Religious Nationalism and Democratic Polity: The Indian Case

Abstract

It is argued in this article that religious nationalism and democracy are antithetical in their orientation. There are severalreasons for this. First, nationhood based on religion assumes a necessary conterminality between religion and territory. While in the case of proselytizing religions (e.g., Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) such an assumption is patently contradictory, even in the case of nonproselytizing religions (e.g., Hinduism, Judaism) religion-territory linkages are often blurred through conquest, colonization, and migration. Second, once territorialization becomes the domain assumption of a religion, a process of homogenization of the culture of the territory and the consequent hegemonization by the dominant religious collectivity often becomes its necessary ideological tenet. Third, this ideology calls for the praxis of of politics and relativization of culture, all of which have disastrous consequences for a democratic polity. The argument is pursued with special reference to India. In this article I propose to argue that religious nationalism and democratic polity cannot co-exist harmoniously, particularly in a society characterized by religious diversity. Yet, some religious collectivities advance the claim that they are nations. The claim to nationality/nationhood can succeed only if the religions under reference press into service a domain assumption, an ideological tenet and two strategies, all of which are logically linked. The domain assumption is that there is a conterminality between religion and territory; the ideological tenet is homogenization of the society by imposing the life-style associated with the religious collectivity asserting or aspiring to nationhood - that is, establishing hegemony over the dominated religious collectivities. The strategies pursued to achieve the goal are communalization and relativization, which are logical corollaries of territorialization and homogenization, respectively - all of which are antithetical to the ethos of democracy. My concern in this article is with the articulations of religious nationalisms in India. I shall desist from the temptation of tracing the trajectories of these religious nationalisms - Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh - because they are well known and well documented. Instead, I will endeavor to show that the assump