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 Ramjanmabhoomi – Babri 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