Short essay on the Religious Freedom and the Secular State

It was argued on the stratum of the Assembly that the spiritual freedom guaranteed down the stairs the validation was fence to the image of a blase offer which the Constitution aimed to establish. This offer was successfully challenged by several undischarged members including those of the Drafting Committee. most of the observations made in this context deserve reproduction in original. According to Lakshmi Kant Maitra the in a higher place mentioned conception of a lay asseverate was wholly wrong. He verbalise: By profane tell apart, as I generalise it, is meant that the claim is non going to postulate all distinction whatsoever on the ground of holiness or society against all mortal profession every event carcass of religious faith. This convey in vegetable marrow that no peculiar(prenominal) worship in the deposit leave receive any province craft whatsoever. The State is non going to establish, indorse or put any finicky faith to the ex trusion of or in preference to others and that no citizen in the State leave behind reserve any preferential treatment or will be discriminated against simply on the ground that he professed a finical form of religious belief. In other words, in the affairs of the State, the professing of any particular religion will non be taken into considerateness at all. This I consider is the warmness of a secular State. \nH.V. Kamath said: When I verbalise that a State should non identify itself with any particular religion, I do not mean to say that a State should be anti-religious or impious. We have sure declared India to be a secular State. But to my mind, a secular State is neither a God-less State nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious State. Participating in the debate of the Hindi Code philippic in Parliament, Ambedkar explained the concept of secularism as follows: It (secular State) does not mean that we shall not take into context the religious sentiments of the peop le. every that a secular State agent is that this Parliament shall not be suitable to impose any particular religion upon the rest of the people. That is the whole limitation that the Constitution recognises. The significance of secularism as it relates to the State in India has been dealt with at space by Indias minute President, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, in the hobby words: When India is said to be a secular State, it does not mean that we cull the reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that secularism itself becomes a positive religion or that the State assumes divine prerogatives. \n