display | more...

Religious Influence on Politics and Political Influence on Religion: A Comparative Study

Even in countries such as the United States, which recognize the necessity of a separation between church and state, there will always be interaction between religious and political leaders. It seems to be an unavoidable result of the way most societies work, and it is foolish to imagine that politicians will be without religion, or religious leaders without politics. Both fields claim idealism and purport to seek ways in which to better our society. However, a cynic such as myself can find many ways in which individuals use either or both of these systems in order to gain power. I will admit to some bias, as I am an atheist, but I naturally recognize and tolerate the right of the individual to and from any religion of their choice provided the religion is not simply a play for political power.

In this node (taken straight from my Comparative Politics class, yay for noding your homework), I examine a variety of nation-states and their respective dominant religions, namely: Nazi Germany’s relationship with their Protestant and Catholic citizens, the Soviet Union’s state atheism, China’s policies on Christianity, Iran’s relationship with Islamic leaders, and finally, the influence with which most Americans are familiar—our own religio-political interface.

Before delving into a topic, however, it seems best to clarify what exactly I mean by a “religion”. In this node, the term “religion” refers exclusively to recognized formal religions and not to the idea of “civil religion”, which is related to nationalism. Specifically, a civil religion is a form of national self-worship (Schoffeelers 20). This topic will not be covered in this paper—instead I will discuss nations and their relations with formal church systems. 

Nazi Germany and Christianity. The record is clear. From the moment Hitler assumed office, we know that he immediately put antisemitic policies into effect. His goal was always “the complete removal of the Jews” (Scholder I:255). However, the atmosphere of early National Socialist Germany was surprisingly tolerant towards Christian worshippers. Protestantism, of course, has had a long tradition of antisemitism, beginning with Martin Luther: founder of the Protestant movement, author of ‘The Jews And Their Lies’, and an inspiration to Adolf Hitler. The Protestants generally did not object in any significant way to Hitler’s policies (Scholder I:270).

Early in his life, Adolf Hitler realized that an attack on Catholicism would prove futile (Scholder I:88). This led him to try to avoid unnecessary entanglements of church and state. In fact, Hitler publicly proclaimed his Christianity and encouraged unification of the sects under the movement of Naziism, stating (in regards to both Protestantism and Catholicism): “We are a people of different faiths, but we are one… …we tolerate no one in our ranks who offends against the ideas of Christianity, who offers resistance to someone with another disposition, fights against him, or acts as the arch-enemy of Christianity. This, our movement, is in fact Christian.” (italics added, Scholder I:98). Clearly, Hitler did not have any major bias against any sect of Christianity. Of course, the common rebuttal by apologists is that he was simply distancing himself from the Communists. Hitler stated that “Christians and not international atheists” had taken over the government of Germany (Scholder I:223), an obvious reference to Communist Russia. Hitler’s political plans for the churches seemed to come together perfectly: On Nov. 12, 1933, elections were held which showed little difference between the Catholic and the Protestant political districts (Scholder II:1). Hitler had his unification. 

However, when one examines the relationship between church and state, invariably there is a controlled party and a controlling party. In the case of Nazi Germany, the state was undoubtedly the controlling party. Unsurprisingly, Hitler used his secret police and methods of terror to manipulate the Catholic leaders of Germany, including the murder of Erich Klausner, the Bishop of Berlin, for his refusal to agree to German demands (Scholder II:197). 

The Soviet Union, State Atheism, and Christianity. In the former Soviet Union, the communist philosophy forwarded by Marx was the true state religion. Marx, an atheist, predicted the downfall of religion as a fundamental component of communism (Walters 4), and so his followers—Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky—tried to bring about his predictions by force of law. Surprisingly, however, the popular reports of Christian persecution in that country have been misleading to say the least. It is true that the Soviet Union frequently bombarded the civilization with atheist propaganda, but there were only a few brief times in Soviet history—generally at the beginning of a new Premier’s regime—when religion was truly persecuted

One such occasion was the Decree of 23 Jan 1918, which removed the right of the Orthodox Church to be recognized as a legal person, the right to own property, and the right to teach religion in schools. The Soviet policy at the time was to disseminate anti-religious propaganda and firmly separate church and state (Walters 6). The key difference between the Soviet seperation and the American seperation was one of implementation: the American way is to build a fence, the Soviet way is to define a line, which, if crossed, results in execution. For the most part, the Soviet government was tolerant of Protestantism and Islam, which tend to push a stronger work ethic; but the Orthodox Church bore both these sects’ share of hard times.   

In 1922, the government began to try to promote a schism within the Orthodox Church. May 1922 saw the growth of a group called the “Renovationists”, a sort of Communist/Catholic hybrid which took over the leadership of the Orthodox Church. It is generally accepted that Trotsky aided this coup (Walters 9). By 1923, the flow of propaganda from the government had slowed. Religion was not so persecuted with the Renovationists in control of the Orthodox Church, and Protestants and Muslims continued to enjoy their loose reins. 

But in 1929, Stalin took absolute control of the country, redoubling the anti-religious sentiment against any and all sects (Walters 15). He banned performance of religious services in unregistered buildings, conducting evangelistic activity or religious educations, printing of religious material, and fundraising. Religious groups were now no longer free to produce responsory propaganda to counter the Soviet propaganda blitz. The clergy, who were considered “non-working elements”, were subject to immense taxation, discrimination in housing, and deprivation of Social Security rights (Walters 13). But, after World War II, the anti-religious government backed off again, restricting their attacks on religion to words alone until Stalin died in 1953 (Walters 18). 

Then, after Stalin’s death and Khrushchev’s ascension to power, religious persecution once again rose (Walters 22), with a torrent of propaganda that was unmatched by that of any other period in Soviet history. Under Khrushchev’s leadership, propaganda stopped appealing to the educated, and became much more shallow and crude. Anti-religious filmmaking also became popular. But when Brezhnev took power, the anti-religious crusade finally began to taper for the last time (Walters 23). Except for a brief hiccup early in Gorbachev’s reign (Walters 33) the anti-religious sentiment decreased continually until the end of Soviet rule in the early 90’s.  

Obviously, in this case, the state controlled the church. Strict laws and regulations concerning what could and could not be done in the Soviet Union limited the ability of its citizens to worship as they wished. But it should be noted—even at the peak of Soviet religious persecution, execution and imprisonment were rarely if ever used. The peak number of imprisoned religious “criminals” was only 411. Generally, the extent of implemented anti-religious sentiment was merely a large quantity of anti-religious propaganda—the Soviets simply stole the Protestant idea of handing out tracts

China and Christian Missionaries. In the early 1920’s, a wave of Christian missionaries moved on China. They viewed themselves as bringing enlightenment to an unhappy and unfulfilled people, judging the Chinese by Western standards that simply did not apply to an Eastern civilization. Their firm belief in their Christian tradition wouldn’t allow them to even consider the possibility that the Chinese were more than happy without the Christian faith (Lutz 12). The prime source of the anti-religious sentiment, however, was the same as that of the Soviet Union—the communist philosophy of Marx and Lenin

And the major hotbed of the socialist view was the school. The Socialist Youth Corps would be the group that brought anti-religious views into the mainstream in China. Ch’ih Kuang, one of their leaders of this group, condemned Christianity as a “narcotic used by capitalists and as a source of conflict and intellectual oppression.” (Lutz 56)

Karl Marx was once quoted as saying “Religion is the opiate of the masses.” The recent Opium Wars in China made this quote even more poignant, and redoubled anti-American sentiment (Lutz 68). Because the missionaries were, generally speaking, the only Americans most Chinese met, they bore the brunt of this anti-American sentiment. Christianity was generally inseperable from the actions of Western nations and individuals (Lutz 87).

Of course, it was not only a disdain for Americanism that was the basis for the Chinese anti-religious sentiment—it was also a disdain for Chinese tradition. Ch’en Ch’i-t’ien, a high government official, said “We have just been struggling to break the hold of Confucian tradition; why should we permit another outmoded ideology, Christianity, to spread its influence in China?” (Lutz 70) It sounds like an attack on Christianity, but in context, it was an attack on parochial schools—the most common means by which missionaries enter a new country, indoctrinating the young while teaching them how to read.

We return to the question “Which controls which?” and here, in 1920’s China, the answer is not as simple as would seem. Missionaries set out to control China, but China fought back by restricting their rights in later years, banning parochial schools (Lutz 229), and heavy taxation—essentially following the early Soviet model. Was this strike by China warranted? It’s a matter of personal religious opinion, most likely.

Iran and Islamic Law. Until now, we have examined situations in which the government controls churches and clergy by strictly limiting rights, increasing taxation, imprisonment, and even in the case of Nazi Germany, through stealthy execution of dissidents. But there are many other governments in which the religion has either a “finger in the pie”, so to speak, or even a death grip on the national government. Iran is one such country.

Iran has only been experiencing some struggle between church and state for about eighty years. But this is primarily because for most Islamic sects, there is no recognized division between “church” and “state”. (Savory 129) They are in fact one and the same, the ruler of the region a divinely selected leader in the eyes of the masses, much as Louis XIV of France was the “Sun King”. Islam is the universal religion of God on earth, and only an Islamic government can represent God properly (Habiby 141). Islamic law is a primitive social system, to be sure, but it is also a more stable system than the Christian governmental system made so popular in the Dark Ages, proved by the fact that strong Islamic law government still exist today. 

Iran is a Shi’i state, the only Islamic state today not of the Sunni variety, which follows a more traditional view of Islam. This causes crises of legitimacy and soverignty in Iran, as the Sunnis have a slightly more democratic way of choosing a ruler by a limited form of voting, while the Shi’i faith tends to link more with Iranian history (Savory 131-132), and supports a dynastic line of Ayatollahs. The Iranian populace is generally happy with the arrangement. In 1924, the country was offered a democracy by Shah Reza Khan, but rejected the idea out of fear of secularization (Savory 137). 

The Shah of Iran, an American puppet-leader, was overthrown in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khumayni, who promised to return the nation to a true Islamic state (Habiby 141). Khumayni claimed that “Shah-in-Shah” (King of Kings), a title of the Shah of Iran, was considered an insult to the Islamic people, as that was a title specifically reserved for their God. He was a populist, promising to take Iran out of American and Israeli hands and return it to its former Islamic glory (Habiby 146-147).

Under Khumayni, freedoms were promised to all who did not attempt to undermine the Islamic “Republic”. He criticized the Shah for “granting” freedoms instead of recognizing them, much as the Soviets did. Oil would be sold to everyone but Israel (their Jewish enemies), but not at Iran’s expense. Iran would no longer be the slave of imperialism (Habiby 149). To some extent, these observations were correct. American interests had been taking advantage of Iran.

Industrialization was to proceed unhalted, so long as they were balanced by the moral and ethical values of the Holy Qur’an. But Khumayni’s ultimate opinion was this: “Those who forbid science and knowledge in the belief that they are safeguarding the Islamic religion are really the enemies of that religion… there is no incompatibility between science and knowledge and the foundation of Islamic faith.” (Habiby 150)

In the case of Iran, we see religion clearly dominant, running the government. It is, however, a truly populist movement, fighting in defense of Islamic tradition against American intervention in the area. Unlike the now-defunct Afghanistani Taliban, Iranian law is generally tolerant to those who practice a different faith, so long as they do not attempt to publicly convert others.

The United States and Fundamentalist Christianity. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This means that Congress is prohibited from passing laws either for or against a religious establishment. Jefferson later interpreted in one of his letters to major churches, coining the expression “a wall of seperation between church and state.” However, it does not prohibit religious groups from attempting to pass secularized versions of their religious laws. One such religious figure in American government is Pat Buchanan

Pat Buchanan was a runner up candidate in the primaries for the Republican party through the late 1980’s and 1990’s. He ran on a platform that was strictly based on a blend of conservative and Christian standpoints, combining pro-life with pro-death penalty, and increased aid to churches with lower taxes (Capps 172). Buchanan was thankfully never elected president, but the one-two punch of conservativism and Fundamentalism has influenced modern politics—especially the Republican party, and to a lesser extent the Democratic party

In the last 10 years, we have seen our political spectrum take a step to the right, with our current President, President George W Bush, even pushing for an office to donate large sums of money to religious charities and asking the opinion of religious leaders and not doctors on important scientific matters such as the use of stem-cell research, which could be a potential source of new medical breakthrough. 

So in the United States, the government is strictly prohibited from controlling religion. That leaves only the opposite. To a minor but significant extent, religion controls the United States. Religious differences were the main forces behind the emigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500’s; we are descended from those who believed so strongly in their faith that they risked a long and dangerous sea voyage for it. Is it any wonder that Americans allow religion to creep into every aspect of their lives?

Conclusion. In almost every government, there is some sort of power struggle between religion and government. Either a government seeks to repress religion in order to emphasize some abstract governmental theory (China, Russia), or uses it in order to promote its own governmental ideology (Nazi Germany). Or, a religion may be so dominant in a society that a populist revolution occurs, installing a religious leader (Iran). Finally, a religion may use the government in order to push a religious agenda (United States). In each of these situations, the theoretical “wall of seperation between church and state” would be very beneficial to both church and state—neither would seek to usurp power from the other. The United States’ wall is currently the strongest, but even a strong wall of seperation will leak to some degree.


References

Capps, Walter H. (1990). “The New Religious Right: Piety, Patriotism, and Politics”. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press 

Habiby, Raymond N., and Fariborz Ghavidel. (1981). “Religion and Politics in the Middle East,” Michael Curtis, (Ed.), Khumayni’s Islamic Republic 139-151. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.  

Lutz, Jessie Gregory. (1988). “Chinese Politics and Christian Missions: The Anti-Christian Movements of 1920-28, Vol. II & III”. Cyriac K Pullapilly, and George H. Williams (Eds.). Notre Dame, IN: Cross Cultural Publications, Inc. 

Savory, Roger M. (1981). “Religion and Politics in the Middle East,” Michael Curtis, (Ed.), The Problem of Soverignty in an Ithna Ashari (“Twelver”) Shi’i State 129:138. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.  

Schoffeleers, Matthew, and Daniel Meijers. (1978) “Religion, Nationalism, and Economic Action: Critical Questions on Durkheim and Weber”. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp. B. V.  

Scholder, Klaus. (1977). “The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol. 1: 1918-1934,” John Bowden (transl.). UK: SCM Press Ltd. 

Scholder, Klaus. (1977). “The Churches and the Third Reich, Vol. 2: 1934 Barmen and Rome,” John Bowden (transl.). UK: SCM Press Ltd.  

Walters, Philip. (1993). “Religious Policy in the Soviet Union,” Sabrina Petra Ramet, (Ed.), A Survey of Soviet Religious Policy 3:30. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 


This node brought to you by node your homework!

Religion and politics in India

Taking an understanding of politics as 'public affairs' and 'government', it is obvious that religion cannot be separated from politics, particularly in a democracy: the belief systems and cultural base from which voters, activists, campaigners or politicians come will affect the way in which these people govern or are governed. In India, the world's largest democracy, this is no exception. The religious divide and tensions between the two major religions present in the country – Hinduism and Islam – naturally lead to an increased prevalence of religious issues in the political arena, over and above those which would occurr 'naturally' – despite the secular clauses of the Indian constitution. In order to consider why religion is such an important issue in Indian politics, this interreligious divide and its effect on politics must be considered. In addition, the nature of these religions should be examined in order to understand what influence their individual forms have on politics.

Origins of the religious divide

The divide between Muslims and Hindus in India dates back to far before indepedence: during the Mughal rule the religions were considered ideologically opposed – during Iletmish's reign Nuriddin described the Hindus as “idol worshipping who are the worst enemies of God and the Prophet”. Muslim nationalism began to develop as a result the pan-Islamic awakening: the Muslim League was founded in response to the threat to Islam in Turkey (the great Islamic powers of Morocco and Persia were crumbling, therefore hopes were pinned on Turkey to lead the Muslim world) in the Great War era. Rather pro-Muslim historian Misra claims that at this time “Hindus constituted neither a religious nor political community.” Although perhaps an exaggeration, it is correct that Hindu identity as a force developed later than did the Muslim: according to Misra “The rising tide of Musim revivalism dictated the necessity of organising Hindus into a distinct political community”. This, although true to a degree, underestimates the effects of the indepedence struggle on Hindu identity, however the fact that Muslim identity developed prior to a Hindu or pan-Indian identity gives insight into the origins of the divide: the Muslim community under the British saw themselves as part of something larger, of an outside force working for a new Muslim power, and in response to this 'threat', Hindu identity began to develop. In response to this, Muslims began to assert themselves more as they felt “submerged in a Hindu sea.” The British exacerbated this fear and divide by “using the Muslims as a couter-blast to the nationalist movement.”

Religious identity politics

The advent of communal disharmony prior and during indepedence and partition increased levels of suspicion between the communities: a report by the Indian National Congress ('INC' or 'Congress') stated that “the course of events that led to independence had filled people's minds and hearts with such distrust and suspicion of one another that communal harmony could not be the immediate outcome...” Contrary to this pessimistic outlook, within a decade Nehru had created a “pluralistic and non-communal” Congress Party under a secular constitution. The 'catch-all' nature of Congress meant that divisions were temporarily inhibited: the presence of 43 million Muslims in India made it impossible for the INC to base its ideology in a particularly pro-Hindu manner, and Nehru himself marginalised religion within politics – although this does not deny that at a more local level in India's federal system that religion played a part. The divide between the religions however, still existed. The idea of “religious identity politics” pervades, particlarly following the rule of the Janata party in the late 1970s: the Janata regime greatly propagated “interest based associations” rather than political motivation based upon religion or ethnicity. However, not even a change of regime could shake the deep mindset of religious affiliation – “Caste and religious identity politics shattered the myth of shared values based on the secular agenda of interest based associations.” This religiously based affiliation created 'ready-made' groupings of voters and political opinion. It has been said, for example, that Nehru's secularism was an attempt to hold the 'Muslim vote' yet not alienate the 'Hindu vote'. Vote by religious identity lead to the development of religious based parties, such as the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who have a 'prefabricated' voting base, thus bringing religious issues directly into the political arena.

Religious identity and government

The divide of religious identity creates distinct issues for politicians to deal with – either as a legal issue, or as a necessary action for political survival. The famous 1985 'Shah Bano case', in which a divorced Muslim woman was granted maintenance by the Supreme Court, which is not in accordance with Sharia law. The outcry of “Islam in danger” lead to the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi denouncing the Supreme Court's decision in order to keep the support of traditional Muslims. This naturally led to another outcry from secularists and more progressive Muslims, placing R. Gandhi in a rather difficult situation. Religious issues therefore create political problems for governments: another example of such a problem is the RamjanmabhoomiBabri Masjid affair, where Hindus claimed a temple that marked the birthplace of Lord Rama had stood where there was then a Muslim mosque. The dispute had become so heated that the mosque had been locked up and left. However, in the late 1980s the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign to destroy the mosque and resurrect the Hindu temple. This eventually lead to the destruction of the mosque by a mob, which in turn caused riots in which 300 people were killed. The government's failure to act on the whole issue lead to the BJP withdrawing support from the weak National Front government, effectvely forcing the Prime Minister VP Singh to retire. In this instance, the lack of action concerning a religious issue, as opposed to action taken as in the Shah Bano case, lead to problems for politicians.

Secular constitution

India has secular clauses in her constitution: Article 25 states “subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part (Part III of the Constitution) all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” This secularism is necessary for the government in power to have legitimacy with each side, however, more than just constitutional secularism is necessary – as Shourie (in favour of a fundamentally secular India) states “The basic problem... is not any particular law, but in the pusillanimity of the State, in its willingness to enforce laws that already exist.” This is demonstated by the aforementioned issues, whereby inaction or (perhaps) improper action taken has lead to large problems for the legitimacy of the government involved.

Hindu nationalism

In contrast to the secularism of the constitution and of Congress, there are many elements of Indian society that want neither the constitution, nor politics to be secular. The most prominent of these forces is the Hindu nationalist ideology, which has become incresingly prominent since the demise of Congress. The strength of this force and its ideological basis naturally brings religion forth as an issue in politics, as the movement of 'Hindutva' – 'Hinduness', and India as a Hindu nation is highly politicised. Kochanek describes the Hindu population as “a majority with a minority complex”, which explains the determination with which the ideals of Hindu nationalism are pursued. Hindutva itself explains Hindu nationalism as such: “The Hindus are tied together by bonds of a common fatherland, ties of blood, a common culture and civilisation, common heroes, common history and above all, the will to remain united as a nation.” The main Hindu nationalist party, the BJP (who are currently governing India) has many branches and affiliated organisations throughout Indian society, the most notable of which is the militant Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Such is the prevalence of Hinduist ideology, that today the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad is the largest student union in the country, and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh the largest trade union. Both of these organisations belong to the RSS 'family'. Heywood describes the link between religious nationalism and politics: politics being “secondary to the 'revealed truth' of religious doctrine... Political and social life should be organised on the basis of what are seen as essential or original religious principles...” In this way, it can be seen that the prevalence of politically strong Hindu religious nationalism in India will naturally be detrimental to the Muslim, Christian and other minority groups.

Hindu caste system

The nature of Hinduism itself also has implications for the Indian political system: the complex Caste arrangement means that India's Hindu community is not a “unified religious bloc”, but a network of different associations and groupings. These groups can be used as a source of political support: the deep set caste mindset whereby one cannot marry out of caste, and one's social placing is defined by caste and so on, leads to 'ready-made' voting bases for politicians. Misra notes the development of this from the time of independence: “...The prospect of parliamentary government in the years to come encouraged caste groups to use the extended frachise to promote their particular interests.” A prominent example of this is that of the Dalits – the 'untouchables' – who developed their own political parties and networks, shifting their loyalty from Congress. The state has begun to accommodate this by implementing positive discrimination policies for Dalits – such as the 22.5% quota of government positions which must be filled by members of this populous caste – thus demonstrating the power of caste politics. Voting within one's caste is also attributable to the nature of Hinduism: the somewhat fatalistic tendencies of the religion lend itself to acceptance that what is 'given' to the caste is what is deserved, therefore accepted and agreed with: “There is a quality of resignation, of passiveness and fatalism, in this religious belief that has manifested itself in the political attitude of many Indians who simply accept the government they have as the one they deserve.” The caste divisions within Hindu politics is perhaps benficial to the minority groups as it prevents thorough unification of the Hindu voters – weakening the nationalistic drive which tends to be confined to the upper caste Hindus from the north. When examining the future of Indian politics, American political scientist Rudolph concludes “Hindu nationalists must craft a much more inclusive Hindu nationalist ideology if it has any hope for success.” The divide in tension between Hindus and Muslims (in particular) in India makes religion a very important issue in Indian politics due to the need for the government to maintain stability in potential and actually volatile situations. The need for secularism of the government is paramount in order to avoid discrimination against any party, which could lead to a loss of support, as religious group unity is so strong. The nature of Hinduism itself somewhat curbs the increasingly strong Hindu nationalist movement, as the caste system disallows complete unity within the huge Hindu community. The caste system does however allow for dominace of certain more populous castes within Indian politics, due to issues of caste loyalty. The strength of religious and caste affiliation have tended to override interest-based politics which carry such weight in other countries: “Identities based on religion, caste and language have strong appeal and have challenged the ability of the political elite to manage them effectively.”

Although the major religious divide in India is that between the Muslims and Hindus, it is necessary to remember that other minorities carry politcal weight on a smaller scale: Christians and Sikhs also have their own affiliations, suffer discrimination and so on. Recently attacks on Christians and their churchs have become more common in India, although whether this is the work of Hindu extremists or not is under question. In summary, it can be said that religion is an important issue in Indian politics due to religious affiliation creating such strong groups, which often override interest based politics; and the presence of many different yet numerous religious groups means there is a conflict between these which both effects and is affected by the political arena.

Sources Baxter, C. “The Jana Sangh: A Biography of an Indian Political Party” University of Pennysylvania Press, Philadelphia (1969) Graham, B. “Hindu Nationalism and Indian Politics” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990) Hardgrave, R. and Kochanek, S. “India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation” Harcourt College, Orlando (1970, 2000) Heywood, A. “Politics” Palgrave, London (1997, 2002) Misra, B. “The Indian Political Parties” Oxford University Press, New Delhi (1976) Nanda, B. “Gandhi: Pan-Islamism, Imperialism and Nationalism in India” Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989) Rajagopal, A. “Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001) Rudolph, S and L. “The Centrist Future of Indian Politics” from “Asian Survey” University of California Press, California (June 1980) Savakar, V. “Hindutva” Pandit Bakhle, Mumbai (1923, 1999) Shourie, A. “A Secular Agenda: for strengthening our country, for welding it” Harper Collins, New Delhi (1993, 2000) (Edited by) Singh, A. “Socio-cultural Impact of Islam on India” Punjab University Publication Bureau, Chandigarh (1976) http://newsanalysis-intl.tripod.com/churchattacks.html http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000626d.htm

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.