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.

The author acknowledges that religious liberty and secularism can be protected in societies where “religion is fragmented and its reach into everyday life is relatively shallow.” But the “project” of “defending … secular aspirations” in a country like India, where the iconic presence of religion is compulsive and overwhelming, forms the central subject of the book (p. xi). He examines this tension, or contested space, where religion and state collide, mingle, and negotiate each other's prerogatives and needs. Does secularism mean impartiality toward religious groups, antireligious orientations to promote progressive goals, or an accommodativeness driven by political and utilitarian calculations? Can a country be secular and simultaneously remain loyal to its spiritual ethos and, at times, the very basis of its existence? Is a popular countermobilization against secular authority necessarily undemocratic? How can democracy be meaningfully practiced in a situation where special groups are provided with privileges, because of their protected status, which are denied to the vast majority of the population? What happens when the “free exercise” and the “no establishment” clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution come into conflict with each other? The author does not necessarily provide definitive answers to all these questions, but he raises them as critical issues and discusses many of them with assurance and sensitivity.

Jacobsohn develops three analytical constructs, or models of secularism, as “assimilative, visionary and ameliorative—that correspond respectively with the American, Israeli and Indian cases” (p. 10). The first assumes that the state will maintain a studied indifference to religion and hope to inculcate in all citizens a national identity and an encouragement to “share in some constitutive ideas that define membership in the political community” (p. 58). The second promotes a concept of secularism where the “wall of separation” between religion and state is not rigidly drawn but is one that “seeks to accommodate the particularist aspirations of Jewish nationalism within a constitutional framework of liberal democracy” (p. 49). The third advances secularism as a modernist project where the state does not hesitate to rule against the beliefs, symbols, or rituals of any faith that may appear to jeopardize overarching constitutional mandates geared toward social reform and economic progress (Chapter 4). He argues, and demonstrates, that the concept of secularism is not “rigidly deterministic” (p. 267), but that it depends upon specific sociocultural circumstances that different nations have endured, the historical trajectories they have followed, practical realities they must face, and even the different vocabularies they employ.

The author's analysis is buttressed with meticulous and copious references to case law as it has evolved in the three countries. For example, in Reynolds v. US and in Davis v. Beason, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that polygamy demanded by the Mormons as a right of free exercise of their religion could be restricted in order to uphold the supremacy of criminal statutes and societal norms. However, in the Yoshisof case in Israel, or Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the courts in these countries opined that some practices may be reserved for a special group and that others could not claim the same privileges unless some specific legal stipulations were satisfied. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court could be much more expansive and flexible in its interpretation of First Amendment rights when it comes to religious and symbolic speech. But in the Kahane case in Israel and the Balasaheb Thackeray case in India, the courts held that vituperative speech that intimidates or abuses other religious groups would not be allowed in electoral politics (such indulgence in India would actually constitute “political corruption”). Regardless of the divergent approaches they may take on specific issues, the author maintains that all these countries are engaged in upholding very similar principles. In fact, his conclusion is optimistic in that he hopes that each one of these countries can learn from the other's contradictions and predicaments, and design common structures and strategies through which the seemingly awkward embrace of secularism and democracy can become more affectionate and less troubling.

To express minor quibbles about a book of such enormous range and subtlety seems almost churlish. However, Jacobsohn's overattention to detail may, at times, serve to clutter the narrative and distract from his objectives. Also, one is left wondering why a classificatory scheme so rigorously drawn at the beginning is not pursued with equal vigor toward the end where his preoccupation becomes exclusively Indian. Finally, at times, a few sweeping generalizations—for example, about Arabs “whose religious beliefs require that they live in a land that is not identified with the Jewish people” (p. 76) or about principled proponents of minority rights in India who have not been able to “sustain a compelling argument that rivals in rhetorical power the case for Indian unity made by the other side” (p. 285)—are uncharacteristic of his usually scrupulous and disciplined judgments.

But The Wheel of Law is a most impressive achievement, thorough in research, astute in insights, and almost dazzling in execution and authorial resourcefulness. Deftly weaving together constitutional history, judicial logic, political development, and philosophical deliberation, this book is not merely a contribution to the discourse; it illuminates, and, in many way, changes it.