhists and Jains and so many faiths.  And we remember the wisdom of Gandhiji, who said, “for me, the different religions are beautiful flowers from the same garden, or they are branches of the same majestic tree.”  (Applause.)    Branches of the same majestic tree.   Our freedom of religion is written into our founding documents.  It’s part of America’s very first amendment.  Your Article 25 says that all people are “equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.”  In both our countries -- in all countries -- upholding this fundamental freedom is the responsibility of government, but it's also the responsibility of every person.   In our lives, Michelle and I have been strengthened by our Christian faith.  But there have been times where my faith has been questioned -- by people who don’t know me -- or they’ve said that I adhere to a different religion, as if that were somehow a bad thing.  Around the world, we’ve seen intolerance and violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to be standing up for their faith, but, in fact, are betraying it.  No society is immune from the darkest impulses of man.  And too often religion has been used to tap into those darker impulses as opposed to the light of God.  Three years ago in our state of Wisconsin, back in the United States, a man went to a Sikh temple and, in a terrible act of violence, killed six innocent people -- Americans and Indians.  And in that moment of shared grief, our two countries reaffirmed a basic truth, as we must again today -- that every person has the right to practice their faith how they choose, or to practice no faith at all, and to do so free of persecution and fear and discrimination.  (Applause.)    The peace we seek in the world begins in human hearts.  And it finds its glorious expression when we look beyond any differences in religion or tribe, and rejoice in the beauty of every soul.  And nowhere is that more important than India.  Nowhere is it going to be more necessary for that foundational value to be upheld.  India will succeed so long as it is not splintered along the lines of religious faith -- so long as it's not splintered along any lines -- and is unified as one nation. And it’s when all Indians, whatever your faith, go to the movies and applaud actors like Shah Rukh Khan.  And when you celebrate athletes like Milkha Singh or Mary Kom.  And every Indian can take pride in the courage of a humanitarian who liberates boys and girls from forced labor and exploitation -- who is here today -- Kailash Satyarthi.  (Applause.)  Our most recent winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace.  (Applause.)   So that's what unifies us:  Do we act with compassion and empathy.  Are we measured by our efforts -- by what Dr. King called “the content of our character” rather than the color of our skin or the manner in which we worship our God.  In both our countries, in India and in America, our diversity is our strength.  And we have to guard against any efforts to divide ourselves along sectarian lines or any other lines.  And if we do that well, if America shows itself as an example of its diversity and yet the capacity to live together and work together in common effort, in common purpose; if India, as massive as it is, with so much diversity, so many differences is able to continually affirm its democracy, that is an example for every other country on Earth.  That's what makes us world leaders -- not just the size of our economy or the number of weapons we have, but our ability to show the way in how we work together, and how much respect we show each other.  

And, finally, our nations are strongest when we empower our young people –- because ultimately, you're the one who has to break down these old stereotypes and these old barriers, these old ways of thinking.  Prejudices and stereotypes and assumptions -- those are what happens to old minds like mine.  I'm getting gray hair now.  I was more youthful when I first started this office.  And that’s why young people are so important in these efforts.   Here in India, most people are under 35 years old.  And India is on track to become the world’s most populous country.  So young Indians like you aren’t just going to define the future of this nation, you’re going to shape the world.  Like young people everywhere, you want to get an education, and find a good job, and make your mark.  And it’s not easy, but in our two countries, it’s possible.   Remember, Michelle and I don't come from wealthy backgrounds or famous families.  Our families didn’t have a lot of money.  We did have parents and teachers and communities that cared about us.  And with the help of scholarships and student loans, we were able to attend some of best schools of the world.  Without that education, we wouldn’t be here today.  So whether it’s in America, or here in India, or around the world, we believe young people like you ought to have every chance to pursue your dreams, as well.    So as India builds new community colleges, we’ll link you with our own, so more young people graduate with the skills and training to succeed.  We’ll increase collaborations between our colleges and universities, and help create the next India institute of technology.  We’ll encourage young entrepreneurs who want to start a business.  And we’ll increase exchanges, because I want more American students coming to India, and more Indian students coming to America.  (Applause.)  And that way, we can learn from each other and we can go further.  Because one other thing we have in common Indians and Americans are some of the hardest working people on Earth.  (Applause.)    And I’ve seen that -- Michelle and I have seen that in a family here in India.  I just want to tell you a quick story.  On our last visit here, we visited Humayun’s Tomb.  And while we were there, we met some of the laborers who are the backbone of this nation’s progress.  We met their children and their families as well -- and some wonderful young children with bright smiles, sparks in their eyes.  And one of the children we met was a boy named Vishal.   And today, Vishal is 16 years old.  And he and his family live in South Delhi, in the village of Mor Band.  (Applause.)  And his mother works hard in their modest home, and his sister is now in university; she wants to become a teacher.  His brother is a construction worker earning his daily wage.  And his father works as a stone layer, farther away, but sends home what little he makes so Vishal can go to school.  And Vishal loves math, and mostly, he studies.  And when he’s not studying, he likes watching kabaddi.  And he dreams of someday joining the Indian armed forces.  (Applause.)  And we're grateful that Vishal and his family joined us today.  We're very proud of him, because he’s an example of the talent that’s here.  And Vishal’s dreams are as important as Malia and Sasha’s dreams, our daughters.  And we want him to have the same opportunities.    Sisters and brothers of India, we are not perfect countries. And we’ve known tragedy and we've known triumph.  We’re home to glittering skyscrapers, but also terrible poverty; and new wealth, but also rising inequality.  We have many challenges in front of us.  But the reason I stand here today, and am so optimistic about our future together, is that, despite our imperfections, our two nations possess the keys to progress in the century ahead.  We vote in free elections.  We work and we build and we innovate.  We lift up the least among us.  We reach for heights previous generations could not even imagine.  We respect human rights and human dignity, and it is recorded in our constitutions.   And we keep striving to live up to those ideals put to paper all those years ago.   And we do these things because they make our lives better and safer and more prosperous.  But we also do them because our moral imaginations extend beyond the limits of our own lives.  And we believe that the circumstances of our birth need not dictate the arc of our lives.  We believe in the father working far from home sending money back so his family might have a better life.  We believe in the mother who goes without so that her children might have something more.  We believe in the laborer earning his daily wage, and the student pursuing her degree.  And we believe in a young boy who knows that if he just keeps studying, if he’s just given the chance, his hopes might be realized, too.   We are all “beautiful flowers from the same garden…branches of the same majestic tree.”  And I'm the first American President to come to your country twice, but I predict I will not be the last.  (Applause.)  Because, as Americans, we believe in the promise of India.  We believe in the people of India.  We are proud to be your friend.  We are proud to be your partner as you build the country of your dreams.    Jai Hind!  (Applause.)  Thank you.   END    11:36 A.M. IST

• Current Issue
• Arts & Culture
• Social Issues
• Science & Technology
• Environment
• World Affairs
• Data Stories
• Photo Essay
• Newsletter Sign-up
• Print Subscription
• Digital Subscription
• Digital Exclusive Stories

• CONNECT WITH US

Religion, gender and equality

Women and their struggle for equality are inherently tied to the struggle for democracy in india..

Published : Jan 17, 2019 12:30 IST

READ LATER SEE ALL Remove

Different parts of India witnessed reform movements from the mid 19th century. Periyar E.V. Ramasamy led the Self-Respect Movement in Tamil Nadu.

It is ironic that while women and their rights are generally seen as peripheral to the political domain, discussions on women’s rights inevitably get embroiled in the deepest of political manoeuvres. Specific issues pertaining to aspects of gender equality tend to spill over into debates on religion and tradition. Equally perplexing is the fact that while issues of women and sexuality are seen as taboo in both private and public discourses, time and again flashpoints emerge where women’s sexuality is the underlying issue in public debates. This points to both the complexity of struggles for rights and the challenges to democracy and democratisation of society in India.

January 1 witnessed women from different walks of life across districts and towns in Kerala standing up to make a women’s wall. They stood up for gender equality and against discriminatory practices and drew support from women outside the State also, many of whom organised solidarity events. This was against the immediate backdrop of the issue of women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple. Subsequently, another kind of mobilisation was undertaken. This was clearly directed against women’s assertion for equality. This marked a consolidation of forces in the name of identity politics supposedly on the grounds of religion, religious practice and tradition and clearly in opposition to women’s democratic rights.

No restriction on entry prior to 1991

Prof. Rajan Gurukkal, one of the most renowned historians of south Indian history in our times, while outlining the evolution of the Ayyappa cult and its complex history has drawn on historical evidence to state that there was virtually no restriction on women’s entry prior to 1991 when the Kerala High Court upheld the restriction of entry of women aged between 10 and 50 into the temple. There was neither ritual sanctity nor any scientific justification for this stipulation, he argues.

Social scientists and activists in contemporary India need to ask this question: what is it in the nature of and about women’s rights that each time an issue comes up discussions around the subject result in a political line-up for and against, with variation only in the names of those leading the charge? The polarisation provides retrogressive forces an occasion to rally around in the name of religion and threats to the rights of a specific religious community. This may include pressure mounted to upturn judgments and decisions of the highest court in India and even dilute existing legal provisions in favour of women’s equality. Clearly, this resistance is not confined to the followers of any one community and in fact emerges as a trait common to the leaders, often self–appointed, of all faiths and religions. Interestingly, along with religion, the authority claimed by those standing in opposition to equality is that of tradition.

The fact remains that there is no clarity about the tradition(s) that we hark back to. Can unilinear claims be made on the basis of tradition to uphold discriminatory practices? Should the state, government or an individual/institutional entity be permitted to claim sanction for discriminatory practices and seek to enforce these with impunity on the basis of interpretations that may have no historical validity?

In contemporary Indian society, which is marked by a plurality of traditions, beliefs and practices, respect for diversity that has evolved over centuries emerges as the bulwark of democracy. However, can these be invoked to deny equal rights to women and as justification to uphold discriminatory practices? The Constitution is clear in this regard and it is incumbent upon the state to uphold these rights. Further, respect for “tradition” cannot be selectively invoked in the name of upholding practices followed by certain groups while those of other sections are attacked in the name of false dichotomies drawing upon the rhetoric of gender equality versus tradition. Debates in the Constituent Assembly reflected a great deal of sensitivity to the difference between individual and community-based rights and placed both these in perspective to enshrine Article 15, which prohibits the state and public-funded institutions from discriminating against any citizen.

The continuing debates for equality and against discrimination need to be understood in a historical context wherein the democratisation of the social order and of institutions emerged as part of a process. At one level, it is correct to see the present debates as a continuation of trends that first became visible in the 19th century when issues of “social reform” and women’s rights first came to be enmeshed within a larger discourse of anti-colonialism and modernity. These became a part of the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist struggle with a concrete agenda of social transformation. Different parts of India witnessed reform movements from the mid 19th century, ranging from distinct roots in local/regional histories of struggles, such as the Satyashodhak, Dravidian and the temple entry movements. The national movement in the early 20th century drew upon these, with different leaders putting forth their thoughts on emancipation, freedom and dignity with a concrete agenda of banishing all forms of untouchability, discrimination and social prejudices. The subject of equality for women was integral to these debates, even as there were differences among the participants.

It is important to remember that the women’s movement in pre-Independence India and the political movement came together to work towards this social transformation even as differences persisted and differences continued. While the Left stream pushed for more radical reforms in the early part of the century, many like E.M.S. Namboodiripad entered the political stream with strong links with reform movements. Even as the more radical streams in intellectual thought had mellowed and become muted by the latter half of the 20th century, as observed by historians such as K.N. Panikkar, political debates remained imbued with a commitment to equality. The Legislative Assembly proceedings in the decades prior to Independence are replete with engagement with issues of women’s equality cutting across different religious communities despite the fact that women’s own presence in these platforms was visibly limited.

The contrast to the situation today is only too visible. The agenda of social transformation has ceased to be part of the project of nationalism. Leaders of established parties vie with one another to reflect patriarchal prejudices in the course of their interventions, and the aim of legislation appears to be driven by a “backlash” against women and in favour of upholding inequalities in the name of tradition or religion unless they serve the specific purpose of sending out signals to specific communities to fall in line. Outside Parliament, too, leaders of religious communities assert claims contrary to constitutional rights and the commitment to equality. While in the past we witnessed arguments that sidestepped equality to assert uniformity between communities, today we are seeing new ways of denying equality to women by adopting a selective approach. Thus, the rights of Muslim women in marriage are sought to be upheld through legislative intervention even as the rights of women in general are sought to be restricted through contrary interventions. The establishment today seems to be bent on a selective approach to issues of women’s equality.

Surge of conservatism

Across the world, the dawn of neoliberalism has witnessed a surge of conservative thought. This has gone alongside a targeting of communities and women of these communities.

Religions in India and elsewhere have a complex history. These are not immune or divorced from the evolution of the political economies and concomitant social relations. These histories also cannot be delinked or studied in isolation from political contexts and the role and patronage of the state, which varies over time, region and the nature of the political regime. The element of patriarchy, which is common to virtually all religions and religious practices, also needs to be understood in its specificity. This engagement lies at the heart of women’s movements across the world, and scholars of women’s studies have undertaken sustained analyses of the modes and methods of forms of domination whereby religion has upheld and contributed to ideological frameworks that uphold and perpetuate the subordination of women. In this exercise all faiths have been subjected to continuous scrutiny. The same holds true for India and the religious communities amidst which women in India live.

Contrary to the arguments advanced by those who disrupted normal life across Kerala to oppose the women’s wall for gender equality, all the women standing up to form the wall that day were not atheists. The majority of women in India are believers, in whichever faith they are born into from their familial location. This is a fact that the women’s movement recognised way back when it entered the struggle to negotiate rights in contemporary India. This remains as true as the fact that most women in India believe in and continue to live in the institution of marriage. It is precisely because of this that we are today witnessing increased struggles for equality within these domains and institutions. This fact is in sharp contrast to the premise on which opposition to women’s organisations is mounted by those who seek to stall the process of democratisation of society and recognition to rights for women. The change today is that struggles for what may appear to be issues of gender parity have become key components in the struggle for democracy and democratisation of the society and politics of this country today.

Specifically with regard to religion and women, the diversity of the canvas needs to be understood at different levels. Firstly, a distinction needs to be drawn between religion and rituals relating to the practice of religion. While tenets relating to the former are often contained in texts and classics, which may carry the knowledge embodied in religious thought of the times that they evolved in, rituals and traditions involve practices on the ground. These offer proof of a continuous process of adaption, exchange of ideas, adherence to and absorption of different practices. These stem from and draw upon diverse histories of rituals and beliefs observed by the communities living in different regions and contexts over time and place. Scholars such as D.D. Kosambi and others have established how in ancient India the pantheon of gods and forms of worship evolved, drawing upon prevalent cults in different regions, and were over centuries subjected to assimilation within the Great Tradition of what then emerged as classic forms of worship.

Assimilation of cults

Students of Indian history are familiar with the process whereby local practices pertaining to the Mother Goddess and fertility cults from ancient times were sometimes absorbed and also subordinated within the overarching male pantheon, with women being delegated to the status of consorts even as these forms of worship continued within the Little Traditions. It is not surprising to see women’s greater involvement in the latter. Not unsurprisingly, these practices and beliefs amongst the vast population remain more closely aligned to a rich history of festivals to mark agricultural harvesting cycles around which social life continues to revolve.

The greater presence of women in these is in sharp contrast to the more masculine, overt forms and ceremonial aspects of religious practice. In recent years, these have become more closely aligned to the market. However, there is a clear division of roles, with women being involved with the observance of rituals on a more day-to-day basis, while the visible forms of worship are seen to be male roles. Interestingly, while motherhood was and is the most commonly invoked form of worship of women in the present-day nationalist rhetoric, it is her very reproductive capacity that is stigmatised and becomes the basis of discriminatory practices against women.

These remarks may be seen to pertain more directly to the more well-known Hindu practices but are not unknown elsewhere with regard to subordination and subjugation of women. In India, it is common to find such adaption across religious faiths and denominations. At the risk of some generalisation, it may be argued that while women remain central to everyday practice(s), the more visible roles of the high priests in rituals across all religions have become male preserves over the years. It is this complexity and evolutionary nature of religion and religious practices that is integral to the practice of religious rituals and beliefs which needs to be emphasised. This also needs to be kept in mind while selectively invoking tradition.

Religion as battleground

Why is religion emerging as a battleground for these struggles?

This is not a question easy to answer.

We necessarily/perforce need to take note of the visible efforts at mobilisation around religious lines since the 1980s. While this is true of all religious denominations, in India it is the most visible with regard to the majority community. The number of godmen, organisational outfits and champions claiming to represent Hindus has proliferated by the dozen across States. Meanwhile, pan-Islamic organisations are also active in the different regions, often with links to international networks. All have community leaders with a presence at the national and regional level, with many having close links to political platforms and parties. The followers of these outfits alternately emerge as constituencies for vote-bank politics, while some have been seen to act as hoodlums on the streets or engage in criminal activities.

It is striking that despite this continuous mobilisation around religion and the assertion of religious identities, contemporary India has not seen any meaningful developments with reference to contributions to religious thought and ideas from the vast and ever-growing fraternity of godmen, cult leaders and their armies of followers.

Another question we need to ask is the following: Have we seen any significant idea that would have represented, revived or offered intellectual insights into what religious thought and philosophy may have to offer its followers when their lives are sinking into newer levels of social and existential crisis? This is largely true for the multitudes claiming to represent and be spokespersons of Hinduism, as also for all other faiths. However, this may not be the place to do so.

This scenario is in sharp contrast to earlier, historical times when religious and religion-centred movements enriched the debate on ideas even as they met with sharp contestation with regard to prevalent inequalities and newly emerging social practices. India has a rich legacy of religious discourse and the historical moorings that shaped the contours of the debates of those times across different contexts and spatial time. While the names that come to the fore are of Gautama Buddha and Mahavira, who emerged as the foremost to represent the heterodox sects of the sixth century BC, the contributions of Adi Shankaracharya or the wide array of saints and ascetics thrown up by the Bhakti movement and their impact on social life across regions in India are perhaps still to be fully fathomed. Each strand and stream of thought represented a specificity of ideas, and issues of equality were often germane to the prevalent discourse. Women’s voices emerged within many of these movements to articulate experience and resistance.

In contrast to those waving religious banners of all hues, Indian academia and scholars of history have often been more sensitive to the intellectual traditions historically present in India and the contributions made by these to the body of thought and philosophical streams that the religious discourse in India represents as also to the diversity and contestations inherited from and inherent to these.

The question then remains, how and why are women caught up in this battle?

For this we need to turn to debates in the 19th and early 20th century when the colonial powers constructed a social frame within which women’s condition was seen as a marker of India’s backwardness, justifying intervention.

Parliament of Religions

As far back as 1893, speaking at the Chicago Convention of Parliament of Religions, Swami Vivekananda delivered an iconic and eloquent speech to draw the attention of the world to the rich inheritance and tradition of tolerance in Indian society. Our present-day champions of Hindutva specifically claim to carry forward the mantle drawing upon his pride and claim “to belong to a religion which has taught the world both tolerance and universal acceptance”. However, they have chosen to ignore the remaining part of the now iconic speech where Vivekananda announced that “we believe not only in universal toleration, but we accept all religions as true. I am proud to belong to a nation which has sheltered the persecuted and the refugees of all religions and all nations of the earth.”

Above all, it may be worth it to remind the practitioners of all faiths that “sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilisation and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honour of this convention may be the death knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal.”

The question we may still need to ask ourselves is, does the neoliberal and marketised context of religion and religious assertion combined with a fascistic right-wing assertion in different parts of the world allow for more liberal interpretations of matters of faith, belief and practice of rituals? The women’s movement in India came up against the political manipulations on the grounds of faith from the two dominant communities in close proximity in the 1980s, when the Shah Bano issue and the incident of sati in Deorala (Rajasthan) witnessed aggressive mobilisation and political capitulation. If the bloody battles around issues of faith in early modern Europe are any indication, we may have to wait longer to understand the need to make a distinction between individual faith, organised religion and matters of state. Polarised politics provides greater opportunities for such manipulation. At stake is the issue of democratisation of society and the terms of social organisation and institutions.

Ambedkar’s speech

To end, we may turn to B.R. Ambedkar’s last speech in the Constituent Assembly: “The third thing we must do is not to be content with mere political democracy. We must make our political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in a trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty. Nor can liberty and equality be divorced from fraternity. Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over the many. Equality without liberty would kill individual initiative. Without fraternity, liberty and equality could not become a natural course of things. It would require a constable to enforce them. We must begin by acknowledging the fact that there is complete absence of two things in Indian Society. One of these is equality. On the social plane, we have in India a society based on the principle of graded inequality which means elevation for some and degradation for others.”

Women in India and their struggle for equality are inherently tied to the struggle for democracy in the country. This is a lesson women learn each time the debate on their rights gets entangled within the vagaries of political fortunes. Each time round, they also see how religion can be used by political regimes to divide them, to selectively use their plight to advance vote-bank politics and sectarian ends. Each time round, women reflect, analyse and prepare for the next round of onslaughts, attacks and struggles. So be it. The women’s movement continues to be a crucial component of the struggle to save and build a strong political democracy that will allow for more intense debates even as women step out each day into a new dawn. What forces working on behalf of radical social change need to recognise is that women’s presence is as crucial for their own rights as it is for the survival of democracy in India.

Prof. Indu Agnihotri is a women’s studies scholar with a special interest in history and the women’s movement in India. She retired as Director, Centre for Women’s Development Studies, New Delhi.

CONTRIBUTE YOUR COMMENTS

SHARE THIS STORY

More stories from this issue

‘Democracy is being hollowed out’

‘He had the courage to make political films’

A man of courage & conviction

The failed promise of jobs, politics at play.

Science circus

For military muscle, destroying government, free and fair, daunting challenges.

Politics over the purse

Editor’s Note: The Centre is stripping States of their fiscal rights

• Bookmark stories to read later.
• Comment on stories to start conversations.
• Subscribe to our newsletters.
• Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.

Terms & conditions   |   Institutional Subscriber

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment

Berkley Center

Berkley Forum

British Rule and Hindu-Muslim Riots in India: A Reassessment

By: Ajay Verghese

August 23, 2018

Religious and Communal Tensions in Indian Politics

India and Pakistan are countries that were born through violence. The partition of the Indian subcontinent witnessed hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims killed during riots, ethnic cleansings, and cross-border migrations. Since the 1980s, with the spectacular rise of Hindu nationalism, riots have again become a recurring feature of Indian politics. All of this prompts the question: what is the original cause of Hindu-Muslim violence?

For many scholars, the simple answer lies in the negative legacies of British colonialism. It was the British that “constructed” modern Hindu and Muslim identities through mechanisms like the first scientific census of 1871. And it was the British that used a “divide-and-rule” policy to drive apart religious communities, thereby promoting violence between them. In this post, however, I will argue that this seemingly straightforward argument connecting British rule and modern communal riots is problematic for three reasons. 

First, what do we know about Hindu-Muslim conflict before the British? While many scholars in the humanities have looked into precolonial religious identity and conflict, most social scientists are content to focus solely on “modern” India. But India’s history did not start with the British. Consider, for instance, the argument that Hindu and Muslim identities were constructed by British administrators. The work of scholars of Indian religions like David Lorenzen and Andrew Nicholson shows that there was a clear sense of difference between Hindu and Muslim communities long before British rule. Similarly, Hindu-Muslim riots in India date back to hundreds of years before any British official set foot on the subcontinent. In the fourteenth century, the famed Moroccan scholar Ibn Battuta wrote about the state of Hindu-Muslim relations in the south Indian town of Mangalore: 

“…war frequently breaks out between them (the Muslims) and the (Hindu) inhabitants of the town; but the Sultan (the Hindu King) keeps them at peace because he needs the merchants.” 

There are many riot-prone cities in India today—Mumbai, Ahmedabad—where Battuta’s description still seems relevant.

Second, another vexing problem lies is determining whether or not colonialism simply coexisted with the true factors that created violence. For instance, the increase in Hindu-Muslim violence in the nineteenth century that was blamed on British rule coincided with the rise of revivalist Hindu and Islamic religious movements, as well as increasing urbanization. As Sandria Freitag has shown, new public spaces became intersecting sites for rival religious processions, which then became a major source of communal rioting. 

Third, while many scholars have argued that the British increased communal conflict, the question is: compared to what? One way to isolate the effects of colonialism on Indian religious violence is to take advantage of a unique feature of British rule on the subcontinent: colonial administrators only governed three-fourths of the population of India. The other one-fourth (in 1901, more than 60 million people) lived in territories called “princely states” that remained under the control of largely autonomous native kings. With the princely states, history has furnished us with something like a “control group” to consider what India might have looked like in the absence of British colonialism. In my book , I used comparisons of neighboring British provinces and princely states (Jaipur and Ajmer in Rajasthan, and Malabar and Travancore in Kerala) and find that in modern India, former princely states actually have more religious riots than former provinces. 

None of these points, it has to be noted, absolves the British for religious conflict in India. There were many policies—like the introduction of separate Hindu and Muslim electorates—that undoubtedly promoted Hindu-Muslim violence. But in order to understand the origins of India’s communal problem, we need a deeper historical perspective, one that does not start with European influence. As Cynthia Mahmood has written, what we need is a “paradigm according full weight to the long-term dialectic of communalism that is, unhappily, showing no signs of abating.”

About the Author

Ajay Verghese

Ajay Verghese is an assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Riverside. His research interests are focused on South Asian politics, political history, ethnicity, political violence, secularism, and methodology.

• Entertainment
• Newsletters

Is Usha Vance's Hindu identity an asset or a liability to the Trump-Vance campaign?

Deepa Bharath

Associated Press

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

FILE - Republican vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, and his wife Usha Vance arrive to speak at a campaign rally, July 27, 2024, in St. Cloud, Minn. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

Usha Chilukuri Vance loves her “meat and potatoes” husband, JD Vance. She explained to a rapt Republican National Convention audience how their vice-presidential candidate adapted to her vegetarian diet and even learned to cook Indian food from her immigrant mother.

That image of her white, Christian husband making the spicy cuisine of her parents’ native state in South India is atypical for the leaders of a party whose members are still largely white and Christian. Her presence at the RNC sparked enthusiasm on social media among some Indian American conservatives, particularly Hindu Americans, although most Indian Americans identify as Democrats.

Recommended Videos

But for all Usha Vance shared about their identity-blending marriage in her speech last month in Milwaukee , which was a little over four minutes, she made no mention of her Hindu upbringing or her personal faith and their interfaith relationship – biographical details that have exposed her to online vitriol and hate.

While some political analysts say her strong presence as a Hindu American still makes the community proud, others question whether the Republican Party is really ready for a Hindu second lady.

Usha Vance is choosing to remain silent about her religion in the run-up to the election and declined to speak with The Associated Press about it. She opted not to answer questions about whether she is a practicing Hindu or if she attends Mass with her Catholic husband, an adult convert to the faith, or in which faith tradition their three children are being raised.

Brought up in San Diego by immigrant parents, both professors, in a Hindu household, Usha Vance did confirm that one of their children has an Indian name, and she and JD Vance were married in both “an Indian and an American wedding.” The pair met as students at Yale Law School.

Her Hindu background could appeal to some South Asian voters , which might add value in swing states with larger South Asian communities like Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina, said Dheepa Sundaram, a Hindu Studies professor at the University of Denver. Sundaram says that while some Indian and Hindu conservatives may be eager to embrace Usha Vance, that doesn’t appear to be part of the party’s public-facing strategy.

“To me it seems like her Hindu identity is more of a liability than an asset,” she said. “It also feels like the campaign wants to have it both ways: Usha may be Hindu, which is great, but we don’t want to talk about it.”

Sundaram said Usha Vance would appeal particularly to those Hindu Americans who support the politics of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, under whom Hindu nationalism has surged.

There are deep divisions within some Indian American communities over issues such as taxes, education, relations with India and anti-caste discrimination legislation that gained momentum in Seattle and California. Caste is a division of people based on birth or descent and calls to outlaw related discrimination are growing in the U.S.

About 7 in 10 Indian Americans identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, while about 3 in 10 identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, according to Pew Research Center surveys conducted in 2022 and 2023. AAPI Data/AP-NORC surveys from earlier this year found that less than 1 in 10 South Asian Americans trust the Republican Party over the Democrats on key issues like abortion, gun policy and climate change, while around half or more trusted the Democratic Party more than the Republicans.

Still Usha Vance, “a second lady who looks like us and speaks like us,” may help capture the attention of a block of voters that has been challenging for Republicans to reach, said Ohio State Sen. Niraj Antani, a Republican and Hindu American who is the youngest member of the state senate.

“If Republicans don’t reach out to minority groups, we will lose elections.”

Vivek Ramaswamy, the 39-year-old biotech entrepreneur who ran for president in 2020 and now supports the Trump-Vance ticket, made his Hindu faith front and center during his campaign last year. He said Hindu teachings had much in common Judeo-Christian values. He declined comment about Usha Vance’s religious background.

Usha Vance’s silence about her religion and Ramaswamy’s defeat in the primary election may indicate that being anything other than Christian in the Republican Party might still be an issue for a part of the base, said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, and executive director of AAPI Data.

“What we’ve seen since the convention is more exclusionary elements within the Republican Party speaking up and against Usha and JD Vance,” Ramakrishnan said. “This, to me, suggests that there is a political price to pay in terms of being open about one’s religious identity that is not Christian. There’s still a long way to go.”

Antani, a Hindu candidate who has won several Ohio state elections in a region that is mostly Christian and deeply conservative, said “the racism in the Republican Party is coming from racists, not Republicans.” Antani, who celebrated Usha Vance speaking about her Indian heritage at the RNC, believes Ramaswamy lost not because he is Hindu, because he was not as well-known as the other candidates.

Vance was baptized and converted to Catholicism in 2019, and says he and his family now call the church their home . The campaign did not answer as to whether the three children had been baptized. He has also talked about how his wife helped him find his Catholic faith after a roller coaster of a spiritual journey as he was raised Protestant and became an atheist in college.

Suhag Shukla, executive director of the Hindu American Foundation, said the fact that Usha Vance inspired her husband on his religious journey to become Catholic is “as Hindu as it gets.”

“Hinduism is about finding your own path and getting in touch with your own spirituality,” she said, adding that the definition of a “practicing Hindu” ranges from someone who goes to temple and performs rituals to someone who is a cultural Hindu who observes festivals such as Diwali, or just engages in a spiritual practice such as meditation.

Usha Vance is an example of the positive contributions made by Hindu Americans, and her interfaith marriage and her ability to listen to different perspectives are reflective of Hindu teachings, she said.

“Hindu Americans assimilate, but also hold on to what inspired them from their tradition and culture,” Shukla said. “Our pluralistic background puts us in a good position to get along with different people without compromising who we are. Hindu culture is very comfortable with differences of opinion.”

Shukla said those who are turning to the Republican party are reacting to anti-Hindu prejudice against Hindu Democrats that is not being shut down by their own party.

“There is this perception that the Democratic Party does not care about the well-being of Hindu Americans or is deaf to the community’s concerns,” she said, referring to legislation including caste as a category in anti-discrimination laws, which was proposed and passed in Seattle . Similar legislation was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in California .

But Ramakrishnan is not so sure Indian Americans feel welcome in the Republican Party even if they may see eye to eye with conservatives on some issues.

“One of the reasons Indian Americans have been consistently supporting the Democrats is because of the rise of Christian conservatism and nationalism,” he said. “That in itself makes it less likely they will vote Republican or identify as Republican.”

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration  with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

• Religion News
• Rituals & Puja News

Pola 2024: Date, Rituals and Significance of Bail Pola

Visual Stories

By Mark Landler

Reporting from London

A 53-year-old woman from northwest England was jailed for 15 months after posting on Facebook that a mosque should be blown up “with the adults inside.” A 45-year-old man was sentenced to 20 months for goading his online followers to torch a hotel that houses refugees. A 55-year-old woman was questioned by the police for a viral post that wrongly identified the suspect in a deadly knife attack at a children’s dance class.

These and other people are accused of being “keyboard warriors,” in the words of one British judge, exploiting social media to stir up the anti-immigrant riots that exploded after the suspect was arrested in the fatal stabbings of three young girls at the dance class, in the town of Southport. Their cases have now become examples in a politically charged debate over the limits of free speech in Britain.

With the courts handing down harsh sentences to hundreds who took part in the violent unrest, and calls for the government to strengthen regulation of online content, some argue that the authorities risk going too far. Not only are judges locking up far-right rioters , these critics say, but they are also opening the door to a broader crackdown on speech.

The noisiest critiques have come from Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, once known as Twitter. After far-right groups used his platform to spread disinformation about the attack and foment the violent disorder that followed, Mr. Musk waded into the debate, claiming that civil war “is inevitable” in Britain and attacking Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“The U.K. is turning into a police state,” Mr. Musk posted on Monday, referring to an emergency plan activated by the government to ease pressure on chronically overcrowded jails, under which defendants can be held longer in police cells until space opens in prisons.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• India Today
• Business Today
• Harper's Bazaar
• Brides Today
• Cosmopolitan
• India Today Hindi
• Reader’s Digest
• Aaj Tak Campus

Download App

UP man converts woman, uses her money to travel abroad, gives her talaq

A man in lucknow allegedly lied about his religion to deceive a woman, forced her to convert, and later gave her 'triple talaq'..

Listen to Story

• Man in Lucknow accused of deceiving woman about his religion
• Woman alleges forced conversion, marriage under Islamic rites
• Man reportedly travelled to Saudi Arabia with her savings

A Muslim man in Uttar Pradesh's Lucknow is accused of deceiving a Hindu woman by lying about his religion, trapping her in a marriage, and then divorcing her by uttering the word "talaq" three times. Police have registered a case and are investigating the matter.

The woman claimed that the man, identified as Taj Mohammad, initially introduced himself as "Bablu" and started a relationship with her. The couple then eloped. When she discovered his real identity, she objected. She alleges that Taj then assaulted her and forced her to convert to Islam, and married her under Islamic rites.

The woman, belonging to a Brahmin family, said she continued to live with him and became pregnant. She worked as a labourer under the Rajiv Gandhi Women's Development Project to support herself. She also claims that Taj travelled to Saudi Arabia with her savings and gradually stopped visiting her.

Later, she found out that Taj had married another woman named Sazia, who lives in Gosai Ganj, Lucknow.

When she confronted him about this, she alleges he began to physically and mentally abuse her and eventually threw her out of the house. She then went to live with her brother. However, Taj reportedly came to her brother's house one day, caused a disturbance, and divorced her by saying "talaq" three times.