It sounds contradictory. A liberal outlook is often a ociated with a kind of wimpery that seeks to create a neutral space where regre ive, traditional, reform and liberal traditions and views co-exist...
Section 295(a) allows the government to dictate expression of religious identity according to what a populist or powerful element defines as hurtful – it is, in essence, a blasphemy law. It legitimizes traditionalist and conservative voices in the name of authenticity, and presents a threat to freedom of religion and the right to examine the claims of the faithful.
The government should give a clear secular 'talaq' to the Muslim Personal Law Board and all other laws and statutes that impose particular interpretations of religion on its citizens. Without this, it cannot claim to be completely secular.
The Bombay High Court recently said that no law in India bars the entry of women in any temple, and neither should it. What it said further on this matter should be of great concern to those who value freedom of religion and secularism. It said that anyone imposing this restriction contravenes the Hindu Place of Worship (Entry Authorization) Act, and may face a six-month jail term.
It is the bleak reality that the vast majority of gay women and men in the world still marry opposite-sex partners. Legalisation of same-sex marriage is but a distant dream for most LGBT+ people. They desperately require societal change before any change in law - such as not facing the risk of alienation for coming out, or to not risk losing their job. It is then the failure of same-sex marriage advocates to consider the real life context and diversity of LGBT+ citizens that India's LGBT+ movement could learn from.