Religion has always been a big obstacle in promotion of humanism and equality though in some circumstances it supported the oppressed too. During much of the last century the dominant view among social scientists, philosophers and intellectuals has been that the Western culture is materialistic and Indian culture is spiritual, and that for the benefit of the mankind a synthesis of the two is required. This has resulted in a hotchpotch which has not been conducive to growth of humanism and universalism. In its new avatar in India religion could be amoral and in-human. The problems are: (a) hostility and distrust between different religious communities and sects, often leading to stigma, discrimination and violence: (b) subjugation of women by strengthening religious and traditional view of family and women; (c) suppression of creative social thought for human development; (d) insensitivity towards human suffering; (e) commodity fetish and alliance between religion and business; (f) lack of genuine approach to international and national matters; (g) continuing dominance of the old in religious and familial matters; and (h) lack of consensus on issues of future.

Religion and culture are closely associated. Revival of religion is, therefore, associated with desire to re-live traditions; any departure from tradition is accepted with reluctance. This is particularly true for the new entrepreneurs who can bear the cost of resurrection of tradition to satisfy their expressive needs and the poor who have nothing much to gain from secularization. Middle class seems to shows a wavering attitude: sometimes modern and sometimes traditional. Middle classes may adopt a rational-scientific view when it helps them in the worldly matters and a traditional view when they fail to achieve their secular goals. This results in resurrection of old supremacies of the patriarch. Women and youth suffer most; their college education does not empower them in family or society. The main problem is that religion stresses a super-sensory, super-natural reality and distresses inter-subjectivity among humans. No wonder religion can co-exist with patriarchy, nationalism and particularism but not with humanism. The founder fathers of sociology believed that with growth of science and technology the traditional hold of religion would go and man will start thinking and acting rationally. This has not happened and religion has survived in different forms in different societies. It exists as distinctive beliefs and practices of communities. O’Dea (1964) says that it meets the expressive and adaptive needs of the humanity. From psychological point of view, it is part of emotion-focused coping in the stressful world. Coleman (2007) has used “The Sacred Canopy”, “The Religious Marketplace” and social psychological theories to explain continuity of religion in the modern world. This means that in the 21st century religion may exist as to provide spiritual security against death and injustices of the world and experience of tranquility. It does not have a common substratum of universal justice. Justice is replaced by a multiple concept of “justices”. The modern world also provides choices of religion very much like other choices in the market to suit requirements of all. Religious movements accompanying classification of people into distinct social groups could be both accommodative and divisive. History of religion in India shows that it has a higher chance of being divisive rather than inclusive. The possibility of growth of syncretism as in Sufism has not prevented growth of divisive tendencies. Ultimately to look for protection of God is to distrust the power of community.