Articles in Constitution Article 25

. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion

. Article 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.
Article 27. Freedom as to payment of taxes for promotion of any particular religion.
Article 28. Freedom as to attendance at religious instruction or religious worship in certain
education institutions
. Freedom of religion and Secularism in Indian Constitution
Though the Right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19) envisages the philosophy
of freedom of religion in India because despite of the creation of Pakistan, a lot of Muslims
were scattered all over India, part from Sikhs, Parsees, Christians and others. Yet the
constituent assembly made it explicit by incorporating a separate group of Articles as per a
agreement with / recommendation of Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights,
Minorities, Tribal and Excluded Areas (Chairman: Vallabhbhai Patel) and Minorities SubCommittee (Chairman: H.C. Mookherjee). Before the Constitution 42nd amendment Bill
added the word secular in the constitution of India, the word secular appeared only in
Article 25. India is a secular country and there is no state religion. India also does not
patronizes any religion. The Constitution 42nd amendment Act made the above thought
explicit in the constitution
. Is being a Hindu means No secular?
Hindus are in majority in India but secularism means that in India, state shall observe
neutrality & impartiality to all religions. Here, all religions are respected and all beliefs &
methods of worship are accepted. All minority religions enjoy full freedom and in certain
cases protected. This is opposite in some neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and
Bangladesh which were part of India but later became Islamic countries. Secularism does not
mean that state is hostile to a particular religion. If a person is a Hindu, he / she do not cease
to be a secular. The Supreme Court in Pannalal Pitti v/s State of Andhra Pradesh mandated
that while Article 25 and 26 grants religious freedom to minority religions such as Islam and
Christianity, yet they do NOT intend to DENY the same guarantee to Hindus. Article 25
mandates that subject to public order, morality and health, all persons enjoy the freedom of
conscience and have the right to entertain any religious belief and propagate it

. Meaning of Public order, morality and health

This means that Article 25 & 26 are not absolute. No person can do such religious things
which affect the public order, morality and health. For example no one has right to conduct
human sacrifice. No one can perform worship on busy highway or other public places which
disturb the community.
Is right to performing rituals protected?
Yes, it is protected. But the state by law may regulate the economic, financial, political, or
other activity which may not be a direct part of religion. For example management of
Temples can be controlled by the state.
Does Constitution allow use of loudspeakers
in temples / mosques etc.? Using the loudspeakers for making noise is not guaranteed by the
Constitution. The protagonists of this thought took shelter of Article 19(1) freedom of speech
and right to expression. However, nobody can claim a fundamental right to create noise by
amplifying the sound of his speech with the help of loudspeakers. In this context, cracking of
fireworks on Diwali & using loudspeakers for Ajan in the morning had also come under
Supreme Courts scrutiny. The Court restricted the time of bursting the firecrackers, and it
does not in any way violate the religious rights of any person as enshrined under Article 25 of
the Constitution. The festival of Diwali is mainly associated with Pooja performed on the
auspicious day and not with firecrackers. In no religious textbook it is written that Diwali has
to be celebrated by bursting crackers. Diwali is considered as a festival of lights not of noises.
In this context, the Government of India framed and published Noise Pollution Control and
Regulation Rules, 1999. This legislation was amended in 2002 and empowered the State
Governments to permit use of loudspeaker or public address system during night hours
(between 10 pm and 12 pm mid-night) on or during the cultural or religious occasions for a
limited period not exceeding 15 days. The Supreme Court in Church of God in India v.
K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Assn.,(2000) held that the Court may issue directions in
respect of controlling noise pollution even if such noise was a direct result of and was
connected with religious activities. The mandate included the following lines: Undisputedly,
no religion prescribes that prayers should be performed by disturbing the peace of others nor
does it preach that they should be through voice amplifiers or beating of drums. In our view,
in a civilized society in the name of religion, activities which disturb old or infirm persons,

students or children having their sleep in the early hours or during daytime or other persons
carrying on other activities cannot be permitted. Article 26: gives every religious group a
right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, manage its
affairs, properties as per the law. This guarantee is available to only Citizens of India and not
to aliens. Article 27: This Article mandates that no citizen would be compelled by the state to
pay any taxes for promotion or maintenance of particular religion or religious institutions.
Article 28: This Article mandates that No religious instruction would be imparted in the state
funded educational institutions

. Implications of Article 25 & 26 not being absolute

Use of loudspeakers is not an integral part of the religions so the government can restrict on
the use of loudspeakers for Ajan and Bhajan Kirtans
. Followers of no religions have right to stop the processions of other religions on the ground
that it is a nuisance.
State may abolish Cow Slaughter as sacrifice of Cow on Bakrid is not an essential part of
the religion.
Possessing a Kirpan is an essential part of professing Sikkism and it is protected right of
Sikhs
. (Article 25 Explanation I) The Aligarh Muslim University was established under an act of
parliament so Muslims can NOT claim to run this university as per provisions of Article 26 &
Article 29. None of the rights guarantee that a Brahmin only can perform rituals of Hinduism

http://www.gktoday.in/articles-25-28-and-right-to-freedom-of-religion-in-india/

SECULARISM AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

1. The preamble to the Constitution which contains the ideals and aspirations or the objects
which the Constitution makers intended to be realised clearly proclaims that the people of
India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST
SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC. The expression " Socialist Secular" was inserted in
the preamble by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. The object of inserting this
expression was to spell out expressly the high ideas of socialism and secularism and the
integrity of the Nation. In short, the object of the Government, in making this amendment
was to make explicit what was already provided in the Constitution.
Even before the word 'secular' was inserted in the preamble in 1976, in 1973 the Supreme
Court observed that secularism was a basic feature of the Constitution. So far as secularism is
concerned, Articles 25 to 30 provide for the same. In Kesavanada V State of Kerala (AIR
1973 S.C. 1461) and in Indira V Rajnarain (AIR 1975 S.C. 2299) the Supreme Court has
observed that by secularism it is meant that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen
on the ground of religion only and that the State shall have no religion of its own and all
persons shall be equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practise and propagate religion. To spell out the above ideas which in fact existed prior to
1976, the preamble to the Constitution was amended in 1976.
2. In the background of the proclamation in the preamble to the Constitution that India is a
secular country i.e. India shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be entitled to
the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion, the
recent activities targetted against Christians in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and
Orissa will have to be examined.
3. The right to freedom of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution of India. Article 25 reads as follows:25 (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.
This Article guarantees that every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and
shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to the restrictions that
may be imposed by the State on the following grounds, namely:(1) public order, morality and health;
(2) other provisions of the Constitution;
(3) regulation of non-religious activity associated with religious practise;
(4) social welfare and reform;
(5) throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes of
Hindus.
The freedom of religion conferred by this Article is not confined to citizens of India alone but
extends to all persons including aliens and individuals exercising their rights either in their
individual capacity or on behalf of some church or institution. Freedom of conscience
connotes a person's right to entertain beliefs and doctrines concering matters, which are
regarded by him to be conducive to his spiritual well being.
A person has freedom to believe in the religious tenets of any sect or community. The right is
not only to entertain such religious beliefs as may be approved by his judgement or
conscience but also to exhibit his sentiments in overt acts as are enjoined by his religion.
According to this Article, he may 'profess, practise and propagate his religion'.
To profess a religion means the right to declare freely and openly one's faith. Modes of
worship considered by a religion to be its integral and essential part are also secured. He may

propagate freely his religious views for the edification of others. Thus, freedom of conscience
would be meaningless unless it is supplemented by the freedom of unhampered expression of
spiritual conviction in word and action.
The right to propagate one's religion means the right to communicate the person's beliefs to
another person or to expose the tenets of that faih, but would not include the right to convert
another person to the former's faith, becuase the latter is equally entitled to freedom of
conscience.
Ofcourse, the latter person is free to adopt another religion in the free exercise of his
conscience. Thus, Article 25(1) guarantees to every person not only the right to entertain such
religious beliefs as may appeal to his conscience, but also the right to exhibit his belief in his
conduct by such outward acts as may appear to him proper in order to spread his ideas for the
benefit of others. Therefore, every person is guaranteed the freedom to practise his religionor to spread it if he so wishes - if that freedom is not abused to commit crimes or indulge in
anti social activities.
4. Any attempt to impose a ban on all religious conversions would interfere with one's right to
propagate one's religion under Article 25(1), apart from infringing the right to freedom of
speech guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that
there is no fundamental right to convert another person to one's religion as such a right would
infringe on the right to freedom of conscience guaranteed to all citizens of the country alike.
In this context, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Acts passed by the Madhya
Pradesh and Orissa Govts., which prohibited forcible conversion from one religion to another
in a manner reprehensible to the conscience of the community and which made conversions
by force, fraudulence or allurement an offence. Please see Rev Stainislaus vs State of M.P.
(A.I.R. 1997 SC 908)
5. The resultant position is that Article 25(1) of the Constitution does not guarantee the right
to convert but only the right freely to profess, practise and propagate one's religion. Forcible
conversion which is likely to give rise to an apprehension of breech of public order and which
is reprehensible to the conscience of the community is not permissible under this Article.

It is absolutely impossible to forcibly convert any person against his will. No Christian
missionary has ever been accused of resorting to physical threats while propagating the
religion. The said Article unequivocally states that people have the freedom to freely profess
and practise, the religion of their choice. This means that if a person propagates his faith to
another person and the person to whom the faith is propagated is convinced and wants to
profess or practise it, he has the right to do so. If this is not allowed then the right to
propagate religion guaranteed by the Constitution will be meaningless.
6. The question whether the right to propagate one's religion should be incorporated in Article
25 (draft Article 19) was the subject matter of discussion in the Constituent Assembly on
3.12.1948 and 6.12.1948. Although some members expressed the view that the right to
propagate should not be included in Article 25 (1), the majority of the members felt
otherwise. The following are the views expressed by certain members:-

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right

Religious freedom is a fundamental human right of every person on earth. It has been
recognized by international accords and by the Second Vatican Council. But religious liberty
is under attack in many countries around the world.
The United States committed itself to the promotion of religious liberty through its foreign
policy in the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). The law provides that it will
be the policy of the United Sates to condemn violations of religious freedom and to promote
and assist other governments in the promotion of the fundamental right to freedom of
religion.
Congress felt it was necessary to make this clear in the IRFA because it is easy to forget about
religious freedom when policymakers are so focused on national security, economic issues
and other human rights that religious freedom is forgotten.
Although much of the motivation for passage of this act was concern over the persecution of
Christians, the law is generic -- it applies to all religions.

The IRFA provides for the creation of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF), to which President Barack Obama recently appointed me. The purpose
of the commission is to review annually the efforts of the U.S. government in implementing
the IRFA.
Earth Day is right around the corner. Discuss Pope Francis' encyclical on the

environment at your next group meeting.Download our readers' guide toLaudato Si.
The most recent USCIRF report, written before I was appointed, was released April 30. It is
the 15th report issued by the commission and is divided into four parts, but in this column, I
will focus on the first part: a discussion of the international standards for religious freedom.
What is religious freedom?
The first point to be made is that religious freedom is not just for believers. It also includes
nonbelievers. Properly speaking, it is "freedom of religion or belief." It protects a person's
right to hold or not hold any religion or belief. So religious freedom must also protect the
atheist.
Nor is it only for religious minorities. It also applies to those of the majority who might want
to debate or dissent from views within the majority religion.
One frequent mistake is to equate freedom of religion with freedom of worship. Even some
American policymakers have spoken of freedom of worship rather than freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion is much more encompassing. It "includes the rights of worship,
observance, practice, expression, and teaching, broadly construed," the 2014 USCIRF report
explains. "These include: wearing religious dress or symbols; observing dietary restrictions;
participating in rituals associated with certain stages of life; possessing property rights
regarding meeting places; and maintaining the freedom to manage religious institutions,
possess, publish, and distribute liturgical and educational materials, and raise one's children
in the religious teachings and practice of one's choice."

Religious liberty includes the right to change one's religion or belief without coercion. This is
a controversial point in many Muslim countries, where conversion from Islam to another
religion is illegal.
Nor is religious freedom only about beliefs that you hold in your heart but don't express. It
also includes expressions intended to persuade another individual to change his or her
religious beliefs or affiliation voluntarily.
All of these details are important because some societies speak of religious freedom as long
as the believer is quiet and inactive. In this sense, freedom of religion goes hand in hand with
freedom of speech, assembly and press.
Freedom of religion does not require that the state be secular. A state "may declare an official
religion," the USCIRF report explains, "provided that basic rights, including the individual
right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, are respected for all without
discrimination." If jobs or government benefits are denied to the adherents of a particular
belief, then religious liberty has been violated.
This does not mean that there are no limits to religious freedom, but "freedom of religion or
belief may be subject to only such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to
protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of
others."
As a fundamental human right, freedom of religion is important to believers and
nonbelievers. Yet where freedom of religion is not respected, we see conflict and even
bloodshed. Conflicts over religion can destabilize nations, cause economic uncertainty, and
provide a breeding ground for terrorists. As a result, freedom of religion should be a priority
in U.S. foreign policy.

The Nature and Importance of Religious Freedom

When thinking about the nature and importance of religious freedom, it's important to keep in
mind the distinction between the civil right to religious freedom and the natural human right
to religious freedom; considerable confusion is engendered in discussions on religious
freedom by failure to keep the distinction in mind.
The first amendment to the US Constitution declares, "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Article 18 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares, "Everyone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his
religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." The
former of these declarations stipulates that American citizens shall have the civil right to
freedom of religion; the latter asserts that everyone has the natural human right to freedom of
religion.
There are a number of reasons why it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the
civil right to freedom of religion and the natural human right. If one believes that there is a
natural human right to freedom of religion, then one will believe that citizens should enjoy
the corresponding civil right as well. The converse does not hold. One might believe that the
citizens of a certain state should enjoy the civil right to freedom of religion while disagreeing
with the UDHR on its claim that there is a natural right to freedom of religion; one might
have consequentialist reasons for holding that the state in question should grant to its citizens
the civil right to freedom of religion.
Another reason for keeping the distinction clearly in mind is the following: if one believes
that there is a natural human right to freedom of religion, then one will regard the civil right
to freedom of religion that some state grants its citizens as a positivizing of the natural right.
Different states positivize the natural right in somewhat different ways, however. There are at
least two reasons for this. One reason is that the particularities of religion in a given society
lead the laws and courts of that society to make somewhat different determinations
concerning borderline applications of the terms "religion," "exercise," and "freedom" from
how the laws and courts in another society make those determinations. Another reason is that

the civil right to freedom of religion is never understood as an absolute right, nor (in my
judgment) is the natural human right an absolute right. The civil right to freedom of religion
is what philosophers call a prima facie right; it can be outweighed in a given case by other
more weighty rights to health, security, and order. Since different societies make somewhat
different judgments on these matters, the specific contour of the civil right to freedom of
religion in the United States is somewhat different from what it is, say, in France.
One sometimes hears the argument that since each society has its own distinct contour of the
civil right to freedom of religion, there is no such thing as the natural human right to freedom
of religion. The argument is fallacious. If there is indeed the natural human right to freedom
of religion, one should expect it to be positivized somewhat differently in different societies,
for the reasons mentioned.
But why hold that there is a natural human right to freedom of religion? Around the time of
the founding of the United States, it was commonly said that human beings have a (natural)
duty to worship God in accord with their consciences; it is for that reason that they should
have the civil right to do so. The line of thought underlying the UN documents is different.
The right to religious freedom, like all the other rights the documents mention, is said to be
grounded in the dignity of the rights-bearer. To deprive a person of freedom of religion is to
treat the person in way that does not befit his or her dignity. The UN documents make no
attempt to answer the obvious next question: what is it about human beings that gives them
the dignity that grounds the right to religious freedom? I will have to postpone answering that
question to another occasion.

Why You Should Care About Religious Freedom

Since our nation's inception, individuals from various religious denominations have too often
suffered discrimination simply because of their religious beliefs. The fight to preserve
religious liberty has long been closely aligned with the civil rights movement. Over the last

decade, civil rights and liberties advocates have repeatedly fought attempts to limit free
religious expression and undermine the wall between church and state.
Impact
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom to worship -- or not to worship -- as
they choose. Our founders devised the wall of separation between church and state to protect
religions from undue governmental interference, to insulate government from undue
influence by any particular religious groups, and minority religions from oppression by the
government or majority religions.
In recent years, a great deal of attention has focused on the public debate over "charitable
choice" provisions. "Charitable choice" refers to legislative and other proposals that would
allow or expand federal funding of social services and other programs run by religious
organizations. Civil rights and civil liberties advocates have criticized such proposals for their
potential to undermine the separation of church and state -- by permitting religious groups to
receive federal money to run programs that permit proselytizing and religious discrimination.
Background
Until the 1980s, the Supreme Court routinely ruled in favor of individual religious freedom
and against state efforts to constrain it. The Supreme Court's 1991 decision in Employment
Division of Oregon v. Smith, however, was seen as a major assault on religious freedom by
greatly expanding governments' ability to enforce generally applicable laws in ways that
infringe upon religious exercise.
In Smith, the Court ruled that states and localities no longer had to show a "compelling
governmental interest" to justify generally applicable laws that limited or infringed upon
religious exercise. The ruling in this case was widely attacked by representatives of virtually
all religious bodies in the United States as a major blow to religious freedom
In 1993 Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (RFRA), which would have overturned Smith and restore the "compelling interest"
standards that limited government's ability to enforce legislation that infringes upon religious
freedom. However, the Supreme Court soon struck down RFRA as an unconstitutional
exercise of Congressional powers in City of Boerne v. Flores.

Not giving up, advocates for religious liberty led the push for the successful enactment of
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000. RLUIPA
provides important new protections for religious freedom without the potential for
undermining state and local civil rights laws.
Despite opposition from the civil rights, religious, social service and labor communities,
President George W. Bush with the support of the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7 in
late 2001 - legislation to give taxpayer dollars to religious organizations to provide social
services.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of religion?

Advantages:
Religion has all the answers.
It gives one justification to look no further for explanation.
It gives one a sense of importance, a superiority over others.
It defines ground rules, it sets about a clear set of definitions for right and wrong.
It tells you very clearly who your adversary is.
It provides one with a care taker, who has nothing but love for humanity.
It offers the believer a reward and to the sinner - punishment.
And of course, it offers everlasting life beyond death.
Now, let's add in the word "fake".
Disadvantages:
Religion has all the fake answers.
It gives one fake justification to look no further for explanation.
It gives one a fake sense of importance, a fake superiority over others.
It defines fake ground rules, it sets about a clear set of fake definitions for right and wrong.
It tells you very clearly who your fake adversary is.

It provides one with a fake care taker, who has nothing but fake love for humanity.
It offers the believer a fake reward and to the sinner - fake punishment.
And of course, it offers fake everlasting life beyond death.

Religion census

Religion returns in Indian census provide a wonderful kaleidoscope of the country s rich
social composition, as many religions have originated in the country and few religions of
foreign origin have also flourished here. India has the distinction of being the land from
where important religions namely Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism have originated
at the same time the country is home to several indigenous faiths tribal religions which have
survived the influence of major religions for centuries and are holding the ground firmly
Regional con-existence of diverse religious groups in the country makes it really unique and
the epithet unity in diversity is brought out clearly in the Indian Census.
Ever since its inception, the Census of India has been collecting and publishing information
about the religious affiliations as expressed by the people of India. In fact, population census
has the rate distinction of being the only instrument that collets the information son this
diverse and important characteristic of the Indian population.
TABLE 21: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY RELIGION
Religion
All religious communities
Hindus
Muslims
Christians
Sikhs
Buddhists
Jains
Others
Religion not stated
Source : Religion, Census of India 2001

Number

1,028,610,328
827,578,868
138,188,240
24,080,016
19,215,730
7,955,207
4,225,053
6,639,626
727,588

100.0
80.5
13.4
2.3
1.9
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.1

At the census 2001, out of 1028 million population, little over 827 million (80.5%) have
returned themselves as followers of Hindu religion, 138 million (13.4%) as Muslims or the
followers of Islam, 24 million (2.3%) as Christians, 19 million (1.9%) as Sikh, 8 million
(0.80%) as Buddhists and 4 million (0.4%) are Jain. In addition, over 6 million have reported
professing other religions and faiths including tribal religions, different from six main
religions.
Hinduism is professed by the majority of population in India. The Hindus are most
numerous in 27 states/Uts except in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Lakshadweep,
Nagaland, Meghalaya, Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab.
The Muslims professing Islam are in majority in Lakshadweep and Jammu & Kashmir. The
percentage of Muslims is sizeable in Assam (30.9%), West Bengal (25.2%), Kerala (24.7%),
Uttar Pradesh (18.5%) and Bihar (16.5%).
Christianity has emerged as the major religion in three North-eastern states, namely,
Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya. Among other states/Uts, Manipur (34.0%), Goa
(26.7%), Andaman & Nicobar Islands (21.7%), Kerala (19.0%), and Arunachal Pradesh
(18.7%) have considerable percentage of Christian population to the total population of the
State/UT.
Punjab is the stronghold of Sikhism. The Sikh population of Punjab accounts for more than
75 % of the total Sikh population in the country. Chandigarh (16.1%), Haryana (5.5%), Delhi
(4.0%), Uttaranchal (2.5%) and Jammu & Kashmir (2.0%) are other important States/Uts
having Sikh population. These six states/Uts together account for nearly 90 percent Sikh
population in the country.
The largest concentration of Buddhism is in Maharashtra (58.3%), where (73.4%) of the
total Buddhists in India reside. Karnataka (3.9 lakh), Uttar Pradesh (3.0 lakh), west Bengal
(2.4 lakh) and Madhya Pradesh (2.0 lakh) are other states having large Buddhist population.
Sikkim (28.1%), Arunachal Pradesh (13.0%) and Mizoram (7.9 %) have emerged as top three
states in terms of having maximum percentage of Buddhist population.
Maharashtra, Rajsthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujrat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have
reported major Jain population. These states/Uts together account for nearly 90 percent of the
total Jain population in the country. The percentage of Jain population to the total population
is maximum in Maharastra (1.3%), Rajsthan (1.2%), Delhi (1.1%) and Gujrat (1.0%).
Elsewhere in the country their proportion in negligible.

Religion is not main cause of war, research suggests

Religion is not the main cause of war, according to a new report. Instead, war is caused by
clashes between different groups, bad government, high levels of corruption and poor
relations with neighbouring countries.
Although religion is often cited anecdotally as a root of conflict, little empirical research has
been done on the link.
According to a paper by the Tony Blair Foundation on an analysis by the Institute for
Economics and Peace, corruption, political terror, gender, economic inequality and political
instability are the main causes of conflict. "Statistically speaking religion has only limited
explanatory power for outbreaks of violence," the paper says. "The most peaceful countries
are not necessarily the least religious, and the least peaceful countries are not necessarily
highly religious."
The foundation notes that countries where Sunni and Shia Muslims live side-by-side such as
Qatar and Kuwait are relatively peaceful. "The main factors which differ between peaceful
coexistence and non-peaceful coexistence relate to well functioning governments, lower
levels of corruption and better relations with neighbouring countries," it says.
The institute found that countries with greater religious freedoms are generally more
peaceful, whereas countries with less religious freedom are generally less peaceful.
The most influential factor affecting religious freedom is the type of government.
"Full democracies are the most peaceful and have the greatest level of religious freedom,
regardless of the type of religious belief or various religious characteristics."
There is no statistically meaningful relationship between the levels of atheism or religious
belief in a country and its levels of peace. Four out of the ten countries with the highest levels
of atheism are less peaceful than the global average.

The most atheistic countries are New Zealand, along with communist or ex-communist
countries.
However, in two-thirds of nations, more than 95 per cent of the population is religious. The
economic status of a country make no difference, the report says.
"Of the ten most peaceful countries... only two countries have greater than ten per cent
atheists. These countries are New Zealand and Belgium," the Tony Blair Faith Foundation
notes. "Of the 15 armed conflicts motivated in part by Islamist groups in 2013, all but five
occurred in countries where Muslims were in the majority. Many of the least peaceful
countries do not have high levels of religious diversity."

Law can be influenced by religion

whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish
private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws
delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 is worth pausing over. The owners of
the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them
a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by
running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal
judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it
is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.

But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance
on theill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws.
Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any
religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion any belief system cannot, by

force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any
other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither
the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other
things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially
discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be
seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is,
seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all selfevident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and
certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views
such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists
today have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite
legitimately be influenced by religion.
Advertisement
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any
kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But
many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity
historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values are capable of successful
communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with
his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective
opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting
in concert.
By relying on a dated epistemology, itself the product of the very kind of secularist "belief
system" he claims has no place in the justification of law, Laws has obscured the proper
relationship between religion and law. Judges would be well advised to give his opinions on
law and religion a wide berth. Instead they should rely on Locke's more limited and betterestablished principle of the limits of what the state can know. That principle won't in itself
resolve any future equality rights cases, but it will mean that controversial rulings on the

scope of religious freedom will not be discredited by resting on an erroneous view of

religious belief.
Religious Law
Religious law often raises very interesting questions about the way in which a specific
country views and supports its religions. In most cases, religious law works alongside the
mainstream law to provide guidance to individuals; however, there are times when religious
law collides with traditional law and the concepts come into conflict.
What is Religious Law?
Let us first consider what exactly religions law is. For many religions, religious law is
thought to be a higher body of understanding in which reality and knowledge is defined by
God and is applicable to all human beings. This is, of course, a rather simplistic view of
religious law as there are many different religions, each trying to establish their own concepts
and ideas as to what religious law should include.
A further interesting area of religious law is that of the code of morality and ethics which is
largely avoided by traditional law. Religious law is thought to include this type of code of
conduct and is governed ultimately by the relevant God of the religion in question.
Religious law is derived from two primary sources: the civil law tradition as followed by
Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox religions and the more customary basis such as Sharia law
that is more akin to common law principles.
Types of Religious Law
One of the main difficulties facing anyone trying to argue that there is an established
overarching code of religious law is that there are so many different types of religion. Each
religion has its own idea of what the religious law should contain and, as such, it is virtually
impossible to establish one agreed set of religious law principles.
It is worth noting that there are some state religions, i.e. religions that have been endorsed by
the state. Based on this recognition and as depicted clearly in Canon law, it is possible to see
the importance of religious law. With this type of religious law, it was considered suitably

important by the state as to have its own court system, known as the Ecclesiastical Courts.
Alternatively, there are the secular states in which religious law has no bearing on the state. In
this case, the state aims to retain a neutral stance in so far as religion is concerned.
Surprisingly, the UK operates a Canon law approach where religious law, specifically
Christianity, is recognised as supreme. This has been somewhat overshadowed by the
growing complexity of traditional law; however, the importance of religious law in this case
cannot be ignored.
Other countries treat religious law very differently, notably Islamic law. Islamic law is one of
the few religious laws that appear to hold a greater significance than the related traditional
laws. In fact, Islamic law (known as Sharia) is considered as the most influential religious
law and is recognised as a legal system alongside common and civil law.
How Does Religious Law Interact with Other Law?
The interaction of religious law and traditional law is always going to be a difficult area to
comprehend. Emotions run high in relation to religious law, and in many countries, there are
conflicting belief systems adding to the problems. In almost all cases of religious law, the
underlying issue is that a legal document of some description is one of the sources of law
referred to by the traditional law.
The way and the extent to which the religious law is then worked into the traditional law vary
dramatically. For example, the religious law of Judaism know as the Halakha takes a hugely
important role in countries with Jewish populations. Whilst the religious law of Halakha is
not the primary source of law in any country, it is possible for two Jewish individuals to agree
to take a matter to a Jewish court for adjudication, thus effectively agreeing to be governed by
religious law.
With such differing views on religion and the way in which religious law should impact on
the traditional law, it is not surprising that the two opinions regularly collide. In the case of
the UK, religious law has now been incorporated into the regulations and legislation where
appropriate and it is this legislation that is the ultimate guidance when it comes to the law of
the land. Religious law can only be relied upon solely when both parties agree, as is the case
with Halakha.

Religious Law - Dealing with Hatred

There is, of course, a more sinister side to religious law that has to be mentioned. Many
countries are now forced into ensuring that they have an anti-hatred law due to the conflict
between many religions.
Many of these laws have been developed to try and mitigate the current terrorism problems
that are largely thought to be rooted in religious disharmony. Whilst this may be seen as a
negative view of religious law, it is generally regarded as being essential to prevent
infractions or religious disagreement. In the UK, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
was brought into force on 1 October 2007 to deal with any situation in which someone or a
group of people are guilty of stirring up any form of hatred against another on the grounds of
religion.
This, although not strictly speaking a religious law, should not be ignored as it reveals the
vital part that religion can take in the forming of the laws of a country.
Conclusions
Religious law as both a source of law and as an influencing factor on the development of
traditional law is a topic that cannot be ignored. In some cases, religious law is central to the
traditional laws of the country, typically in Islamic or Jewish countries. In other areas, such as
the UK, religious law is rooted in the history of the law, although more traditional methods of
interpretation and precedent have taken a more important role in modern society.
Religious law as a source of law is essentially the main consideration, although it is also wise
to bear in mind that religion can also be the reason for the development of other legislative
instruments. A prime example of the importance of religion is the anti hatred religious law
that was recently established in the UK to deal with religious disharmony.
Religious law, as a whole, is a vital element of most legal systems and should not be ignored
as either a source or an influencer of modern legal practices.

Ethnic and Religious Conflicts in India

India is characterized by more ethnic and religious groups than most other countries of the
world. Aside from the much noted 2000-odd castes, there are eight "major" religions, 15-odd
languages spoken in various dialects in 22 states and nine union territories, and a substantial
number of tribes and sects.
Three ethnic or religious conflicts have stood out of late: two occurred in the states of
"Assam and Punjab; another, the more widely known Hindu-Muslim conflict, continues to
persist. The Assam problem is primarily ethnic, the Punjab problem is based on both religious
and regional conflicts, while the Hindu-Muslim problem is predominantly religious.
ETHNIC CONFLICT IN ASSAM
Of the three conflicts mentioned, Assam has attracted the largest attention of late. Not since
the 1947 partition of India have so many people been killed and uprooted as a result of ethnic
or communal violence. By most available reports now, mob violence has claimed four
thousand lives, rendered about 200,000 homeless, and forced a large number to leave the state
for protection elsewhere. The immediate occasion of this bloodshed was the election held in
February, though conflict and tension have been present for the last three years. In Assam,
three culturally disparate groups have been in collision: the Assamese, the Bengalis (both of
which have segments of Hindus and Muslims) and the tribals, which are localized
communities.
Historical Pattern of Migration
Assam has had the highest rate of population growth in India since the beginning of this
century. Migration into the state accounts for a substantial part of this growth. Most migrants
came from Bengal, including what is now Bangladesh (known as East Bengal before the
1947 partition and East Pakistan from 1947-71). Bengali migrants were both Hindus and
Muslims. Bengali Hindus started arriving after the British created tea plantations in the
middle of the nineteenth century. Because of their educational advantage over Assamese, they
were better suited to man the growing administrative and professional machinery.
Bengali Muslims on the other hand, were mainly peasants. They originated predominantly in
East Bengal, a highly populated area with low agricultural productivity and a fragmented
landholding pattern incapable of supporting large families. In contrast, Assam was less
populated, many areas were unsettled, and there was less pressure on the land. Bengali
peasants made large tracts of waste, flooded and forested land habitable and productive along

the southern bank of the Brahmaputra River, an area that is also populated by indigenous
tribal groups, especially the Lalung.
Overall Bengali dominance began to manifested itself in various ways. They held urban
professions, their language was more developed and widely used in Assam, and their
educational and even numerical superiority became more than evident. With the halting
spread of education in the twentieth century, the Assamese middle class slowly emerged, and
with the growth of the Assamese middle class, the seeds of what has been called "little
nationalism" were sown in Assam.
Post-Independence Developments
After the partition of 1947 and the transfer of a very large Bengali Muslim district of Sylhet
to East Pakistan, the Assamese middle class came to power for the first time in about a
century. Through expanded educational programs and the use of Assamese as a language in
the university, this newly acquired power, electorally buttressed, was used to consolidate the
position of the Assamese middle class against Bengali dominance in administrative services
and professions.
On the other hand, the various tribes on the lower ranges were less developed than both of
these contending communities. Depending on the preponderance of one or the other in their
local context, they felt pressured, even exploited, culturally, economically and politically by
both groups.
Despite the existence of an international border, the migration from East Pakistan continued
alongside migration from West Bengal. There is considerable dispute over the actual
magnitude, but the most comprehensive estimate shows that between 1961 and 1971 the
proportion of Assamese declined for the first time and that of Bengali speakers increased;
between 1971 and 1981 itself, as many as 1.2 million migrants were added to a population of
14.6 million in 1971. Moreover, the number of registered voters increased dramatically from
6.5 million in 1972 to 8.7 million in 1979, a rise which cannot be totally attributed to the
coming of voting age to the previously ineligible. This last discovery of the Election
Commission was, in fact, the starting point of the present phase of the organized student
movement supported by large sections of the Assamese middle class. The movement has
wide-ranging demands including development of Assam and greater share of benefits from its
rich national resources, including oil, for the Assamese. Why the issue of deportation of
"illegal aliens" has come to be the focus of the movement needs some explanation.

Despite the general anti-Bengali sentiment, the expulsion of migrants that came from West
Bengal - these migrants are predominantly Hindus - could not be brought about legally or
politically. Interstate movement and residence are perfectly legal in India, and the Assamese
economy and society, despite the antagonism, is inextricably linked with West Bengal.
On the other hand, the "post-1947 place of origin" of migrants from Bangladesh, largely
Muslim, makes them "aliens" and their migration, for political purposes, can be called
"illegal." The students thus found a ground for demanding their expulsion. Additionally, these
Muslim migrants provided unstinted support to the Congress Party, now represented by Mrs.
Gandhi, and the party in turn patronized them, so much so that local politicians of the
Congress Party seem to have put aliens on the electoral rolls irrespective of whether or not
they had Indian citizenship.
It is in this atmosphere that the elections were called. Mrs. Gandhi has been heavily criticized
in India for her decision to call the elections. Two considerations seem to have gone into her
decision: her need for an electoral victory due to the reverses her party had suffered in recent
state elections, and her intention to negotiate with a new set of elected leaders who would
possibly be more pliable than students on the issue of "aliens."
Large-scale violence and destruction of lives, property, bridges, and various other resources
resulted. In addition to the predictable attacks on Bengalis in the towns, there were massacres
in which first pro-election Boro tribals attacked Assamese villages at Gohpur and later, in the
worst massacre witnessed in independent India, another tribe, the anti-poll Lalung, reportedly
with Assamese support, killed scores of Bengali Muslims in Nellie.
The spread of urban conflict to villages seems to be partly a result of the emergence of
support for leftist parties in the previous elections. The land reform-oriented agrarian program
of the left and its attempt to create a base in the Muslim peasantry seems to have antagonized
the Assamese landlords and wealthier peasantry. The most popular party of the left, the
Communist Party Marxist (CPM), is in power in West Bengal and therefore is associated with
Bengalis. Moreover, tribals seem to be involved in the struggle over land, attacking
whichever community, Assamese or Bengali, in possession of most of the land in their
respective local situations.
Hold over government, struggle for jobs, land scarcity, and population influx have thus
intensified the historical differences between Assamese and Bengali into violent ethnic
antagonisms in Assam. All of this took place in a context of acute underdevelopment of

Assam and slow economic growth. The anti-aliens agitation is an expression, among other
things, of the Assamese fear of becoming politically swamped by an ever larger Bengali
presence in the state.
SIKH-HINDU CONFLICT IN PUNJAB
Starting in August 1980, mounting communal tension between Hindus and Sikhs in the state
of Punjab led to violent clashes, in the last year in particular. Unlike Assam, Punjab is a state
with the highest per capita income. It is the seat of the Green Revolution in India, whose
biggest beneficiaries have been the rich Sikh peasants. In Punjab, Sikhs are a majority,
Hindus, a minority.
Although religious symbols have been used for the mobilization of Sikhs and the secessionist
slogan of Khalistan (a sovereign state of Sikhs) has been raised, the Sikh's charter of
demands, drawn from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, has strong economic and political
components, unlike in Assam where the issue of aliens has sidelined economic demands.
The "major" religious demands by the Sikhs, including greater radio time for religious
broadcasts over federally controlled radio, and a separate legislative act for Sikh religious
shrines, were granted by New Delhi this past February. The major political demands are
greater powers, including financial, for the states vis-a-vis New Delhi. A commission has
been appointed to review these demands.
The economic demands include a greater share of river waters for irrigation and larger central
investment in the industrial sector of Punjab. The territorial and the waters issues are the only
unsettled points left. Other demands, minor at present, may later assume importance. The
agitation continues unabated.
Classes, Religion and Green Revolution in Punjab
According to the 1971 census, Sikhs constituted 60.2% of Punjab's population and Hindus
37.5%. In the villages, the Sikh majority was even greater, constituting 69.4 % of the total
rural population as opposed to 28.6% Hindus. In the urban areas, however, Hindus formed
the majority, 66.4 % against 30.8 % Sikhs. Trade and services, rather than manufacturing, are
the main sectors of urban economy in Punjab, and Hindu traders are dominant in both. The
agricultural sector is dominated by the Sikh cultivating castes, known as jats.
Green revolution, based as it was on biochemical and mechanical inputs in agriculture and
surplus production for market, has deeply linked trade with agriculture and made the latter

dependent on the market. Both for buying modern inputs and selling surplus produce, the rich
Sikh farmer has to go through the urban market, dominated by the Hindu trader. So long as
the economic pie kept increasing, this incongruity did not much matter, but when prices of
food grain and other crops stopped increasing, a clash of interests between the Sikh farmer
and the Hindu trader was created.
Irrigation problems have worsened the situation. That Punjab has the best irrigated
agriculture in the country is not enough for the rich peasant; while 1.4 million hectares in
Punjab are canal-irrigated, two million hectares are dependent on tubewells. Due to its power
and diesel needs, tubewell irrigation, is "three to nine times more costly" (India Today). The
prosperity of the rich peasanty has thus slackened.
Other developments have occurred. Landlessness has increased from 17.3 percent in 1961 to
32.1 percent in 1971 and more later. The landless, mostly Untouchables and low caste Hindus
and Sikhs, have also become politicized by the leftist Agricultural Labor Union. Sikhs in
urban trades are neither economically nor numerically as dominant as the Hindus. And
finally, the proportion of Sikhs in the Army has fallen from 35 percent to 20 percent.
Amid these mounting uncertainties, religion both divides and unites.
For the rich Sikh peasantry, faced with Hindu traders on the one hand and politicized labor on
the other, religion performs a useful role. It unites the Sikh trader, who is also opposed to the
Hindu trader, and the low caste Sikh laborer by dividing the agricultural labor into low caste
Sikhs and low caste Hindus or Untouchables. Religious slogans appeal to the religiosity of
the insecure small Sikh peasant and the unpoliticized Sikh laborer.
Power, Electoral Politics and Religion
It is unlikely that these links would have automatically led to political action without the
mediation of political parties. This mediation did not simply reflect the emerging socioeconomic divisions; it deepened them. The two main rural parties, the ruling Congress and
the Akali Dal, a party dominated by the rich Sikh peasanty, have contributed much towards
this deepening. Scholars have noted the schizophrenic character of Punjab politics. It has a
"dual political system and a dual political area," one secular and the other religious and
confined to Sikhs.
Since the exhaustion of the green revolution in Punjab, this is the first time that Akalis have
not been in power. Although they had their first relatively stable rule from 1977 to 1980,

Congress returned to power in 1980. The Akali elite, when in power, did not take up any of
its present demands with New Delhi where its partner in electoral alliance, the Janata Party,
ruled, but soon after the rival Congress returned, agitations were launched in support of the
demands. The power implications seem reasonably clear: unless the enhanced economic
power of the rich Sikh peasantry is matched with political power, peace will be difficult to
maintain in Punjab. Either political power should compensate for the halt in its economic
prosperity, or greater economic incentives must return as expressed in the river waters issue.
Interests of the Akali political elites have thus coincided with those of the discontented
peasantry. Religion is a particularly effective vehicle of political mobilization in such a
situation, for that alone can prevent the increasing differentiation in the Sikh community from
fragmented and weak political expression.
The ruling Congress has also played an electoral game. In an effort to weaken Akali Dal, it
has, in the recent past, supported rabidly communal factions, including the present messiah
Sant Bhindranwale, in the SGPC elections. The Congress is clearly not interested in settling
the problem unless some political or electoral gains are likely, or unless the violence reaches
explosive proportions.
THE HINDU-MUSLIM PROBLEM
Of all the religious and ethnic issues in contemporary India, history has cast its deepest
shadow on Hindu-Muslim relations. The most critical contemporary phase of this history was
the partition of 1947. A Muslim sovereign state of Pakistan was born amidst ghastly
communal violence but almost as many Muslims as there were in the new constituted
Pakistan, for various reasons, stayed in India. The partition did not solve the Hindu-Muslim
problems; it caused the situation of the Muslims in India to deteriorate. They were blamed for
the division of the country, their leadership had left and their power was further weakened by
the removal of all Muslim-majority areas except Kashmir. Most of all, the conflict between
India and Pakistan kept the roots of the communal tension perpetually alive and pushed
Muslims into the unfortunate situation of defending their loyalty to India. Even 36 years after
independence, the problem has not been overcome; Hindi-Muslim riots have in fact increased
in the last few years.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that the entire Muslim community in India has been
under pressure. First, even though a minority (according to the 1971 census, 11.2 percent of
the Indian population was Muslim as opposed to 61.2 percent caste Hindus), Muslims are in a

majority in one state and constitute 13.5 to 24 percent population in five states. There are 39
districts in India in which they comprise from between 20 percent to 94 percent of the
population. Many cultural differences exist among them. Only 45 percent speak Urdu and
there are caste and sect divisions. As many as 73 percent live in villages; only 27 percent are
urban. This is particularly important, after 1947 the Hindu-Muslim riots occurred for the most
part, in urban centers. Most of these towns are modernizing, middle-size towns such as
Aligarh, Moradabad, Meerut, Ranchi, Baroda, Hyderabad, Trivandrum. In the big and/or
industrialized cities such as Bombay, Delhi, Ahmedabad, the communal fury, whenever it has
erupted, has remained confined to the older parts of the city. Villages have remained largely
undisturbed. Acute communal consciousness occurs largely in the middle class; its most
fertile bases lie in the lower middle classes of growing middle size towns of sizeable Muslim
populations.
Discrimination exists at other levels in other parts of the country. Decline in the status of
Urdu in north India, widespread use of Hindu mythologies and symbols in school textbooks
and continuing controversy over the foremost educational institution of Muslims, the Aligarh
University, have indeed done much to provoke Muslim fears. Evidence that the police and
administrative machinery in recent riots have sided with violent Hindus has further deepened
widespread feelings of discrimination.
The emerging character of electoral politics have made matters worse. Communal Hindu
parties apart, even the ruling Congress Party, professedly secular, has, since independence,
had a dualistic character. The secular strain in the Congress was represented by Nehru but the
communal strain was also present in the form of Patel, India's first Deputy Prime Minister,
and was more pronounced at the provincial level. Nehru's stature kept the communal strain in
check, but in the seventies, the party machinery has been taken over by the new generation of
leaders, whose power and mobilization is based less on secularism or socio-economic
programs and more on exploiting caste and religious divisions at the local levels.
If Nehru showed the integrative potential of democratic politics, the new leaders have shown
its divisive potential. Muslims are the largest minority. Their votes can swing political
fortunes. Parties have not hesitated to fan communal flames for electoral gains. The most
recent example of this was the openly communal campaigning by the Congress in the
violence-torn Assam elections. This new mode of realpolitik has been adopted by the new

provincial and local leaders of most parties. The higher recent incidence of Hindu-Muslim
riots has a good deal to do with this new phenomenon.
Conclusion
It is easier to outline these problems than suggest what should be done about them. In a
situation of mutual distrust, almost any solution will generate controversy. Still, three
solutions seem plausible. First, further decentralization of power to states would be of
considerable help. This would partly address the problems in Punjab and Assam, both of
which have complained of the gap between the resources they are entitled to and the
resources they actually process. Second, a conscious attempt needs to be made to improve the
educational attainment and economic level is easily demonstrated of Muslims whose socioeconomic backwardness is easily demonstrated. The Muslim elite could do much in this
respect. Special educational privileges are constitutionally sanctioned but they ought to be
worked on. Modern liberal, as opposed to religious, education would be of great help. The
government, for its part, could allay the apprehensions of the Muslim community by better
representing Muslims in the police and paramilitary forces. Third, the secular leaders, to the
extent that they exist, must make a sustained effort to reintroduce and deepen secular,
socioeconomic concern in democratic politics. Partisan communal leaders and communal
electoral mobilization, both within and outside the communal parties, but particularly within
the ruling party, should be exposed. Aware leadership - political, social and intellectual - has
to work for this political reconstruction. Definitive resolution of problems may be
inordinately difficult but substantial alleviation is not.
Distribution of Population by Religion, 1971 Census
Religion Percentage
(1) Hindus
(a) Caste Hindus 61.22
(b) Scheduled Castes 14.60
(c) Scheduled Tribes 06.90
(2) Muslims 11.21
(3) Christians 2.60

(4) Sikhs 1.89

(5) Buddhists 0.70

(6) Jains 0.47
(7) Other religions
(including Tribals, Parsis and
Jews) 0.40
(8) Religion not stated 0.01
Distribution of Population by Mother Tongue, 1971 Census,/P>
Tongue Percentage
Hindi 29.66
Bengali 8.18
Telugu 8.16
Marathi 7.71
Tamil 6.86
Urdu 5.18
Gujarati 4.74
Malayalam 4.003
Kannada 3.95
Oriya 3.62
Punjabi 3.001
Assamese 1.63
Kashmir 0.44
Sindhi 0.306