Creative Commons license

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Creative Commons logo

 

A Creative Commons (CC) license is one of several public copyright licenses that enable the free distribution of an otherwise copyrighted "work". A CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon a work that they (the author) have created. CC provides an author flexibility (for example, they might choose to allow only non-commercial uses of a given work) and protects the people who use or redistribute an author's work from concerns of copyright infringement as long as they abide by the conditions that are specified in the license by which the author distributes the work.

There are several types of Creative Commons licenses. The licenses differ by several combinations that condition the terms of distribution. They were initially released on December 16, 2002 by Creative Commons, a U.S. non-profit corporation founded in 2001. There have also been five versions of the suite of licenses, numbered 1.0 through 4.0. As of December 2018, the 4.0 license suite is the most current. 

In October 2014, the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC BY, CC BY-SA and CC0 licenses as conformant with the "Open Definition" for content and data.

Applicable works

The second version of the Mayer and Bettle promotional animation explains what Creative Commons is

 

Work licensed under a Creative Commons license is governed by applicable copyright law. This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work falling under copyright, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites. 

While Software is also governed by copyright law and CC licenses are applicable, the Creative Commons recommends Free and open-source software software licenses instead of Creative Commons licenses. Outside the FOSS licensing use case for software there are several usage examples to utilize CC licenses to specify a "Freeware" license model; examples are The White Chamber, Mari0 or Assault Cube. Also the Free Software Foundation recommends the CC0 as the preferred method of releasing software into the public domain.

There are over 35,000 works that are available in hardcopy and have a registered ISBN number. Creative Commons splits these works into two categories, one of which encompasses self-published books.

However, application of a Creative Commons license may not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions. Furthermore, Creative Commons licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable. Any work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license.

In the case of works protected by multiple Creative Commons licenses, the user may choose either.

Types of licenses

Creative commons license spectrum between public domain (top) and all rights reserved (bottom). Left side indicates the use-cases allowed, right side the license components. The dark green area indicates Free Cultural Works compatible licenses, the two green areas compatibility with the Remix culture.

 

CC license usage in 2014 (top and middle), "Free cultural works" compatible license usage 2010 to 2014 (bottom)

 

The CC licenses all grant the "baseline rights", such as the right to distribute the copyrighted work worldwide, for non-commercial purposes and without modification. The details of each of these licenses depend on the version, and comprises a selection out of four conditions:

Icon	Right	Description
	Attribution (BY)	Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only if they give the author or licensor the credits (attribution) in the manner specified by these.
	Share-alike (SA)	Licensees may distribute derivative works only under a license identical ("not more restrictive") to the license that governs the original work. (See also copyleft.) Without share-alike, derivative works might be sublicensed with compatible but more restrictive license clauses, e.g. CC BY to CC BY-NC.)
	Non-commercial (NC)	Licensees may copy, distribute, display, and perform the work and make derivative works and remixes based on it only for non-commercial purposes.
	No Derivative Works (ND)	Licensees may copy, distribute, display and perform only verbatim copies of the work, not derivative works and remixes based on it.

The last two clauses are not free content licenses, according to definitions such as DFSG or the Free Software Foundation's standards, and cannot be used in contexts that require these freedoms, such as Wikipedia. For software, Creative Commons includes three free licenses created by other institutions: the BSD License, the GNU LGPL, and the GNU GPL.

Mixing and matching these conditions produces sixteen possible combinations, of which eleven are valid Creative Commons licenses and five are not. Of the five invalid combinations, four include both the "nd" and "sa" clauses, which are mutually exclusive; and one includes none of the clauses. Of the eleven valid combinations, the five that lack the "by" clause have been retired because 98% of licensors requested attribution, though they do remain available for reference on the website. This leaves six regularly used licenses + the CC0 public domain waiver.

Version 4.0 and international use

The original non-localized Creative Commons licenses were written with the U.S. legal system in mind; therefore, the wording may be incompatible with local legislation in other jurisdictions, rendering the licenses unenforceable there. To address this issue, Creative Commons asked its affiliates to translate the various licenses to reflect local laws in a process called "porting." As of July 2011, Creative Commons licenses have been ported to over 50 jurisdictions worldwide.

The latest version 4.0 of the Creative Commons licenses, released on November 25, 2013, are generic licenses that are applicable to most jurisdictions and do not usually require ports. No new ports have been implemented in version 4.0 of the license. Version 4.0 discourages using ported versions and instead acts as a single global license.

Rights

Attribution

Since 2004, all current licenses other than the CC0 variant require attribution of the original author, as signified by the BY component (as in the preposition "by"). The attribution must be given to "the best of [one's] ability using the information available". Generally this implies the following:

• Include any copyright notices (if applicable). If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, those notices must be left intact, or reproduced in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which the work is being re-published.
• Cite the author's name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person's profile page, if such a page exists.
• Cite the work's title or name (if applicable), if such a thing exists. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.
• Cite the specific CC license the work is under. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.
• Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation. In addition to the above, one needs to identify that their work is a derivative work, e.g., "This is a Finnish translation of [original work] by [author]." or "Screenplay based on [original work] by [author]."

Non-commercial licenses

The "non-commercial" option included in some Creative Commons licenses is controversial in definition, as it is sometimes unclear what can be considered a non-commercial setting, and application, since its restrictions differ from the principles of open content promoted by other permissive licenses. In 2014 Wikimedia Deutschland published a guide to using Creative Commons licenses as wiki pages for translations and as PDF.

Zero / public domain

CC zero waiver/license logo.

 

Creative Commons Public Domain Mark. Indicates works which have already fallen into (or were given to) the public domain.

 

Besides licenses, Creative Commons also offers through CC0 a way to release material worldwide into the public domain. CC0 is a legal tool for waiving as many rights as legally possible. Or, when not legally possible, CC0 acts as fallback as public domain equivalent license. Development of CC0 began in 2007 and was released in 2009. A major target of the license was the scientific data community.

In 2010, Creative Commons announced its Public Domain Mark, a tool for labeling works already in the public domain. Together, CC0 and the Public Domain Mark replace the Public Domain Dedication and Certification, which took a U.S.-centric approach and co-mingled distinct operations.

In 2011, the Free Software Foundation added CC0 to its free software licenses, and currently recommends CC0 as the preferred method of releasing software into the public domain.

In February 2012 CC0 was submitted to Open Source Initiative (OSI) for their approval. However, controversy arose over its clause which excluded from the scope of the license any relevant patents held by the copyright holder. This clause was added with scientific data in mind rather than software, but some members of the OSI believed it could weaken users' defenses against software patents. As a result, Creative Commons withdrew their submission, and the license is not currently approved by the OSI.

In 2013, Unsplash began using the CC0 license to distribute free stock photography. It now distributes several million photos a month and has inspired a host of similar sites, including CC0 photography companies and CC0 blogging companies. Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons, has contributed to the site. Unsplash moved from using the CC0 licence to their own similar licence in June 2017, but with a restriction added on using the photos to make a competing service which makes it incompatible with the CC0 licence.

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation approved the Creative Commons CC0 as conformant with the "Open Definition" and recommend the license to dedicate content to the public domain.

Adaptation

An example of a permitted combination of two works, one being CC BY-SA and the other being Public Domain.

 

Rights in an adaptation can be expressed by a CC license that is compatible with the status or licensing of the original work or works on which the adaptation is based.

Legal aspects

The legal implications of large numbers of works having Creative Commons licensing are difficult to predict, and there is speculation that media creators often lack insight to be able to choose the license which best meets their intent in applying it.

Some works licensed using Creative Commons licenses have been involved in several court cases. Creative Commons itself was not a party to any of these cases; they only involved licensors or licensees of Creative Commons licenses. When the cases went as far as decisions by judges (that is, they were not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or were not settled privately out of court), they have all validated the legal robustness of Creative Commons public licenses. Here are some notable cases:

Dutch tabloid

In early 2006, podcaster Adam Curry sued a Dutch tabloid who published photos from Curry's Flickr page without Curry's permission. The photos were licensed under the Creative Commons Non-Commercial license. While the verdict was in favor of Curry, the tabloid avoided having to pay restitution to him as long as they did not repeat the offense. Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, main creator of the Dutch CC license and director of the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam, commented, "The Dutch Court's decision is especially noteworthy because it confirms that the conditions of a Creative Commons license automatically apply to the content licensed under it, and binds users of such content even without expressly agreeing to, or having knowledge of, the conditions of the license."

Virgin Mobile

In 2007, Virgin Mobile Australia launched an advertising campaign promoting their cellphone text messaging service using the work of amateur photographers who uploaded their work to Flickr using a Creative Commons-BY (Attribution) license. Users licensing their images this way freed their work for use by any other entity, as long as the original creator was attributed credit, without any other compensation required. Virgin upheld this single restriction by printing a URL leading to the photographer's Flickr page on each of their ads. However, one picture, depicting 15-year-old Alison Chang at a fund-raising carwash for her church, caused some controversy when she sued Virgin Mobile. The photo was taken by Alison's church youth counselor, Justin Ho-Wee Wong, who uploaded the image to Flickr under the Creative Commons license. In 2008, the case (concerning personality rights rather than copyright as such) was thrown out of a Texas court for lack of jurisdiction.

SGAE vs Fernández

In the fall of 2006, the collecting society Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) in Spain sued Ricardo Andrés Utrera Fernández, owner of a disco bar located in Badajoz who played CC-licensed music. SGAE argued that Fernández should pay royalties for public performance of the music between November 2002 and August 2005. The Lower Court rejected the collecting society's claims because the owner of the bar proved that the music he was using was not managed by the society.

In February 2006, the Cultural Association Ladinamo (based in Madrid, and represented by Javier de la Cueva) was granted the use of copyleft music in their public activities. The sentence said: "Admitting the existence of music equipment, a joint evaluation of the evidence practiced, this court is convinced that the defendant prevents communication of works whose management is entrusted to the plaintiff [SGAE], using a repertoire of authors who have not assigned the exploitation of their rights to the SGAE, having at its disposal a database for that purpose and so it is manifested both by the legal representative of the Association and by Manuela Villa Acosta, in charge of the cultural programming of the association, which is compatible with the alternative character of the Association and its integration in the movement called 'copy left'".

GateHouse Media, Inc. v. That's Great News, LLC

On June 30, 2010 GateHouse Media filed a lawsuit against That's Great News. GateHouse Media owns a number of local newspapers, including Rockford Register Star, which is based in Rockford, Illinois. That's Great News makes plaques out of newspaper articles and sells them to the people featured in the articles. GateHouse sued That's Great News for copyright infringement and breach of contract. GateHouse claimed that TGN violated the non-commercial and no-derivative works restrictions on GateHouse Creative Commons licensed work when TGN published the material on its website. The case was settled on August 17, 2010, though the settlement was not made public.

Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, LLC

The plaintiff was photographer Art Drauglis, who uploaded several pictures to the photo-sharing website Flickr using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License (CC BY-SA), including one entitled "Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD.". The defendant was Kappa Map Group, a map-making company, which downloaded the image and used it in a compilation entitled "Montgomery Co. Maryland Street Atlas". Though there was nothing on the cover that indicated the origin of the picture, the text "Photo: Swain's Lock, Montgomery Co., MD Photographer: Carly Lesser & Art Drauglis, Creative Commoms [sic], CC-BY-SA-2.0" appeared at the bottom of the back cover. 

The validity of the CC BY-SA 2.0 as a license was not in dispute. The CC BY-SA 2.0 requires that the licensee to use nothing less restrictive than the CC BY-SA 2.0 terms. The atlas was sold commercially and not for free reuse by others. The dispute was whether Drauglis' license terms that would apply to "derivative works" applied to the entire atlas. Drauglis sued the defendants in June 2014 for copyright infringement and license breach, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, fees, and costs. Drauglis asserted, among other things, that Kappa Map Group "exceeded the scope of the License because defendant did not publish the Atlas under a license with the same or similar terms as those under which the Photograph was originally licensed." The judge dismissed the case on that count, ruling that the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph in the sense of the license, but rather a collective work. Since the atlas was not a derivative work of the photograph, Kappa Map Group did not need to license the entire atlas under the CC BY-SA 2.0 license. The judge also determined that the work had been properly attributed.

In particular, the judge determined that it was sufficient to credit the author of the photo as prominently as authors of similar authorship (such as the authors of individual maps contained in the book) and that the name "CC-BY-SA-2.0" is sufficiently precise to locate the correct license on the internet and can be considered a valid URI of the license.

Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE)

This incident has not been tested in court, but it highlights a potentially disturbing practice. In July 2016, German computer magazine LinuxUser reports that a German blogger Christoph Langner used two CC-BY licensed photographs from Berlin photographer Dennis Skley on his private blog Linuxundich.de. Langner duly mentioned the author and the license and added a link to the original. Langner was later contacted by the Verband zum Schutz geistigen Eigentums im Internet (VGSE) (Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property in the Internet) with a demand for €2300 for failing to provide the full name of the work, the full name of the author, the license text, and a source link, as is apparently required by the fine print in the license. Of this sum, €40 goes to the photographer, and the remainder is retained by VGSE.

Works with a Creative Commons license

Number of Creative Commons licensed works as of 2017, per State of the Commons report

Creative Commons maintains a content directory wiki of organizations and projects using Creative Commons licenses. On its website CC also provides case studies of projects using CC licenses across the world. CC licensed content can also be accessed through a number of content directories and search engines.

Retired licenses

Due to either disuse or criticism, a number of previously offered Creative Commons licenses have since been retired, and are no longer recommended for new works. The retired licenses include all licenses lacking the Attribution element other than CC0, as well as the following four licenses:

• Developing Nations License: a license which only applies to developing countries deemed to be "non-high-income economies" by the World Bank. Full copyright restrictions apply to people in other countries.
• Sampling: parts of the work can be used for any purpose other than advertising, but the whole work cannot be copied or modified
• Sampling Plus: parts of the work can be copied and modified for any purpose other than advertising, and the entire work can be copied for noncommercial purposes
• NonCommercial Sampling Plus: the whole work or parts of the work can be copied and modified for non-commercial purposes

Humanists International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Formation	1952; 67 years ago
Founder	Julian Huxley, Jaap van Praag, Harold Blackham
Founded at	Amsterdam, Netherlands
Type	International non-governmental organisation
Legal status	501(c)(3) organization
Headquarters	London, United Kingdom
Region served	Worldwide
President	Andrew Copson
Chief Executive	Gary McLelland
Board of directors	Andrew Copson, Anne-France Ketelaer, Boris van der Ham, Roslyn Mould, Kristin Mile, Uttam Niraula, David Pineda, Rebecca Hale, Gulalai Ismail.
Website	humanists.international
Formerly called	International Humanist and Ethical Union (1952–2019)

Humanists International (known as the International Humanist and Ethical Union, or IHEU, from 1952–2019) is an international non-governmental organisation championing secularism, human rights and equality, motivated by humanist values. Founded in Amsterdam in 1952, it is an umbrella organisation made up of more than 160 humanist, atheist, rationalist, secular, skeptic, freethought and Ethical Culture organisations from over 80 countries.

Humanists International campaigns globally on human rights issues, with a specific emphasis on defending freedom of thought and expression and the rights of the non-religious, who are often a vulnerable minority in many parts of the world. The organisation is based in London but maintains a presence at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, the United Nations General Assembly in New York, and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, among other international institutions. Its advocacy work focuses on shaping debates on issues associated with humanism, the rights of the non-religious, and promoting humanist attitudes to social issues.

Humanists International is particularly active in challenging blasphemy and apostasy laws around the world and at the UN. Its annual Freedom of Thought Report indexes the world's countries by treatment of the non-religious and their commitment to freedom of thought and expression. Working with its member organisations, it also helps to coordinate support for those fleeing danger from states which persecute the non-religious. It advocates a humanist approach to various social issues, contributing to bioethical debates and arguing in favour of sexual and reproductive health and rights, LGBT rights, children's rights and women's rights, and in opposition to slavery and caste discrimination.

Outside of its advocacy work, Humanists International functions as the democratic organ of the global humanist movement. It holds a general assembly each year and a World Humanist Congress usually every three years; its next World Congress will be held in Miami, United States, in 2020. Humanists International works to stimulate the growth of humanism and freethought and the spread of Enlightenment values around the world by supporting activists to form effective organisations in their home countries. In 2002, the Humanists International general assembly unanimously adopted the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, which presents as "the official defining statement of World Humanism". Its official symbol, the Happy Human, is shared with its member organisations worldwide.

Humanism as a life stance

In 2002, at the organisation's 50th anniversary World Humanist Congress, delegates unanimously passed a resolution known as the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, an update of the original Amsterdam Declaration (1952).

The Amsterdam Declaration defines Humanism as a "lifestance" that is "ethical", "rational", supportive of "democracy and human rights", insisting "that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility"; it is "an alternative to dogmatic religion"; it values "artistic creativity and imagination" and is aimed at living lives of "fulfillment" through the powers of "free inquiry", "science" and "creative imagination".

In addition to the Amsterdam Declaration's "official statement of World Humanism", Humanists International provides a "Minimum Statement on Humanism":

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Member Organisations of Humanists International are required according to its membership regulations to have objects that are "consistent" with this understanding of Humanism.

Other major resolutions

At the World Humanist Congress in 2005, in France, the General Assembly adopted The Paris Declaration 2005, on state secularism, which states: "There can be no freedom of conscience when religions rule societies. Secularism is the demand for equal rights for those who belong to any religion as well as for those who belong to none... For IHEU and its member organizations, the State must be secular, that is, neither religious not atheist. But demanding genuine democratic equality, recognized by the Law, between believers and humanists does not mean that the member associations of IHEU treat all philosophical points of view equally. We have no duty to respect irrationalism, however ancient its origins. True Humanism is the flourishing of freedom of conscience and the methods of free inquiry."

In 2007, in an "unprecedented alliance" of the (then) International Humanist and Ethical Union, the European Humanist Federation and Catholics for Choice, launched the Brussels Declaration, a secular response to a proposed Berlin Declaration, under which the amended EU Constitution would have made references to "God" and the "Christian roots of Europe". It made specific reference to policy positions on equality and human rights for different minority groups, concluding: "The principles and values on which European civilisation is founded are once again under threat. We call upon the people of Europe and all who care for freedom, democracy and the rule of law to join us in promoting and protecting them."

At World Humanist Congress 2011, in Norway, the Humanists International General Assembly adopted The Oslo Declaration on Peace, which concludes: "We urge each of our member organizations and Humanists globally to work for a more peaceful culture in their own nations and urge all governments to prefer the peaceful settlement of conflicts over the alternative of violence and war."

At World Humanist Congress 2014, in the United Kingdom, the Humanists International General Assembly adopted The Oxford Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression, which asserts: "Freedom of thought implies the right to develop, hold, examine and manifest our beliefs without coercion, and to express opinions and a worldview whether religious or non-religious, without fear of coercion. It includes the right to change our views or to reject beliefs previously held, or previously ascribed. Pressure to conform to ideologies of the state or to doctrines of religion is a tyranny."

In 2017, Humanists International held a special conference on threats to humanism and liberal democracy from rising authoritarian populism and extremism as part of its general assembly in London. At the following general assembly in Auckland, New Zealand in 2018, Humanists International members agreed The Auckland Declaration on the Politics of Division, which condemned a recent global resurgence of demagogy, "exemplified in a new generation of so-called “strong men” politicians, who purport to stand up for popular interests, but who are eager to diminish human rights and disregard minorities in order to gain and retain power for their own ends". The Declaration commits humanist organisations "to addressing the social causes of the politics of division: social inequality, a lack of respect for human rights, popular misconceptions about the nature of democracy" and affirms the "values of democracy, rule of law, equality, and human rights."

In 2019, Humanists International members unanimously passed the Reykjavik Declaration on the Climate Change Crisis, acknowledging the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change committing the international humanist movement to "foster a social and political commitment to urgent action and long-term policymaking to mitigate and prevent climate change."

Organisation

Founding in 1952

Five Humanist organisations, the American Ethical Union, American Humanist Association, British Ethical Union (later the British Humanist Association and now Humanists UK), Vienna Ethical Society and the Dutch Humanist league hosted the founding congress of the International Humanist and Ethical Union in Amsterdam, 22–27 August 1952. On the last day of the congress five resolutions were passed, which included a statement of the fundamentals of "modern, ethical Humanism", a resolution which would come to be known as the Amsterdam Declaration (1952).

Current structure

The former IHEYO logo, prior to rebranding as Young Humanists International.

 

Humanists International is a democratic organisation, the Board of which is elected by representatives of the Member Organisations at annual General Assemblies. The President as of 2015 is Andrew Copson (who is also the Chief Executive of Humanists UK as of 2010). The IHEU headquarters is in London, sharing an office with Humanists UK.

Representatives of Humanists International Member Organisations ratify new memberships annually during a General Assembly. Following the 2017 General Assembly, the IHEU listed its membership as 139 Member Organisations from 53 countries from a variety of non-religious traditions. 

A staff of four is headed by the current Chief Executive, Gary McLelland, and Humanists International maintains delegations to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, the United Nations in New York, and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.

Humanists International is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the United Nations, General Consultative Status at the Council of Europe, Observer Status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and maintains operational relations with UNESCO.

Humanists International has a wing for people aged up to 35 called the Young Humanists International. 

The organization's 2017 General Assembly passed a resolution "mandating the Board to oversee a transition to a revised identity for the organization". The rebrand to Humanists International, a new operating name for the IHEU, was completed in February 2019.

Board members

Humanists International is governed by an international board of directors, whose body is elected by member organisations at annual general assemblies, including a directly elected President.

As of July 2019, the Board of Humanists International comprises:

• Andrew Copson (President) – Humanists UK
• Anne-France Ketelaer (Vice President) – deMens.nu, Flanders/Belgium
• Boris van der Ham (Treasurer) – Dutch Humanist Association
• Rebecca Hale – American Humanist Association
• Gulalai Ismail – Aware Girls, Pakistan
• Kristin Mile – Norwegian Humanist Association
• Roslyn Mould – Humanist Association of Ghana
• Uttam Niraula – Society for Humanism (SOCH) Nepal
• David Pineda – Humanistas Guatemala

Strategy and activities

The aim of Humanists International is to "build, support and represent the global humanist movement, defending human rights, particularly those of non-religious people, and promoting humanist values world-wide". As a campaigning NGO Humanists International aims "to influence international policy through representation and information, to build the humanist network, and let the world know about the worldview of Humanism."

The Freedom of Thought Report

Cover of the downloadable 2016 edition of the IHEU Freedom of Thought Report - Key Countries Edition

 

In 2012 Humanists International began publishing an annual report on "discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious" called The Freedom of Thought Report.

The report centres around a "Country Index" with a textual entry for every sovereign state.

Each country is measured against a list of 64 boundary conditions, which are categorised into four thematic categories ("Constitution and government", "Education and children's rights", "Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals", and "Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values") at five levels of overall "severity" ("Free and equal", "Mostly satisfactory", "Systemic discrimination", "Severe discrimination" and "Grave violations"). The 64 boundary conditions include for example: "‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death", which is placed at the worst level of severity, and under the category "Freedom of expression", and: "There is state funding of at least some religious schools", which is a middle severity condition, under the category "Education and children's rights". The data from the report is freely available under a Creative Commons license.

Findings of the Freedom of Thought Report

In 2017, the report found that 30 countries meet at least one boundary condition at the most severe level ("Grave violations"), and a further 55 countries met at least one boundary condition in the next most severe level ("Severe discrimination").

This composite map overlays the results from four separate categories of assessment in Humanists International Freedom of Thought Report, as to how countries discriminate against non-religious people. Countries block-filled in darker, redder colors are rated more severely in the report, while lighter, greener shades are more "free and equal".

Responses to the Freedom of Thought Report

The various annual editions of the Freedom of Thought Report have been reported in the media under headlines such as: "How the right to deny the existence of God is under threat globally" (the Independent, UK); "Most countries fail to respect rights of atheists – report" (Christian Today); and "Stephen Fry's mockery of religion could land him the death penalty in these countries" (the Washington Post). The report has received coverage in the national media of countries that are severely criticised, for example "Malaysia's free thought, religious expression under 'serious assault', study shows" (the Malay Mail).

Forewords and prefaces to the various annual editions of report have been written by then-United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, in 2012; two victims of "blasphemy" accusations, Kacem El Ghazzali and Alber Saber in 2013; human rights defenders Gulalai Ismail and Agnes Ojera in 2014; humanist activist and survivor of an anti-secularist machete attack in Bangladesh, Rafida Ahmed Bonya (2015); and United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, in 2016. In 2015 and 2016 the annual edition of the Freedom of Thought Report was launched at the European Parliament in Brussels hosted by the European Parliamentary Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance chaired by Dennis de Jong MEP.

In his foreword to the first edition of the Freedom of Thought Report, Heiner Bielefeldt wrote: "As a universal human right, freedom of religion or belief has a broad application. However, there seems to be little awareness that this right also provides a normative frame of reference for atheists, humanists and freethinkers and their convictions, practices and organizations. I am therefore delighted that for the first time the Humanist community has produced a global report on discrimination against atheists. I hope it will be given careful consideration by everyone concerned with freedom of religion or belief."

At a panel event at the European Parliament for the launch of the 2015 edition, Bielefeldt said he "unambiguously welcomed" the report and reiterated with regard to "freedom of religion or belief" that it is "only a kind of short-hand", and "Formulations such as "religious freedom" obfuscate the scope of this human right which covers the identity-shaping, profound convictions and conviction-based practices of human beings broadly."

The report was the subject of a question in the UK Parliament in 2013, to which David Lidington MP responded for the government asserting, "Our freedom of religion or belief policy is consistent with the key message of the International Humanist and Ethical Union's (IHEU) report: that international human rights law exists to protect the rights of individuals to manifest their beliefs, not to protect the beliefs themselves. The report records a sharp increase in the number of prosecutions for alleged criticism of religion by atheists on social media. Protecting freedom of expression online is a priority for the British Government and we have consistently argued against attempts to create a new international standard in order to protect religions from criticism."

Focus of advocacy and campaigns

Recurring themes of Humanists International's advocacy and campaigns work include LGBTI rights and women's rights, sexual and reproductive health and rights, laws against blasphemy and apostasy, caste-based discrimination, slavery, and advocacy of secularism.

Persecuted non-religious individuals

Individuals persecuted for expressing their non-religious views (actual or perceived) have frequently been the subject of IHEU campaigns. Some prominent cases include:

• In the 1990s IHEU was instrumental in highlighting the threats against Taslima Nasrin who lives in exile from Bangladesh, and who also acted as a representative of the IHEU at UNESCO.
• The IHEU and Amnesty International led the campaign in 2004 to try to obtain the release of Younus Shaikh who was accused of "blasphemy" in Pakistan.
• In 2013 the IHEU urged the authorities in Egypt to ensure the safety of Alber Saber after he was accused of "offending religion" for allegedly linking to the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims".
• In 2014 the IHEU blew the whistle on the case of Mubarak Bala from Nigeria, who was detained in a psychiatric hospital after he talked openly about being an atheist. He was freed following international media coverage.
• In 2017, after a government minister in Malaysia said members of an atheist meetup group would be "hunted down", the IHEU called for respect of the atheists' human rights, and the organization's condemnation of the minister's remarks was reported in Malaysian media.

The IHEU delegation at the United Nations Human Rights Council has repeatedly raised the imprisonment and corporal punishment of Raif Badawi for "insulting religion", and Waleed Abulkhair for "disrespecting the authorities", both in Saudi Arabia. 

Humanists International similarly highlights cases where individuals are accused of "apostasy", such as the blogger Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir currently on death row in Mauritania, and the poet Ashraf Fayadh currently imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. In June 2016 at the 32nd session of the Human Rights Council the IHEU's delegate took the unusual step of reading one of Ashraf Fayadh's poems during General Debate.

Bangladesh machete murders

Humanists International complained that fundamentalists linked to the government were "terrorising" secular activists, including individuals in connection with its Member Organisations, as far back as 2006. However, a series of machete attacks primarily targeting secular and atheist bloggers and freethinkers in Bangladesh has been especially severe since 2013, and the IHEU has campaigned persistently in response and highlighted the murders at the UN Human Rights Council.

Humanists International responded in 2013 to the murder of blogger and activist Ahmed Rajib Haider and the machete attack on his friend Asif Mohiuddin, and highlighted the subsequent arrest and imprisonment of Mohiuddin and others for "hurting religious sentiments".

When author and prominent leader of the Bengali freethought movement Avijit Roy was murdered, 26 February 2015, Humanists International revealed that he had been advising them on the situation in Bangladesh; Humanists International Director of Communications commented, "This loss is keenly felt by freethinkers and humanists in South Asia and around the world. He was a colleague in humanism and a friend to all who respect human rights, freedom, and the light of reason."

Following the murder of Washiqur Rahman Babu (or Oyasiqur Rhaman), 30 March 2015, Humanists International republished some of his final writings.

Following the murder of Ananta Bijoy Das, 12 May 2016, Humanists International leaked parts of the letter Bijoy Das had recently received from Sweden rejecting his visa application, despite his having being invited to the country by Swedish PEN. The organisation highlighted "the failures of the Bangladeshi authorities to bring to justice the individuals and to break the networks behind this string of targeted killings", and also criticised Sweden's rejection of his visa application, commenting, "We call on all countries to recognise the legitimacy and sometimes the urgency and moral necessity of asylum claims made by humanists, atheists and secularists who are being persecuted for daring to express those views."

Following the murder of Niladri Chattopadhyay Niloy (or Niloy Chatterjee, also known by his pen name Niloy Neel), 7 August 2015, Humanists International again attacked the government and authorities, saying, "Apparent failure to pursue the most obvious lines of inquiry even when initial arrests are made, and media manipulation resulting in conflicting stories, further makes reportage difficult and police operations opaque."

A coordinated attack against two separate publishing houses in Dhaka, 31 October 2016, killed the publisher Faisal Arefin Dipon and seriously injured the publisher Ahmedur Rashid Chowdhury. The IHEU later published an interview with Chowdhury about the attack and his escape to Norway.

In August 2015 Humanists International coordinated a joint open letter in English and Bangla by a coalition of "Bloggers, free speech campaigners, humanist associations, religious and ex-Muslim groups" calling on the president and prime minister of Bangladesh to "ensure the safety and security of those individuals whose lives are threatened by Islamist extremists... instruct the police to find the killers, not to harass or blame the victims... disassociate yourself publicly from those who call for death penalties against non-religious Bangladeshis..." and repeal the laws under which secular bloggers faced arrest and imprisonment.

Following the murder of a student and secular activist Nazimuddin Samad, 6 April 2016, and then the murder of university lecturer Professor Rezaul Karim Siddique, 23 April 2016, Humanists International president Andrew Copson said "Unless the government [of Bangladesh] immediately begins to defend the right to speak and write freely, without adding the unprincipled and anti-secular qualifications that it keeps applying to freedom of expression, then very soon the only voices that will be heard will be those of murderous extremists."

Humanists International, along with the its Member Organisation the Dutch Humanist Association, and Hague Peace Projects, organised a "solidarity book fair" in The Hague, 26 February 2016, to coincide with the annual Ekushey Book Fair in Dhaka.

The range of targets for these attacks began to broaden in the later part of 2015 and throughout 2016 to more often include minority religious individuals and foreigners, culminating in the July 2016 Dhaka attack in Gulshan Thana.

End Blasphemy Laws campaign

In January 2015, in part as a response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Humanists International alongside other transnational secular groups the European Humanist Federation and Atheist Alliance International and a two-hundred strong organisational coalition, founded the End Blasphemy Laws Campaign. End Blasphemy Laws is "campaigning to repeal "blasphemy" and related laws worldwide."

Other campaigns

The "First World Conference on Untouchability" was organised by Humanists International in London, June 2009. Anticipating the event, the BBC News quoted then-Executive Director Babu Gogineni as saying that legal reforms alone would not end caste discrimination: "There are Dalit politicians in India, but nothing has changed. The answer is to educate Dalits and empower them." The event was preceded by questions in the UK Parliament and guests included Lord Desai and Lord Avebury from the UK House of Lords; Binod Pahadi, Member of the Constituent Assembly, Nepal; and Tina Ramirez, US Congressional Fellow on International Religious Freedom. The Second World Conference on Untouchability was held in Kathmandu, in April 2014.

In 2013 Humanists International criticised the US-based Appeal of Conscience Foundation for awarding their "World Statesman Award" to then-president of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono; it argued that the award "is a slap in the face to prisoners of conscience across the world. While Alexander Aan suffers in an Indonesian jail for posting his beliefs to Facebook, his jailer will be honored in New York as a champion of freedom of belief." 

In 2014 Humanists International as part of a "coalition of secular groups" led a campaign around the hashtag "#TwitterTheocracy" to protest the social media website Twitter's implementation of tools blocking "blasphemous" tweets in Pakistan.

Secularism in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India enacted in 1976, the Preamble to the Constitution asserted that India is a secular nation. institutions to recognise and accept all religions, enforce parliamentary laws instead of religious laws, and respect pluralism. India does not have an official state religion. In matters of law in modern India, however, the applicable code of law is unequal, and India's personal laws - on matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, alimony - varies with an individual's religion. Muslim Indians have Sharia-based Muslim Personal Law, while Hindu, Christian and Sikh Indians live under common law. It is further complicated by the fact that many Hindu temples of great religious significance are administered and managed by the Indian government. The attempt to respect unequal, religious law has created a number of issues in India such as acceptability of child marriage, polygamy, unequal inheritance rights, extra judicial unilateral divorce rights favorable to some males, and conflicting interpretations of religious books.

Secularism as practiced in India, with its marked differences with Western practice of secularism, is a controversial topic in India. See also pseudo-secularism Supporters of the Indian concept of secularism claim it respects. Supporters of this form of secularism claim that any attempt to introduce a uniform civil code, that is equal laws for every citizen irrespective of his or her religion, would impose majoritarian Hindu sensibilities and ideals. Opponents argue that India's acceptance of Sharia and religious laws violates the principle of Equality before the law.

Secularism is a politically charged topic in India and often divides political factions. While there are many secular political parties which enjoy widespread support especially in Kerala, there are also parties that advocate the idea of India as a country for only one religious community. Complaints have been raised from different factions that secularism has been selectively applied in policy to suppress opposing religious views.

History

Indian religions are known to have co-existed and evolved together for many centuries before the arrival of Islam in the 12th century, followed by Mughal and colonial era. To understand how, it is necessary to have an insight into how the concept of secularism grew in India. The religion, practices and beliefs of the Indus Valley Civilization has received considerable attention from the view of identifying the precursor of later Indian dharmic religions. There existed worship of the great male god and a mother goddess; deification and veneration of animals and plants; and the worship of many symbolic representations of the world around. Consequently, religion was very accomodative and without a rigid structure; it was polytheistic as well as agnostic, henotheistic as well as panentheistic at the same time. This tolerance towards and acceptance of other religious beliefs persisted in the dharmic religions that followed. Hence the dharmic religions lack a proselytism tradition. There is no belief in the superiority of their god. Quite conversely, there are instances in religious texts like the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha, wherein even the antagonist on the side of adharma are shown to have a admirable traits, while Gods on the side of dharma are shown as having fallacies. This encouraged a unique outlook of questioning, open-mindness and acceptance in Indian religions. 

Ellora caves, a world heritage site, are in the Indian state of Maharashtra. The 35 caves were carved into the vertical face of the Charanandri hills between the 5th and 10th centuries. The 12 Buddhist caves, 17 Hindu caves and 5 Jain caves, built in proximity, suggest religious co-existence and secular sentiments for diversity prevalent during pre-Islamic period of Indian history.

 

Ashoka about 2200 years ago, Harsha about 1400 years ago accepted and patronised different religions. The people in ancient India had freedom of religion, and the state granted citizenship to each individual regardless of whether someone's religion was Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or any other. Ellora cave temples built next to each other between 5th and 10th centuries, for example, shows a coexistence of religions and a spirit of acceptance of different faiths.

There should not be honour of one’s own (religious) sect and condemnation of others without any grounds.

— Ashoka, Rock Edicts XII, about 250 BC

This approach to interfaith relations changed with the arrival of Islam and establishment of Delhi Sultanate in North India by the 12th century, followed by Deccan Sultanate in Central India. The political doctrines of Islam, as well as its religious views were at odds with doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism and other Indian religions. New temples and monasteries were not allowed. As with Levant, Southeast Europe and Spain, Islamic rulers in India treated Hindus as dhimmis in exchange of annual payment of jizya taxes, in a sharia-based state jurisprudence. With the arrival of Mughal era, Sharia was imposed with continued zeal, with Akbar - the Mughal Emperor - as the first significant exception. Akbar sought to fuse ideas, professed equality between Islam and other religions of India, forbade forced conversions to Islam, abolished religion-based discriminatory jizya taxes, and welcomed building of Hindu temples. However, the descendants of Akbar, particularly Aurangzeb, reverted to treating Islam as the primary state religion, destruction of temples, and reimposed religion-based discriminatory jizya taxes.

Akbar's tomb at Sikandra, near Agra India. Akbar's instruction for his mausoleum was that it incorporate elements from different religions including Islam and Hinduism.

 

After Aurangzeb, India came into control of East India Company and the British Raj. The colonial administrators did not separate religion from state, but marked the end of unequal hierarchy between Islam and Hinduism, and reintroduced the notion of equality before the law for Hindus, Christians and Muslims. The British Empire sought commerce and trade, with a policy of neutrality to all of India's diverse religions. Before 1858, the Britishers followed the policy of patronizing and supporting the native religions as the earlier rulers had done. By the mid-19th century, the British Raj administered India, in matters related to marriage, inheritance of property and divorces, according to personal laws based on each Indian subject's religion, according to interpretations of respective religious documents by Islamic jurists, Hindu pundits and other religious scholars. In 1864, the Raj eliminated all religious jurists, pandits and scholars because the interpretations of the same verse or religious document varied, the scholars and jurists disagreed with each other, and the process of justice had become inconsistent and suspiciously corrupt. The late 19th century marked the arrival of Anglo-Hindu and Anglo-Muslim personal laws, where the governance did not separate the state and religion, but continued to differentiate and administer people based on their personal religion. The British Raj provided the Indian Christians, Indian Zoroastrians and others with their own personal laws, such as the Indian Succession Act of 1850, Special Marriage Act of 1872 and other laws that were similar to Common Laws in Europe.

“	For several years past it has been the cherished desire of the Muslims of British India that Customary Law should in no case take the place of Muslim Personal Law. The matter has been repeatedly agitated in the press as well as on the platform. The Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, the greatest Moslem religious body has supported the demand and invited the attention of all concerned to the urgent necessity of introducing a measure to this effect.	”
— Preamble to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937,

Although the British administration provided India with a common law, it's divide and rule policy contributed to promoting discord between communities. The Morley-Minto reforms provided separate electorate to Muslims, justifying the demands of the Muslim league. 

In the first half of 20th century, the British Raj faced increasing amounts of social activism for self-rule by a disparate groups such as those led by Hindu Gandhi and Muslim Jinnah; the colonial administration, under pressure, enacted a number of laws before India's independence in 1947, that continue to be the laws of India in 2013. One such law enacted during the colonial era was the 1937 Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, which instead of separating state and religion for Western secularism, did the reverse.

It, along with additional laws such as Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act of 1939 that followed, established the principle that religious laws of Indian Muslims can be their personal laws. It also set the precedent that religious law, such as sharia, can overlap and supersede common and civil laws, that elected legislators may not revise or enact laws that supersede religious laws, that people of one nation need not live under the same laws, and that law enforcement process for different individuals shall depend on their religion. The Indian Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 continues to be the law of land of modern India for Indian Muslims, while parliament-based, non-religious uniform civil code passed in mid-1950s applies to Indians who are Hindus (which includes Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Parsees), as well as to Indian Christians and Jews.

Current status

The 7th schedule of Indian constitution places religious institutions, charities and trusts into so-called Concurrent List, which means that both the central government of India, and various state governments in India can make their own laws about religious institutions, charities and trusts. If there is a conflict between central government enacted law and state government law, then the central government law prevails. This principle of overlap, rather than separation of religion and state in India was further recognised in a series of constitutional amendments starting with Article 290 in 1956, to the addition of word ‘secular’ to the Preamble of Indian Constitution in 1975.

Buddhist monks at the Sera Monastery during a festival. The monastery was granted asylum by India and relocated to Mysore after the Chinese invasion of Tibet.

 

The overlap of religion and state, through Concurrent List structure, has given various religions in India, state support to religious schools and personal laws. This state intervention while resonant with the dictates of each religion, are unequal and conflicting. For example, a 1951 Religious and Charitable Endowment Indian law allows state governments to forcibly take over, own and operate Hindu temples, and collect revenue from offerings and redistribute that revenue to any non-temple purposes including maintenance of religious institutions opposed to the temple; Indian law also allows Islamic religious schools to receive partial financial support from state and central government of India, to offer religious indoctrination, if the school agrees that the student has an option to opt out from religious indoctrination if he or she so asks, and that the school will not discriminate any student based on religion, race or other grounds. Educational institutions wholly owned and operated by government may not impart religious indoctrination, but religious sects and endowments may open their own school, impart religious indoctrination and have a right to partial state financial assistance.

In matters of personal law, such as acceptable age of marriage for girls, female circumcision, polygamy, divorce and inheritance, Indian law permits each religious group to implement their religious law if the religion so dictates, otherwise the state laws apply. In terms of religions of India with significant populations, only Islam has religious laws in form of sharia which India allows as Muslim Personal Law.

Secularism in India, thus, does not mean separation of religion from state. Instead, secularism in India means a state that is neutral to all religious groups. Religious laws in personal domain, particularly for Muslim Indians, supersede parliamentary laws in India; and currently, in some situations such as religious indoctrination schools the state partially finances certain religious schools. These differences have led a number of scholars to declare that India is not a secular state, as the word secularism is widely understood in the West and elsewhere; rather it is a strategy for political goals in a nation with a complex history, and one that achieves the opposite of its stated intentions.

Comparison with Western secularism

In the West, the word secular implies three things: freedom of religion, equal citizenship to each citizen regardless of his or her religion, and the separation of religion and state. One of the core principles in the constitution of Western democracies has been this separation, with the state asserting its political authority in matters of law, while accepting every individual's right to pursue his or her own religion and the right of religion to shape its own concepts of spirituality. Everyone is equal under law, and subject to the same laws irrespective of his or her religion, in the West.

In contrast, in India, the word secular does not imply separation of religion and state. It means equal treatment of all religions. Religion in India continues to assert its political authority in matters of personal law. The applicable personal law differ if an individual's religion is Christianity, or Hindu. The term secularism in India also differs from the French concept for secularity, namely laïcité. While the French concept demands absence of governmental institutions in religion, as well as absence of religion in governmental institutions and schools; the Indian concept, in contrast, provides financial support to religious schools and accepts religious law over governmental institutions. The Indian structure has created incentives for various religious denominations to start and maintain schools, impart religious education, and receive partial but significant financial support from the Indian government. Similarly, Indian government financially supports, regulates and administers the historic Hindu temples, Buddhist monasteries, and certain Christian religious institutions; this direct Indian government involvement in various religions is markedly different from Western secularism.

Issues

Indian concept of secularism, where religious laws supersede state laws and the state is expected to even-handedly involve itself in religion, is a controversial subject. Any attempts and demand by the Indian populace to a uniform civil code is considered a threat to right to religious personal laws by Indian Muslims.

Shah Bano case

In 1978, the Shah Bano case brought the secularism debate along with a demand for uniform civil code in India to the forefront.

Shah Bano was a 62-year-old Muslim Indian who was divorced by her husband of 44 years in 1978. Indian Muslim Personal Law required her husband to pay no alimony. Shah Bano sued for regular maintenance payments under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1978. Shah Bano won her case, as well appeals to the highest court. Along with alimony, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India wrote in his opinion just how unfairly Islamic personal laws treated women and thus how necessary it was for the nation to adopt a Uniform Civil Code. The Chief Justice further ruled that no authoritative text of Islam forbade the payment of regular maintenance to ex-wives.

The Shah Bano ruling immediately triggered a controversy and mass demonstrations by Muslim men. The Islamic Clergy and the Muslim Personal Law Board of India, argued against the ruling. Shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling, the Indian government with Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister, enacted a new law which deprived all Muslim women, and only Muslim women, of the right of maintenance guaranteed to women of Hindu, Christian, Parsees, Jews and other religions. Indian Muslims consider the new 1986 law, which selectively exempts them from maintenance payment to ex-wife because of their religion, as secular because it respects Muslim men's religious rights and recognises that they are culturally different from Indian men and women of other religions. Muslim opponents argue that any attempt to introduce Uniform Civil Code, that is equal laws for every human being independent of his or her religion, would reflect majoritarian Hindu sensibilities and ideals.

Islamic feminists

The controversy is not limited to Hindu versus Muslim populations in India. The Islamic feminists movement in India, for example, claim that the issue with Muslim Personal Law in India is a historic and ongoing misinterpretation of the Quran. The feminists claim that the Quran grants Muslim women rights that in practice are routinely denied to them by male Muslim ulema in India. They claim that the ‘patriarchal’ interpretations of the Quran on the illiterate Muslim Indian masses is abusive, and they demand that they have a right to read the Quran for themselves and interpret it in a woman-friendly way. India has no legal mechanism to accept or enforce the demands of these Islamic feminists over religious law.

Women’s rights in India

Some religious rights granted by Indian concept of secularism, which are claimed as abusive against Indian women, include child marriage, polygamy, unequal inheritance rights of women and men, extrajudicial unilateral divorce rights of Muslim man that are not allowed to a Muslim woman, and subjective nature of shariat courts, ‘‘jamaats’’, ‘‘dar-ul quzat’’ and religious qazis who preside over Islamic family law matters.

Goa

Goa is the only state in India which has Uniform Civil Code.The Goa Civil Code, also called the Goa Family Law, is the set of civil laws that governs the residents of the Indian state of Goa. In India, as a whole, there are religion-specific civil codes that separately govern adherents of different religions. Goa is an exception to that rule, in that a single secular code/law governs all Goans, irrespective of religion, ethnicity or linguistic affiliation.

Article 25(2)(b)

Article 25(2)(b) of the Indian constitution clubs Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains along with Hindus, a position contested by some of these community leaders.

Views

A Hindu temple in Jaipur, India merging the traditional tiered tower of Hinduism, the pyramid stupa of Buddhism and the dome of Islam. The marble sides are carved with figures of Hindu deities, as well as Christian Saints and Jesus Christ.

 

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sadanand Dhume criticises Indian "Secularism" as a fraud and a failure, since it isn't really "secularism" as it is understood in the western world (as separation of religion and state) but more along the lines of religious appeasement. He writes that the flawed understanding of secularism among India's left wing intelligentsia has led Indian politicians to pander to religious leaders and preachers including Zakir Naik, and has led India to take a soft stand against Islamic terrorism, religious militancy and communal disharmony in general.

Historian Ronald Inden writes:

“

Nehru's India was supposed to be committed to 'secularism'. The idea here in its weaker publicly reiterated form was that the government would not interfere in 'personal' religious matters and would create circumstances in which people of all religions could live in harmony. The idea in its stronger, unofficially stated form was that in order to modernise, India would have to set aside centuries of traditional religious ignorance and superstition and eventually eliminate Hinduism and Islam from people's lives altogether. After Independence, governments implemented secularism mostly by refusing to recognise the religious pasts of Indian nationalism, whether Hindu or Muslim, and at the same time (inconsistently) by retaining Muslim 'personal law' .

”

Amartya Sen, the Indian Nobel Laureate, suggests that secularism in the political – as opposed to ecclesiastical – sense requires the separation of the state from any particular religious order. This, claims Sen, can be interpreted in at least two different ways: The first view argues the state be equidistant from all religions – refusing to take sides and having a neutral attitude towards them. The second view insists that the state must not have any relation at all with any religion. In both interpretations, secularism goes against giving any religion a privileged position in the activities of the state. Sen argues that the first form is more suited to India, where there is no demand that the state stay clear of any association with any religious matter whatsoever. Rather what is needed is to make sure that 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 does not claim that modern India is symmetric in its treatment or offer any views of whether acceptance of sharia in matters such as child marriage is equivalent to having a neutral attitude towards a religion. Critics of Sen claim that secularism as practised in India is not the secularism of first or second variety Sen enumerates.

Author Taslima Nasreen sees Indian secularists as pseudo secularist, accusing them of being biased towards Muslims saying, "Most secular people are pro-Muslims and anti-Hindu. They protest against the acts of Hindu fundamentalists and defend the heinous acts of Muslim fundamentalists". She also said that most Indian politicians appease Muslims which leads to anger among Hindus.

Pakistani columnist Farman Nawaz in his article "Why Indian Muslim Ullema are not popular in Pakistan?" states "Maulana Arshad Madani stated that seventy years ago the cause of division of India was sectarianism and if today again the same temptation will raise its head then results will be the same. Maulana Arshad Madani considers secularism inevitable for the unity of India". Maulana Arshad Madani is a stanch critic of sectarianism in India. He is of the opinion that India was divided in 1947 because of sectarianism. He suggests secularism inevitable for the solidarity and integrity of India.