Sabarimala reference will ultimately decide whether 1948 constitutional compromise between religious freedom and social reform still holds in India where religion is both intensely personal and fiercely political
The case of Lt Samuel Kamalesan was a rare clash between an officer’s beliefs and the Army’s traditions, but today’s climate of politicised religiosity and a hierarchy pandering to it makes reform urgent.
Balancing freedom of religion with tribal rights, HC endorsed gram sabhas’ powers under PESA Act to curb inducement-based conversions, which it said were a ‘social menace’.
From devout believers to atheists, agnostics, and ‘rationalist believers’, humanity’s quest for meaning is shifting from divine surveillance to the power of ethics and reason.
The US panel said policies like anti-conversion laws create a 'culture of impunity' for harassment and violence towards religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians.
Being critical of religion and religious practices is a must for an evolving society to free itself from archaic practices of the medieval era, writes Col KL Viswanathan.
Courts have applied ‘essential religious practice’ test over the decades to decide which practices are protected by the Constitution, and which ones the state can regulate.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah has spoken in support of the Karnataka govt's stance on the hijab row, but BJP leaders are worried about its repercussions.
This special edition of Cut The Clutter, straight from the Siliguri corridor, details the strategic importance of the narrow strip of land in West Bengal, and how it’s a vital link connecting the Northeast to the rest of India.
We now live in a world order that will keep shifting. India must use this window. This also means we remain disciplined enough not to be knee-jerked into reacting to what Pakistan sees as its moment in the sun.
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective
This is one of the worst blogs i came across on this site.
It mistakes a flaw into a wisdom. The author argues that Articles 25 and 26 were intentionally designed to let courts dismantle traditions in the name of reform. But that’s not wisdom, that’s a choice the Assembly made, and she’s validating it by calling it balance.
Articles 25 and 26 cannot both exist equally. One protects individual rights to challenge practices, and the other protects a community’s right to govern itself. The courts have made the first one win by using the language of ‘social reform.’ This isn’t balance. It’s the judiciary deciding it has the right to rewrite what happens inside temples.
A thousand-year-old ritual is now being judged by a framework that’s barely seventy or eighty years old. The courts are deciding what matters inside sacred spaces they don’t understand. By the time people realize what’s happened, the traditions will already be gone, and articles like this will have made it all sound reasonable and progressive.
The real problem is that the Constitution itself is built on a foreign way of thinking about governance. It cannot protect the way Indic civilization actually manages its own institutions. And this article makes sure nobody questions that problem by dressing it up as wisdom.
What a disaster.
If sabrimala judgement is reversed, it will open a pandoras box from accepting polygamy to triple talaq as non discriminatory religious practices by few denominations. Religious plurality argument is highly subjective