Anurag Shekhar(18014) Section-A SSC Assignment

POLITICS OF RELIGION IN INDIA

In India, religion plays an quintessential role in the day to day life and is a major influence over the Indian population and culture. Religion covers every aspect of the life of the Indian people. Religion also plays an important role in the politics of India. A political party`s acknowledgment of a particular religion decides the support it gets. The main religions of India are Hinduism and Islam and each religion has parties from whom support is given.

The effect of religion on Indian politics is staggering. The hatred that has for so many years put the country in political strife does not seem to be declining. The feelings between all three religions, especially Hinduism and Islam, are just as strong as ever. The structure of the Indian government sets up for the confrontations between the opposing political parties. These confrontations are the basis for power struggle within the Indian government. Last two decades have witnessed a constant invocation of religion in the arena of politics. From George Bush's crusade against terrorism to Osama bin Laden's Jihad against the greatest Satan, US, to our own home bred Hindutva ideology which aims at Hindu Rashtra, one constantly gets to hear that politics is to be guided by religion. So when Mr. Advani, the pioneer of Ram Temple movement which brought Hindutva to the fore, stated in Ahamadabad that if there was no religion in politics then it was of no use to him (July 26 2004), it was not much of a surprise. There are many an arguments on this line, which regard Secularism as a western concept, it being against religion, it being appeasement of minorities, it being an artificial graft in the body politic of India the country, which is the land of spirituality etc. It is not only the Advani parivar, which will argue on these lines. This parivar is in the company of Talibans, Zia Ul Haque and others from near the borders who also conduct their politics in the name of religion. On the face of it the two trends may sound antagonistic while there is a deeper conceptual unity in both the streams. This stream is joined by an unexpected quarter of Post Modernists, the likes of Ashish Nandy to whom Secularism is a Western graft unsuitable and unnecessary here as diverse communities here have been living together peacefully in the same geographical area. Somewhere in the middle of this argument Gandhi is quoted as if he was against secularism, also Nehru is quoted as being against religions and imposing this 'alien' concept in Indian context.

This Advani-Nandy duo suffers from multiple confusions. To begin with secularism is not a mere Western concept. It is true it began in the west. But it began not to sort out the quarrels between religions but it came up with the introduction of Industrialization, with the emergence of two modern classes, Industrialists and workers. Till that time it was the KingLandlord who had the divine sanction to rule on the direct approval of the almighty. While King was the Son of God, landlord his representative, the clergy the most visible part and the custodian of religion, was the legitimizer of this ideology. Secularism essentially was an outcome of secularization process in which the divine power of the king-landlord and the social hold of clergy was done away with. While secularization is presented as an external process, the deeper inner logic of this was to do away the hierarchy of caste and gender. In Indian context due to colonial rule and the Landlord-British alliance, the process of secularization could not be completed. The hold of Landlord-Priest and the accompanying values of caste and gender hierarchy persisted though in less intense form. At this point of time secularization process was represented by Jotiba Phule, Savitribia Phule, Bhimrao Babasaheb Ambedakr and Periyar Ramasamy Naicker social level and by the likes of Gandhi, Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad at political level. While many a differences can be seen if one sees their ideologies in a superficial way, the deeper unity of their thoughts was apparent as these luminaries spearhead the social process of opposing the inferior treatment to Shudra and women at social level and relegating the clergy-landlords at political level. Advani is able to confuse himself as the word religion has many components and many meanings. Gandhi did state that those who think religion has nothing to do with politics understand neither religion nor politics. This is his oft-quoted sentence. But what does 'his' religion mean, needs to be seen. The first and foremost, one has to see the claim of being custodian and so the arbiter of religion is taken away from clergy, Mullah and Brahmins. Than one has to see that religions' facets are diverse, moral values; holy books; holy places; communitarian functions and the like. Also one has to see that within a single religion there are various sects. What people like Gandhi and Azad mean by religion is totally in contrast to what Advani, Taliban, Jinnah and Godse mean by it. As per Gandhi, " Indeed religion should pervade everyone of our actions. Here, the religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral Govt. of the universe. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity etc. It does not supercede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality." (Gandhi quoted in Madan 1997,3 Indian Journal of Secularism). The claim of Nandy's that Gandhi could do without the concept of secularism is again based on the ignorance about values of father of the Nation, " Religion and state will be separate. I swear by my religion, I will die for it. But it is my personal affair. The state has nothing to with it. The state will look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern". (Gandhi quoted in Madan, 1997,4 IJS). One has seen than impact of religion in the politics through the politics of Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Taliban and the like. It will be worth its while to think as to with what aspect of life we associate religion with. With the dictates of clergy or with the humanistic teachings of saints. Here, there is no point in asserting that clergy and saint were both religious. Yes both of them were talking in the language of religion, clergy on behalf of those in power and saints on behalf of those poor and destitute struggling for their survival. One has seen Advani's 'politics with religion' leading to demolition of Babri Masjid, Taliban's 'politics with religion' leading to demolition of Bamiyan Buddha.

The relationship between State-Politics and religion could not have been defined better than what Nehru has to say on the issue, "What it means is that it is a state which honors all faiths equally and gives them equal opportunities; that as a state, it does not allow itself to be attached to one faith or religion, which then becomes the state religion...In a country like India, no real nationalism can be built up except on the basis of secularity...narrow religious nationalisms are a relic of the past age and no longer relevant today." In the Indian way of life religion plays an important role and the basis of our day-to-day life is religion. Political leaders right from the beginning felt that if there is any possibility of retaining unity in India, it should be by remaining secular. That is why Gandhiji had been preaching brotherhood among the different religious groups. Nehru was a strong supporter of secularism. Their efforts could not divorce religion from politics rather in politics the vested interests started exploiting caste and religion for gaining political advantage. With the passage of time India was divided into Pakistan and Bharat only because two nations theory was accepted by the Britishers. Even after Independence, the religious fervor could not be finished because the trail of the memories of the partition haunted the minds of the people, Still India managed to keep the communal forces under check. But the opposition parties exploit religion and theocratic States established in Pakistan and Iran encouraged fundamentalism all over the world. Recently in Punjab religion and politics are so closely interwoven that it has become difficult to separate them. Religious places are used for political propaganda and the religious sentiments of the people are excited in order to gain political control of the State. This emergence of religion-political party has threatened the secular character of India. It is feared that if it succeeds there is a possibility that many other political parties with caste and religion as the basis may come up. Mixing of religion with politics is a dangerous trend because religious attitude is diametrically opposed to democratic feelings. Religion encourages fanaticism and suspends our reasoning power and we repose full faith in leaders. We are prepared to make sacrifice because sacrifice will be considered martyrdom. This mental attitude is directly opposed to democratic spirit. Democracy demands open mindedness, universal brotherhood and thinking based upon reason and capable of taking its own decision. In such cases, there is no herd tendency and the person is liberal in outlook. If religious forces are allowed to become powerful there will be disintegration of the nation and sovereignty of the State will be in danger. There are a large number of religions, castes and sub- castes in India, and unfortunately some of them are opposed to one another as far as their practices are concerned. Under such circumstances, there is no possibility of keeping them together if once there is fragmentation. Religion is a private affair and if it is allowed to appear in public affairs it will corrupt politics. All the crimes committed in the name of religion in the past as well as in the present one cannot forget. A large number of people have been put to death in Iran only because they do not follow the Islamic religion up to the last Point. So religion makes a a man blind and it will never encourage opposition. So if we want to consolidate democracy give firm foundations to it and make its working successful, it is necessary that the people should keep religion apart from politics. It is wrong to think that with the help of laws it is possible to divorce religion from politics. Till the attitude of the people is changed, and till they rise above the petty considerations it is not possible to keep religion and politics apart. By keeping them independent of each other, we can retain democratic set-up.

Its interesting to follow the origins of the song vande mataram. The hymn was written by Bankimchandra Chatterji at the end of the nineteenth century and published as part of his novel, Anandamath. In the song, India is "divinised" as the Mother Goddess, said Lipner, and this symbolism took on a political life of its own. Its nationalistic symbols engendered a Hindu tone, even though India is a very plural place and despite the fact that Chatterji wrote of the image of the Hindu goddess Lakshmi as an idea rather than a theological entity. The Hindu cultural organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) continues to sing the entire song in its original form, which includes religious iconography and the pre-partition concept of "akhand Bharat," or united India. Numerically the Hindus are considered to be the majority, which inspires many Hindu loyalist groups like the RSS (Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh) or the Siva Sena and political parties like the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) or the Hindu Mahasabha to claim that India is a Hindu State. These claims generate homogenising myths about India and its history. These claims are countered by other religious groups who foresee the possibility of losing autonomy of practise of their religious and cultural life under such homogenising claims. This initiates contestations that have often resulted in communal riots Historically, the Hindu revivalist movement of the 19th century is considered to be the period that saw the demarcation of two separate cultures on religious basisthe Hindus and the Muslims, that deepened further because of the partition. This division which has become institutionalised in the form of a communal ideology has become a major challenge for Indias secular social fabric and democratic polity. Though communalism for a major part of the last century signified Hindu-Muslim conflict, in recent years contestations between Hindus and Sikhs, Hindus and Christians have often crystallised into communal conflict. The rise of Hindu national assertiveness, politics of representational government, persistence of communal perceptions, and competition for the socio-economic resources are considered some of the reasons for the generation of communal ideologies and their transformation into major riots.