Politics and Religion in India: An Analysis
Rev. Dr. Selvam Robertson
Politics and Religion inIndia :
An Analysis
Politics and Religion in
Introduction
The simple
thesis is of this paper is that religion and politics were never purely or
completely separated in India, in spite of the contributions of modernity and
hence it is necessary to strive hard to separate them as secularism seems to be
more viable in a pluralistic context. While working towards this direction, it
may also be asked how best positive religious insights can guide political
wisdom.
To derive at
this point, I shall attempt a sketchy and graphic historical development of the
process of secularization leading to the formulation of secularism and secular
state. While attempting to do so, I shall also highlight the never-ceasing
influence of religion on politics and how politicization of religion takes
place.
To prove the
thesis I shall analyze the role of Congress party, emergence of Muslim League
and religious interest organizations leading to the formation of BJP.
Considerable space shall be devoted for the patterns in which BJP attempts to
subscribe to communal politics. Before concluding the analysis the areas and
issues that need to be considered and addressed can be underlined.
1
Traditional Society
The
ideological component in traditional societies was provided almost entirely by
religion; secular political ideologies did not exist, and the legitimacy of the
ruler was based on religious ideas. The religiopolitical system was an
integrated system in which ruler, clergy, religious ideology, religious norms
of behaviour, and coercive governmental power were combined in order to
maximize the stability of society.[1]
It is also
often true that “in the intricately woven fabric of traditional systems, the
political functions of the clergy were no less important than the religious
role of the king.”[2]
In general,
the sway of religion over politics was noteworthy in traditional societies
because religion is a mass phenomenon, politics is not; but religion can be
used to make politics meaningful. Religious values are also an important
influence on political culture, and predispose individuals and societies toward
certain patterns of political life.[3]
The
preponderance of religion over politics in specific in the traditional
societies has been challenged in the modern society. Here there is a conscious,
but often unsuccessful, attempt to distinguish between religion and the other
aspects of life. To understand this phenomenon it shall be appropriate to
circumscribe modern period.
2
Early Modern Period and Modern Period
The term modern period or modern era is the period of history
that succeeded the Middle Ages (which ended approximately 1500 AD). Before
underlining the characteristics of Modern era it is necessary to note the
characteristics of early modern period a subdivision within modern period. Of
course, making a watertight distinction between these two eras is not possible.
2.1
Early Modern Period
The early modern period is a term used by
historians to refer to the period approximately from AD 1500 to 1800,
especially in Western Europe. It is marked by the first European
colonies, the rise of strong centralized governments, and the beginnings of
recognizable nation states that are the direct antecedents of today's
states in what is called Modern times.
Also, the
early modern period is characterized by the rise to importance of science, the
shrinkage of relative distances through improvements in transportation and
communications and increasingly rapid technological progress, secularized
civic politics and the early authoritarian
nation states.
Further, capitalist economies and institutions began their rise and
development.
The early
modern period also saw the rise and beginning of the dominance of the economic
theory of mercantilism. As such, the early modern period represents the
decline and eventual disappearance, in much of the European sphere, of
Christian theocracy, feudalism and serfdom.
2.2
Modern Era
The modern era
begins with the 19th century, and includes World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.
It has been a period of significant development in the fields of science, politics,
warfare, and technology. It has also been an age of discovery
and globalization. During this time the European powers and later their
colonies, began a political, economic, and cultural colonization of the
rest of the world.
The modern era
is closely associated with the development of individualism,
capitalism, urbanization and a belief in the positive possibilities of
technological and political progress. The brutal wars and other problems
of this era, many of which come from the effects of rapid change, and the
connected loss of strength of traditional religious and ethical norms, have
led to many reactions against modern development.
Although
modernity and post modernity have some commonalities, a salient distinction
between the two needs to be underlined as people now speak of
post-modernity. This is found in the
American Heritage Dictionary. It describes the meaning of postmodern as ‘of or
relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier
modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of
style’.
Having
underlined the salient characteristics of these different historic eras, it is
appropriate now to begin to discuss the process of separation between religion
and politics starting with reformation and concentrating on the developments in
the 19th century in order to focus on secularization.
3
Reformation and after
Almost
invariably, religion and politics are inseparable in their ability to arouse
strong emotion. This was no doubt true during the 17th century when there
was a drastic change in how both religion and politics were perceived by
European society. Through either the Protestant Reformation or the Counter
Reformation, governments gained control over the religion their state
practiced. Religious tolerance became more prevalent. Religion
was also used as a means to legitimize the nobles' power struggles, thus
gaining public support for their conflicts.
To put it
differently, “the contemporary nation-states of the West evolved out of a
medieval religiopolitical system of Catholic integralism. The medieval
synthesis was cracked open by the Reformation and Renaissance, nationalism challenged
the religious basis of political community, and the secularization
conflicts of individual states have occupied an important place in Western
history right up to the present time.”[4]
Since the days of Luther, political and national convictions outweighed
religious convictions in Europe .
After
the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation, the states of Europe had gained almost complete control over church
hierarchy. Governments benefited from this new acquisition, as they gained
all the property the church previously controlled in their country.
However, religious alignment often led to conflicts.
Religious
ideals were often used as a rallying point to build power bases for political
agendas. Oliver Cromwell, an army commander (supported parliamentary
party) used religion, during the English Civil War, to strengthen the spirit of
his New Model Army, which was unbeatable against the King's forces. During the Thirty
Years War, the Holy Roman Emperor fought against the Protestants.
Through
the integration of religion into the politics of the day, the common people
supported the power struggles of the nobles, and religious toleration became
common. This pattern of diversity and compromises continues even to today.
Roughly, from
the first decades of the nineteenth century traditional systems came under
external attack.[5]
The integral relationships have also come under powerful attack.[6]
The impact of the attack is that it cracked open the integralist nature of
society.[7]
As a result “from that time to this, the secularization of the polity has
been the most fundamental structural and ideological change in the process of
political development.”[8]
4
Secularization
Secularization
was first used at the end of thirty years war in Europe ,
1648, to refer to the transfer of Church properties. It generally refers
to people of transformation by which a society migrates from close
identification with religious institutions to a more separated relationship.
It is also the name given to a general belief about history, namely
that the development of society progresses toward modernization and lessening
dependence on religion as religion loses its position of authority. In
other words, it is the detachment of a state or other body from religious
foundations.
In
expressly secular states like India ,
it has been argued that the need was to legislate for toleration and respect
between quite different religions, whereas the secularization of the
West was a response to intra-Christian tensions between Catholicism and Protestantism.
To
be very specific, “starting with the disruption of traditional religiopolitical
systems, the secularization of polities is a major aspect of differentiation, separating the
political from the religious structures. Religious symbols, leaders, and
organizations have served as vehicles to bring the masses into the political
process, producing mass participation.”[9]
In such
contexts “Secularization involves the
separation of the polity from religion; legal and constitutional
recognition is given to the fact that the political system does not derive
its legitimacy from religion, and the symbols and structures which
linked the two are destroyed. Secularization involves the expansion of
the polity at the expense of religion as major areas of social life
(education, law, economy, and so on) pass from religious regulation to the
jurisdiction of the state. Secularization involves the transformation of
political culture as politically relevant values assume a secular orientation. Nationality
and nationalism displace religious notions of political community, and
secular ideologies develop a legitimating power of their own. Finally, in a few
countries which have undergone violent revolutions, secularization extends
to state domination of religion, narrowly defined, with efforts to
eradicate or drastically alter its very core.”[10]
Precisely,
“the secularization of the polity is the political consequence of the
disruption of the traditional religiopolitical system.”[11]Generally,
“Western imperialist regimes in Asia and Africa
have been powerful secularizers.”[12]
In some instances their impacts are accepted without modifications. For
example, “In a number of cases the independent states proceeded to ratify
the polity-separation secularization which had been forcibly imposed by their
former colonial rulers. The constitutions of India
and Ceylon ,
for example, made no mention of special status for any religion and clearly
outlined the structure of a secular state.”[13]
In general,
secularization is characterized by (1) the separation
of polity from religious ideologies and ecclesiastical structures, (2) the expansion of the polity to perform
regulatory functions in the socioeconomic sphere which were formerly performed
by religious structures, and (3) the translation
of the political culture to emphasize nontranscendent temporal goals and
rational, pragmatic means, that is secular political values. In the context
of a participant and competitive political system, with universal suffrage and
opposition political parties, however, the secularization of political culture
becomes a much more problematical enterprise. Thus we can add to the first
three aspects; (4) the dominance of
the polity over religious beliefs, practices, and ecclesiastical structures.[14]
Mostly
“liberal regimes, with varying degree of democratic political participation,
have accounted for a great deal of the secularization which has taken place
throughout the third world.”[15]
Although it is
evident that secularism and secular state are the products of secularization
process, the point is true that, politics and religion never completely get
separated. This is obvious from the fact that in many occasions religious
functionaries have emerged as powerful political leaders. As the politics of
mass participation has increasingly become a reality, religious political
parties have appeared.[16]
5
Secularization and Secular
State
The process of
secularization of politics led to the development of Secular state in India . Neera
Chandhoke writes, “Secularism as a creed that the state should treat all
religions equally, was adopted by the Indian National congress as one of its
core principles, simply because it was moral, relevant, and appropriate for the
needs of our society.”[17]
Having taken
into careful consideration the plural structure of the Indian society in all
aspects of life, the preamble of the Indian constitution envisages justice,
liberty, equality and fraternity to all the citizens of India .[18]
The above definite assertion is possible because of the meticulous insertion of
the word ‘secular’ in the preamble of the constitution.[19]
However, the critiques argued for the non-necessity of the inclusion of the
word secular on the flimsy and covet ground that India is secular in nature
(Hinduism is secular).[20]
In the opinion of anti-secular proponents the word secular is western and it
was used to fight against the pope and hence it is not relevant to India .[21]
The necessity of separating religion and politics is explained in one of
the judgments regarding the meaning and scope of the word secular as “the neutrality of the state would be
violated if religion is used for political purposes and advocated by the
political parties for their political ends. An appeal to the electorate on grounds
of religion offends secular democracy (para 128). Politics and religion cannot
be mixed (para 131). If a State Government does this, it will be a fit case for
application of Art. 356 of the Constitution against it (para 365 (10)).”[22]
It is evident that in spite of substantial guidelines communal politics is
gaining momentum in India .
Meera Nanda
writes, “the future of secular societies depends upon the cultivation of
secular culture.”[23]
Despite the fact that secularism is essential for the preservation of plurality
in India ,
people who hold on to the traditional mix of politics and religion argue
against it even after witnessing many ugly communal unrests.
5.1 Critiquing Nehru
According to
critiques, Nehru introduced secularism for the first time in 1952 General
Election de-linking politics from religion. In 1976 during the Emergency it was
incorporated into the preamble of the Constitution of India to appease the
disgruntled Muslims.[24]
For instance “the Jan Sangh hated Jawaharlal Nehru, the most committed and
articulate of secularists.”[25]
For the opponents “Nehru broke up the relationship of Hinduism with politics.”[26]
The critiques are unjustified as a secular framework is inevitable to the
Indian plural context.
It cannot be
wished away that “Secularism as a peculiarly modern concept, aligned to the
equally modern concepts of equality and freedom, was an integral part of the
project of modernity that India
began her post-independence life with.”[27]
Nevertheless, in contrast to the prevailing form of secularism the anti-secular
forces argue, “Gandhiji’s Ram Rajya is based on that concept of toleration and
universality which form the bed-rock of positive secularism that BJP advocates.
In this positive secularism there is no appeasement of minorities.”[28]
It needs to be reiterated that the vision of Gandhi had no commonality
whatsoever with the present Hindutva communal ideology.
5.2 Secular State
One could also
argue that, nowhere in the Constitution of India has the term “secular” been
used to signify the character of the State. The fact is that, “nevertheless it
embodies the idea of a secular State.”[29]
The role and place of religion in Indian secularism is amply established. E. C.
Bhatty maintains that “a secular State is neither religious nor anti-religious. It is neutral in religious matters. Not that it is indifferent to the religious
welfare of its citizens.”[30]
P.N. Sapru writes, “a secular state is not an unethical state. The basic ethical ideas are much the same in
all religions.”[31]
One of the
basic expectations in a secular state is the separation of religion and state
or religion and politics. In other words, the essential basis of a modern
secular State is the institutional separation of State and religion. While State
limits itself to the promotion of the secular welfare of the people. religious
life is considered as intimately personal.
5.3 Challenges to Secularism/Secular
State
Politicization
of religion is the major challenge a secular state has to face. It is very
painful to notice “intolerance has manifested itself in the activities of
communal political parties which are clearly antagonistic to the entire spirit
of the secular State.”[32]
M.P. Raju states “the dreams for a secular India soon started to vanish with
the growth of a kind of neo-fanaticism as part of Hindu revivalism and cultural
nationalism.”[33]
There is a
great need to protect the secular principle of our nation. In the words of E.
C. Bhatty, “we have to guard against political religious communalism gaining
strength and stifling religious freedom and destroying the secular State.”[34]
This is a dangerous trend because religious elements influence politics and
politics uses religious elements.
Although secularization and secularism were significant
hallmarks of modern era, the influence of religion on politics was not
completely vanquished. This continuity in discontinuity or seemingly inseparable
relation between religion and politics needs to be analyzed thoroughly in order
to determine the magnitude of conflicts resulting from the mixing of religion
and politics particularly in India .
6
New Role of Religion in Modern Period
It can be
argued that “in a modern colonial semi-colonial or independent democratic
society people are less religious but religion tends to become politics
oriented.”[35]
In other words, “Religion on account of its powerful emotional appeal has often
sought to be dragged into political and social arenas by various interest groups.”[36]
In political arena religion was no longer oriented towards faith, rational or
irrational, but towards evolving a religious identity, a primordial
consciousness for its political utility.[37]
In India , the
political orientation of religion began with the consolidation of the British
rule after failure of the war of independence of 1857. Now onwards ones
identity as a Hindu or Muslim was more important than ones true religiosity or
actual faith in religion. Jinnah, the Supreme leader of Muslim League was an
archetypal model of such as a Muslim. So was Savarkar archetypal Hindu of
similar model.[38]
It was during
freedom struggle that a sense of separatism was injected in the minds of Hindus
and Muslims middle classes which were instrumental in articulating their
respective political ambitions. The elites of both the communities freely made
use of religion, culture and language for this purpose.[39]
Still further, religions are being reinterpreted to provide ideological support
for political systems seeking to increase their capacity to direct socioeconomic change.[40]
6.1
Power
According to
general theories, the incarnation of religion in various forms in the political
sphere is based upon the principle that power comes from god. It is said, “The
exercise of power is at the center of the polity and in virtually all cultures
power is an attribute of divinity.”[41]
Even those who hold power are considered to be divine or agents of divine.[42]
This may not
be true in the current Indian scenario where respect for transcendental is not
the driving force behind using religion for political mileage. The main
principle is to grab power at any cost, including the lives of many minority
religious communities which are vulnerable in nature due to numerical
disadvantage. In other words the present mixing of religion and politics is to
polarize the people on the grounds of majority-politics and creating communal
hatred among people of different religions.
6.2
Politicization of Religion
Communally
obsessive leaders know well that “in traditional societies, religion is a mass
phenomenon, politics is not; in transitional societies, religion can serve as
the means by which the masses become politicized.”[43]
This is a reason why “Individual clerics or religious functionaries have made
great impact on the political scene in a number of countries.”[44]
Prominent lay
politicians who have effectively utilized religious symbols have been found in
all religious traditions. Among the important Hindu nationalists were: Tilak,
who used religious festivals for anti-British propaganda; the Bengal
terrorists, who identified Mother India with the goddess Kali whose worship
required bloody sacrifices (political assassinations); and Gandhi, whose
elaborate theory of nonviolent resistance, rooted in Hindu concepts, also
spurred the Indian national movement. Jinnah used Islamic symbols to intensify
the Indian Muslims’ sense of separate national identity and, on this basis,
demanded a separate state, Pakistan .[45]
Also of
concern are the religion-oriented interest groups of a predominantly lay
character. The RSS ideology holds to the concept of a Hindu Nation and urges
the creation of a Hindu
State in which the
religious minorities would be relegated to the status of foreigners. Although,
RSS has concentrated on the indoctrination and paramilitary training of youth
and has never entered politics directly, it has provided much of the leadership
and organizational strength to the Jana Sangh.[46]
Interest
groups and political parties have been formed to further communal interests. In
the case of Pakistan
a new state was created for a minority religious community.[47]
At the same time it cannot be ignored that “In societies characterized by
religious pluralism, each community may become in some sense a political actor.
Religious communities become politicized in conflict situations where the real
issues are frequently social, political, and economic. Religion derives its
chief importance from its function as a symbol of group identity and
self-esteem.”[48]
6.3
Patterns of politicization
It follows
then that the notion of conflict is
central to our understanding of the nature of politics. At practical level,
“Politicization – the drawing of people into active participation in the
political process – takes place as people become conscious of conflicts which
are perceived as relevant to their lives.”[49]
When the principle of conflict is instilled in the mind of the people
“Politicians, clerical and lay, are engaged in manipulating religious symbols
as one technique in the struggle for power, sometimes cynically but more often
through the same process of rationalization by which interests become disguised
as principles in politics everywhere.”[50]
Along with the
conflict of misusing religious interests, we must recognize still another kind
of conflict- the conflict of political interests which cuts across, and in some
cases clearly dominates, the conflicts over ostensibly religious issues.[51]
The
Hindu-Muslim conflict leading to the partition of India in 1947 is the classic
example. After independence and partition, Hindu-Sikh tensions became a
prominent feature of politics in the Punjab . A
militant Sikh political party, the Akali Dal, sought to mobilize the entire
community behind the demand for a separate Sikh state within the Union of
India. After the movement for the creation of linguistic states developed, the
Sikh demand assumed the form of an agitation for a Punjabi-language state,
which involved the partition of the then bilingual (Punjabi and Hindi) state of
Punjab . While language constituted the
official basis and justification for the demand, which was conceded in 1966,
the motivating force behind it was clearly religious and communal. In any
event, the creation of a Punjabi-language state also meant the creation of a
Sikh-majority state, which was the real point of the agitation.[52]
From the
middle of the nineteenth century down to Gandhi, social reform was a
predominant nationalist motif. The liberal Moderates in the Congress thought in
terms of an Indian nation. In the 1920’s, however, illiberal communalists such
as V.D. Savakar began to speak of a “Hindu Nation.” It helped emergence of some
sense of a Hindu community.[53]
In general
“Politicization in the third world has been significantly furthered by various
ideological conflicts involving religious and political belief systems. These
are conflicts not only of general world views but of blueprints for society.”[54]
In
order to analyze the process of politicization of religion in India it is
necessary to start with the Congress party. It is interesting to note that its
secular vision was challenged by communally charged members and significantly
congress also had attempted to play religious sentiments for its advantage,
intentionally or otherwise. The real opponents of secularization process later
emerged as advocates of religious political parties. This can be discussed
after analyzing the congress.
7
Indian National Congress
Started in
1885, the Indian National Congress was not intended to be a political party but
it was an annual gathering, speaking on behalf of social groups. However,
roughly from the last decade of the 19th century onwards, the
radical ideology of the young leaders like Tilak challenged the moderate of the
Congress. While the moderates, the old generation leaders had a secular outlook
in politics, the young leaders who were known later as the extremists invoked
the help of religion for arousing national, patriotic and political feeling
among Hindus.[55]
As a result the nature of Indian nationalism changed and the growing tension
between Hindus and Muslims began to surface.[56]
7.1
Tilak
Lokamanya Bal
Gangadhr Tilak introduced religious-nationalism in Indian politics and his
ideology influenced many others as well. People like Veer Savarkar who later
became known for the ideology of Hindutva and K. B. Hedgewar, the founder of
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh are the best examples of this.[57]
In other words “He was a pace setter for the use of religious fundamentalism in
Indian politics, in that he supplied a thought–structure for politics based on
religious ideology, which later became an acceptable norm for many a
politician.”[58]
Tilak utilized
the Ganapati festival and a festival
in the name of Shivaji, the celebrated Maratha ruler who withstood the Muslim
invasion of Deccan , to galvanize Hindus. This
is the first example of using religions for political gains, in the context of
freedom struggle.
7.2
Gandhi
Opposed to
Tilak’s Hindu religious nationalism which is based upon religious intolerance,
Mahatma Gandhi envisaged nationalism based upon inter-religious relationship in
India .
Gandhi envisioned an India
where Hindus and Muslims could live harmoniously and work for the welfare of
each other.[59]
The utility of religion by Tilak and Gandhi was diametrically opposed to each
other. One used religion for hatred and the other used it for harmony.
In view of Gandhi’s
application of religion, he is often proclaimed as the spiritual father of
Indian secularism. For Gandhi secularism was considering all religions as
equal.[60]
He also had to encounter the nationalists who believed in Hindu state and the
majority Hindus’ rule over religious minorities.[61]
In fact “There was a strong move by Hindu fundamentalists groups for making
Hinduism the state religion of India .
Gandhi repudiated such ideology.”[62]
However,
Gandhi is often criticized for his use of religion for political purposes,
because, he used religious idioms and phrases to explain his political
philosophy. He saw a close relationship between politics and religion. He used religious
idioms and practices, some time even Islamic practices like Ramadhan, fasting, prayers and religious
anecdotes to advance his struggle for freedom and to mobilize the masses on the
basis of religious symbols. However, most of the symbols used by Gandhi were
from Hinduism. Yet, it needs to be emphasized that his concept of religion was
entirely different from that of the proponents of Hindu Nationalism and Muslim
nationalism.[63]
While Gandhi
was fighting for freedom of India ,
he was also concerned with the emancipation of the different sections of the
population like the Muslims and Dalits.[64]
Gandhi asked for Swaraj because “Gandhi seems to have understood that rushing
the agenda of freedom and self-determination of the nation, without first
resolving the great potential and manifest conflicts within-among the Hindus
and Muslims and Hindus and Dalits- would jeopardize the very cause of freedom.”[65]
It needs to be
admitted that “Amidst serious contestations and efforts to construct the nation
along the lines of the Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan slogan, the combination of the
Gandhian and Nehruvian streams posited ‘unity-in-diversity’ as the essence of
Indian nationhood.”[66]
7.3
Jawaharlal Nehru
Aditya Nigam
writes, “The ideology of secular-nationalism as the ideology of the
postcolonial nation-state in India
is closely related to the figure of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister
of the Indian republic.”[67]
He had to choose that noble path because of the two decades of Hindu-Muslim
conflict which preceded independence and which led to the partition of the
subcontinent. Various elements in Nehru’s thought strongly confirmed the
commitment to secularism, but it was above all the fundamental sociological
fact of religious pluralism which dictated the policy.[68]
The alliance of religion and politics was the most disturbing issue for Nehru.
And “He saw the danger of communalism in independent India .”[69]
Nehru constantly worked to show that India ,
timeless and eternal, had always been an ocean of tolerance and an exemplar of
openness, ever willing to absorb different cultures.[70]
He was always true to the reality of many cultures in India .
7.4
Ambedkar
Ambedkar was
committed to the cause of the Dalits and hence “he vehemently refuses to accept
the givenness of the nation, such as was sought to be constructed by the
Congress.[71]
Similarly he refused to take the working class as given. That is why “It is
well-known that when he formed his first political party in 1936, he called it
the Independent Labour Party.”[72]
From the point of Indian politics Ambedkar’s efforts were in line with bringing
in the concerns of the Dalits, but surely not communal as he found that the
social evils in India
was the outcome of Hindu religion.
7.5
Indira Gandhi
Originally
Congress was committed to secular principles, but “It is with the return of
Indira Gandhi in 1980, after the failure of the Janata experiment, however,
that we can begin to see the changes in Congress politics clearly.”[73]
It has been noted and meticulously documented by various scholars in recent
years that this turn in Congress politics was defined by an overarching move to
cater to Hindu majoritarian sentiments. The process received a major fillip
with the assassination of Indira Gandhi, after which the Congress then led by
her son Rajiv Gandhi, openly utilized Hindu ‘fears’. His notorious statement in
response to the massacre of Sikhs that ‘when a big tree falls, the earth
shakes’, was a clear and blatant admission of the fact that thenceforth, the
party would have no qualms in using majoritarian sentiments to the maximum.[74]
In fact the emergence of the Hindu right as a major political force belongs to
this phase.[75]
7.6
Rajiv Gandhi
According to
Arun Nehru, formerly one of Rajiv Gandhi’s close confidantes and advisors, the
Congress High Command had taken a decision in early 1986, to ‘play the Hindu
card’. The Muslim Women’s Bill was passed to play the Muslim Card; and then
came the decision on Ayodhya to play the Hindu card’. Rajiv’s biographer,
Nicholas Nugent, also notes that in August 1989, Nehru hinted in an interview
that Rajiv also arranged the televising of Hindus worshipping at the newly
unlocked shrine. In 1989, Rajiv initiated his party’s campaign for the Lok
Sabha elections, by ritually breaking a coconut at Ayodhya and claiming that
only the Congress could usher in the utopia of Ram Rajya. The role of the Rajiv led congress in making possible
the foundation-stone laying ceremony (the shilanayas),
at Ayodhya, is known to have been one of the most dangerous episodes in this game
of placating the Hindu communal platform.[76]
It was only in the course of the build-up to
the Babri Masjid crisis in the late 1980s, that sections of the Muslims started
moving away from the Congress. The episode of the Shah Bano judgment and the
subsequent surrender to ‘fundamentalist’ Muslim pressure by Rajiv Gandhi, went
hand in hand with the shilanyas, or
the foundation-stone-laying ceremony at Ayodhya, that was accomplished under
the Congress. If pandering to ‘majority Hindu’ sentiments in dealing with the
Akalis in Punjab had led Indira Gandhi to practically stigmatize the entire
Sikh community, Rajiv Gandhi managed to do so with the Muslims, when he began
his 1989 election campaign from Ayodhya with the slogan of Ramrajya. The crowning event
came with the demolition of Babri Masjid, under the watchful eyes of the
Congress government under Narasimha Rao. All day long the dance of destruction
went unchallenged, leaving little doubt where the Congress government’s
sympathies lay.[77]
It is very
obvious that even the best secular wisdom of the Indian leaders were challenged
by communal politics. Religion continues to stake claim in several important
decision making process. Although Congress desired to be secular in its early
phase, many of the religiously oriented congress men diluted that wishes.
Subsequently, congress itself had attempted to utilize religious sentiments. To
put it simply, secular vision was always either challenged as in the early part
of congress or misused as in the latter part of the Congress. Consequently the religious orientation and
religious influence on political parties came out distinctively.
8
Religious Political Parties- Communal
The communal
political party arises in response to the actual or latent conflict of a
religiously pluralist society. In British India
the Muslim League, founded in 1906, and the Hindu Mahasabha, founded in 1923,
sought to articulate and champion the interests of their respective communities
which, both were convinced, were being ignored, harmed, or betrayed by the
leadership of the Indian National Congress which professed secular nationalism.
The major Hindu party since independence has been the Jana Sangha, which
maintains a definite anti-Muslim bias despite the existence of liberal elements
within the party.”[78]
Communal
parties always promise protection of communal interests. For example “The
political expression of Hinduism, it is clear, is dominated by two basic
expressions: the laity and communalism. Religious functionaries,
individually or collectively, have played no significant political role; on the
other hand, there have been very prominent lay spokesmen for Hinduism in the
political sphere. Hindu interest groups and political parties have not
concerned themselves with developing a Hindu ideology for modern society but
have been strongly oriented toward defending the interests of their community
in communal conflict.”[79]
This will be clearer as the discussion of the Hindu communal politics
progresses.
8.1
Muslim
Reference has
already been made to the fact that, in British India the Muslim League, founded
in 1906, demanded a separate nation for Muslims resulting in the partition of India . Many
Muslims would not prefer to be ruled by Hindu principles as the Muslims believe
that Allah is the almighty ruler of the universe whose sovereign transcendence
over all creation is absolute.[80]
The original Islamic vision is the complete fusion of religious and political
authority in the Prophet and his successors. A separate clerical class, the ulama, was developed to interpret the
comprehensive sacral law.[81]Now,
of course, in most Muslim countries the legal and judicial functions of the
ulama have been virtually eliminated.[82]
In India , an
organization known as the Jamiat-ul-ulama-i-Hind
was founded in 1919 to give guidance to the Indian Muslims in religious and
political matters. It cooperated with the Indian National Congress in the
struggle against British rule and, since independence, has continued to act as
spokesman for Muslim interests in relations with the government.[83]
One unpleasant fact is that the secularization of law in the Muslim countries
has produced one of the most serious conflicts of modernization.[84]
8.2
Hindu
To begin with,
“The traditional Hindu religiopolitical system was dominated by a theory of the
sacral caste order of society.”[85]
On the contrary the communal political orientation using Hindu sentiments may
implicitly continue to press for caste, but explicitly herald to protect the
religious interests and sentiments of Hindus. This can be analyzed as follow.
8.2.1
Arya Samaj
A brief
mention about Arya Samaj is made here as its concerns will repeat in the
subsequent discussions. Arya Samaj was Started in 1875 in Bombay
by Swamy Dayananda Saraswati from Kathiawar in Gujarat .
The major area of its work was Punjab . Its
watch word was Back to the Vedas. The origin of the samaj is significant as it
heralded the birth of the first reactionary movement against the modernist.[86]
Dayanand contended that the kings of Arya
varta- India
enjoyed universal sovereignty up to five thousand years ago.[87]
Return to that utopian golden age should be the motivational force to unit the
Hindus together against the interests of the minority religious communities.
In a nutshell,
Arya Samaj was a fundamentalist organization working for the establishment of a
Hindu nation and the revival of the Hindu spirit through various means- Shuddhi and Sanghatan. [88]
8.2.2
Hindu Mahasabha
Founded in
1915, the Sabha did not emphasize political involvement in the beginning
because its leaders were simultaneously members of the Indian National
Congress. However, it declared its aim to maintain the protection and promotion
of Hindu culture and Hindu civilization for the advancement of Hindu Rashtra.[89]
While Arya Samaj could evoke a fear psychosis among Hindus and called them for
a return to the scripture and to the Vedic golden age, the new movement
challenged Hindus to consolidate the Hindu nation, heralding the beginning of
nationalism based on religious fundamentalism.[90]
The founding
of Hindu Mahasabha became a reality as a reaction to the formation of the
Muslim league.[91]
It mobilized the Hindus to form an exclusive Hindu political party. It was also
started to canvas for Hindu nationalism as against the secularism of the
Congress party.[92]
The growth of the Mahasabha was marked by the adoption of the Shuddhi and Sanghatan invented by the Arya Samaj.[93]Aggressive
militancy was another feature of Hindu Mahasabha.[94]
The Sabha came
to prominence during the tenure of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.[95]
Like Dayananda, he found encouragement from an utopian past glory, which he
wanted his people to achieve in the future. The ideology of the Hindu Mahasabha
(HMS) put forth by Savarkar was known as ‘Sangahatan’
or Hindu Nationalism. Sangahatan,
otherwise known as Hindu unity was his goal.”[96]
Savarkar went to the extent of threatening and sometimes challenging Muslims,
with the fate of the Jews under Hitler’s rule in Germany .[97]
The movement
was thus highly motivated by political undercurrents, aiming at the
establishment of an exclusively Hindu nation. The cardinal principle of Hindu
Mahasabha was always the unity of Indians as a single culture, and single
religion.[98] Though it was meant to be a political
organization, it was more religious than political in its activities. Politics
linked with religion was the pattern of its functioning.[99] A
crucial point of importance is that the idea of a Hindu Nation stood in
contrast to the idea of a composite, territorially defined political entity
that developed among the secular nationalists.[100]
8.2.3
Bharatiya Jana Sangh
The major
Hindu political party in India
since independence has been the Jana Sangha, which maintains a definite anti-Muslim
bias despite the existence of liberal elements within the party.[101]
The context of the origin of the party itself was complex. Assassination of
Gandhi and the ensuing legal struggles of RSS-were badly in need for a
political party.
Shyama Prasad
Mukherjee, a former Hindu Mahasabha member, one of the ministers of the Nehru
Cabinet openly criticized Nehru for his pro Muslim stand and resigned from the
Cabinet. Mukherjee was looking for a political platform to air his views. As
Hindu Mahasabha was already vanishing from the political parlance, it seemed
good for him to start a new party. Shyam Prasad Mukherjee’s ambition got
materialized through the help of RSS as Bharatiya Jana Sangh. As Mukherjee was
in full agreement with RSS in the articulation of Hindu Rashtra, Golwalkar lent some of his faithful lieutenants for the
political task. Consequently, by October 1951, a national level political party
named Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS) was inaugurated in Delhi with Swayamsevaks as the main working
body. This was the beginning of the RSS involvement in Indian politics. [102]
Although, BJS
was started as a reactionary and opposition political movement against the
Congress policy of minority appeasement and secularism,
Jana Sangh was not a success in the
political scenario till it merged with the Janata Party after the Emergency
(1975). Due to inner conflicts, the Janata government fell in 1979 and on 5th
April 1980 Jana Sangh was revived with a new name Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
with more RSS ethos. A senior leader of the erstwhile BJS, Atal Bihari Vajpayee
became the founding president of the new party.[103]
8.2.4
Bharatiya Janata Party
It is baffling
that, “Communalist ideology and communal politics have not declined as many
modernizers expected. On the contrary today it is on the offensive,
particularly with the BJP aggressively promoting its Hindutva-ideology.”[104]
In spite of its predecessors’ opposition to secularism as a state policy the
BJP emerged with a new formulation, ‘positive secularism’ against Nehruvian
secularism.[105]
BJP’s cynical approach to secularism is obvious as positive secularism
envisages suppression of religious minorities under the Hindu majority rule.
It was in the
late 1980s that the BJP started emerging as a serious contender for power at
the centre. For a period after the collapse of the Janata government in 1979,
the BJP went through a process of reinventing itself. Reluctant to go back to
the Jana Sangh past, the party made desperate efforts to gain an acceptable and
inclusive character. It sought to establish continuity with the Janata Party
legacy, not simply by adopting the new name of the Bharatiya Janata party, but
importantly, by emphasizing the link with the Gandhian legacy of the former by
declaring its commitment to ‘Gandhian socialism’.[106]
In July 1980,
Ram Jethmalani with the support of Sikkander Bakht, ‘introduced a Bill in the
Lok Sabha that would once again legalize religious conversion. His
justification for this initiative was the need to dispel anxieties engendered
by O.P. Tyagi’s Freedom of religion Bill and to give credibility to the
secularist image that the BJP wanted to promote.[107]
During this
period, the BJP concentrated on raising mass issues like price rise. In fact,
it is interesting that the Meenakshipuram conversion was hardly noticed
publicly by BJP at that time. The conversion took place on 19th February,1981.[108]
The well
wishers of the BJP did not like its soft and apparently non-communal approach.
In fact, in mid 1984, Bal Thackeray told correspondents that the BJP was ‘also
following the same policy of Indira Gandhi’ and that it had also ‘started
wooing the Muslims’.[109]
Unlike its
predecessors, the main objective of BJP was to capture political power in order
to implement Hindutva ideology. Therefore, “BJP took up the issue of the
construction of Ram temple in Ayodha as a political agenda to come to power.”[110]
It is alarming that “BJP, the present political organization of the Sangh
Parivar seeks political mileage by dividing the nation on communal lines.”[111]
Its communal canopy has become true in the recent years in its attack against
Christianity. Similarly, in all the recent political programmes of the BJP,
there was always a tinge of communal element.[112]
8.2.4.1
Hindu Nationalism
The Hindu
communal politics spreads through a form of strange nationalisms, while
Nationalism in India
was born in the dual moment of its struggle against colonial domination and the
encounter with modernity.[113]
Again, Nationalist discourses are discourses of modernity par excellence. [114]
On the contrary “Hindu nationalism was always a strong opponent of Indian
nationalism: the nationalism advocated by Nehru and Gandhi.”[115]
In spite of
the marked differences between the nationalisms of the secularists and the
Hindu fundamentalists, the latter wanted the nation to be divided and the
people to be subjugated on religious grounds. The intrinsic purpose of this
obnoxious nationalism is to make India Hindu in the primordial way.[116]
There is no progressive element in it. The Hindu-nationalists do not stop with
ridiculing the credibility of secular nationalism; they go to the length of
backtracking people to false glory of yore.[117]
8.2.4.2
Religious nationalism
While Hindu
nationalism bargains for Hindu India, religious nationalism takes recourse to
certain religious elements and presents them as inspirational to nationalism
while ignoring the existential realities of life. Religious nationalism helps
the Parivar to elevate the religion of the majority and put down others.[118]
In a way, religious nationalism helps the Parivar to shift the focus of
attention from real issues to abstract and trance-mundane concepts.[119]
The Sangh
Parivar also envisages that this religious nationalism can pave way for world
unity. Unfortunately, communal forces that promote religious nationalism divide
people within a nation. When it is impossible to establish harmony within a
nation how can such an idea bring about world unity?[120]
Another utter
false promise the Parivar assures is that, accepting religious nationalism in India
on the basis of religious insights can pave way not only for world unity but
also for human welfare.[121]
A society stigmatized with caste discriminations will definitely be skeptical
of such welfare.
If Hindu
religious nationalism can bring about brotherhood where is the necessity for
asking other religious communities to leave this country? What is the need for
asking other religious communities to subject themselves to the whims and
fancies of the majority religion? Where is the need to venerate Hindu Heroes?[122]
Added to these
are the other nationalisms promoted by Hindutva Ideology such as: Motherland
Nationalism, Caste Nationalism, Cultural nationalism, Language nationalism and
Territorial Nationalism. What India
needs is Commitment for Real and United Nationalism.
How RSS a
Hindu religious affiliate contributes to the influence of BJP can be discerned
form the following finding that, in Chhaattisgarh’s Baster (district) region a
changed socio-religious character of the tribal population has also impacted on
the voting pattern, the beneficiary being the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The
BJP is now reaping the rewards of a long campaign by the various outfits of the
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). This
tribal support has greatly strengthened the party in the State. Right from the
2003 Assembly elections, the tribal vote has been polled in favour of the BJP
and the trend is likely to continue in 2009, unless something dramatic happens.
The changed politics has become more evident in the recent past with tribals
shifting their support from the congress to the BJP.[123]
The other organizations that can be analyzed for the
influence of religion on politics are Shiva Sena, Ram Sena, Akali Dal, etc.
8.3
Christian Response
Whether we
like it or not Christians also have started to use religion as a tool to
mobilize political power. Rather than communalizing, Christians need to work
with secular minded people, because the fact is that all Christians do not
belong to one single political affiliation. They are members of different
political orientation. Hence it is difficult to be prescriptive. Christians can
work towards strengthening secularism and democracy and motivate people to
actively involve in the electoral process.
9
Issues
The major
concern in politicization of religion is that “Whether it is Hindus or Muslims
or anyone who uses religion for political purposes, all of them are
contravening the constitutional provisions of secularism in India .”[124]
Using religion for political gains is against civility. It promotes the debate
between modernity and traditional mind set.
Further,
“Communalizing politics amounts to constant tension and threat to peaceful and
harmonious living.”[125]
It leads to polarization of communities on the basis of majority and minority;
promotes Communal disharmony; encourages hatred towards each other and hatred
towards communities. The unfortunate Ayodha tragedy, the horrifying communal
carnages in Gujarat, the ill fate of Christians in Kandamal, vandalizing
churches and properties in Mangalore and Bangalore
are other examples.
Varun Gandhi’s
Hate speech, inciting hatred towards communities just for votes and Ashock
Sahu’s (M.P. candidate of BJP, in Kandamal) communal speech against Christians are the vivid
manifestations and risks of communal politics.
A painful outcome
of communal politics is the suffering and inconveniences inflicted upon the
minority religious communities. In other words, “Due to such communal political
orientations, minority religious communities, particularly the Muslims, are
irritated and frustrated. This situation will have adverse effect on the polity
of India .”[126]
This situation
help proliferation of minority -majority conflicts resulting suppression of
minority rights and trying to root them out by terrorizing them through
communal atrocities- killings, burning of worship places and houses. The
influence of religion on politics seriously affects the religious freedom of
the minority communities.
Conclusion
In the
traditional societies the sway of religion on the politics was an accepted
principle. The modernity discourses have brought in secularization and secular
polity mainly through colonialization. Yet the fact remains in India that
secularization and communalization of politics exists simultaneously. Religion
is used by politicians to galvanize support for them, as it facilitates mass
mobilization.
Although
Congress was a secular party in its early phase, at its latter stage, it is a
mix of secular as well as communal politics. The purely secular commitment of
the Congress came under the attack of the religious radicals.
Consequently
the religious radicals have formed political parties to implement religious
programs. The dangers of the failures of the process of secularization and
secularism are really a matter of concern.
In order to
fight the communal political affiliates, without disturbing the genuinely
religious sentiments of the committed people a consideration of Gandhian model
may be beneficial. We need to fight against communal politics. It is against
the constitution and it is against the beauty of plurality in India as Nehru
conceived.
Religion and Dialogue
India ,p.245.
India ,p.244.
[1] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development (Boston : Little Brown and
Company, 1970), p. 57.
[2] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
58.
[3] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development , p. xii.
[4] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 3.
[5] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
10.
[6] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 60.
[7] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 10.
[8] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 2.
[9] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. xii.
[10] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 11.
[11] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development , p. 12.
[12] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development , p.
88.
[13] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 95.
[14] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, pp. 85-86.
[17] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities (New Delhi :Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 41.
[18]
P.L. John Panicker, “Marginalization of Minorities: Anti-conversion Bill,” in Inter-Play
of Religion, Politics and Communalism, edited by Samson Prabhakar (Bangalore : BTESSC/SATHRI,
2004), p. 61.
[19] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to
the Constitution of India ,
19th ed. Reprint (Nagpur :
Wadhwa and Company, Law Publishers, 2003), 27.
[23]
Meera Nanda, The Wrongs of the religious Right: Reflections on Science,
Secularism and Hindutva (Haryana: Three Essays, 2005), p. 61.
[24] Pannalal Dhar ,
India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion
State and Secularism,p. 80.
[25] A.G. Noorani, “Fractured
Democracies,” Frontline (December 1, 2006):84.
[26] Pannalal Dhar ,
India and Her
Domestic Problems: Religion
State and Secularism,
p. 80.
[27] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond
Secularism, the rights of Religious Minorities, 50.
[28] Pannalal Dhar , India
and Her Domestic Problems: Religion
State and Secularism,
56.
[29]E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State ,” in Religious Freedom,
editedby J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas,
(Bangalore: The Committee for Literature on Social Concerns, 1956), p. 74.
[31]
P.N. Sapru, “Religious Freedom and Civil Liberties,” in Religious Freedom,
edited by J.R. Chandran, and M. M. Thomas, (Bangalore: The Committee for
Literature on Social Concerns, 1956), p. 5.
[32] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State ,” in Religious Freedom, p. 77.
[33]
M.P. Raju, Religious Conversion: Legal Implications (Delhi: Media
House,1999), p. 34 .
[34] E. C. Bhatty, “Religious Minorities and the Secular State ,” in Religious Freedom, p. 86.
[35] Sunita Gangwal, Minorities in India :
A Study in Communal Process and Individual Rights
(Jaipur: Arihant Publishing House, 1995), p.187.
[40] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. xii.
[41] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 6.
[42] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
7.
[43] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 124.
[44] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
127.
[45] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 128.
[46] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 132.
[47] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 136.
[48] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
136.
[49] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
144.
[50] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
145.
[51] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
145.
[52] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
147.
[53] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development,pp.
148-49.
[54] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
157.
[55] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response (Bangalore : Centre
for Contemporary
Christianity, 2007), p.98.
[56] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.99.
[57] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.99.
[58] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.100.
[59] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.105.
[60] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.106.
[61] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.108.
[62] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.110.
[63] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.112.
[64] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India (New Delhi : Oxford University Press,
2006), p.38.
[65]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India, p.38.
[66]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India, p.38.
[67]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India, p.69.
[68] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
92.
[69] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.121.
[70]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India, p.75.
[71]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in
[72]Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in
[73] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.118.
[74] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.119.
[75] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.120.
[76] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.120.
[77] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism in
India , p.316.
[78] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
137.
[79] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p. 141.
[80] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
46.
[81] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
8.
[82] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
48.
[83] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
48.
[84] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
50.
[85] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
8.
[86] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.163.
[87] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.170.
[88] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.174.
[89] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.176.
[90] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.175.
[91] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.175.
[92] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.177.
[93] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.177.
[94] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.183.
[95] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.177.
[96] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.182.
[97] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.183.
[98] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.178.
[99] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.187.
[100] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.178.
[101] Donald Eugene smith, Religion and Political Development, p.
137.
[104] Gabriele Dietrich & Bas Wielenga,
Towards Understanding Indian Society
(Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2003), p.180.
[105] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.219.
[106] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.120.
[107] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , pp.120-21.
[108] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.121.
[109] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.121.
[110]M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.223.
[111] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue (Bangalore : SATHRI, 2007), p.117.
[112]S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.118.
[113] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.37.
[114] Aditya Nigam, The Insurrection of Little Selves: The Crisis of Secular- Nationalism
in India , p.36.
[115] M.T. Cherian, Hindutva Agenda and Minority Rights: A Christian Response, p.219.
[116] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.129.
[117] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.130.
[118] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.134.
[119] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.135.
[120] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.135.
[121]S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.135.
[122] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.136.
[123]
Aarti
Dhar, “The Hinduised face of Bastar’s tribals,” The Hindu, 14 April 2009, p.17.
[124] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.183.
[125] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.183.
[126] S. Robertson, Freedom of Religion a Human Rights Issue, p.185.
Comments
Post a Comment