Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:36:27.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Wheel of Law: India's Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Ahrar Ahmad
Affiliation:
Black Hills State University

Extract

The Wheel of Law: India's Secularism in Comparative Constitutional Context. By Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. 344p. $39.50.

Since its birth in 1947, India has presented an enigma to many social scientists. A country with a huge population—many living in rather grim circumstances of illiteracy, poverty and despair, bearing a historical legacy of hegemonic rule under the Mughals or the British, and professing a traditional culture marked by deference to authority and hierarchic social arrangements—does not present ideal conditions for democracy to flourish. But India confounded many pundits simply by surviving, indeed succeeding, as a pluralist and constitutional polity. However, one development that may be undermining that confidence is the emergence of an aggressive religious movement coalescing around the sangh parivar (i.e., the cluster of organizations dedicated to the principles of Hindutva), the extremist Hindu identity movement whose electoral success and social agenda is threatening to unravel one of the cherished pillars of India's democracy—its self-conscious and determined commitment to a secular order. Gary Jacobsohn's book explores the challenges this development poses from within a jurisprudential and comparative perspective, including in his analysis references and themes relevant to Israel and the United States as well.

Type
BOOK REVIEWS: COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Copyright
© 2004 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)