<Tr> <Td> "</Td> <Td> 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' . </Td> <Td>" </Td> </Tr> <P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 . </P> <P> 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 . </P>

Who mandates that indian state be secular and how can it ensure it