Politics of Identity in India

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Research Question
Theoretical Foundation
Influence of Hinduism
Influence of Islam
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Globally, researchers have portrayed India as a land of many political and social complexities (Bevan, 2015; Heimsath, 2015; Seal, 1971; Barucco, 2014). For example, Barucco (2014) says it is a country of many contrasts because “it is economically fragmented, if not polarized, and driven by linguistic, religious, caste and even racial cleavages, of great complexity. Yet, it provides the most rigorous and useful proving ground for testing hypotheses correlating the various dimensions of progress” (p. 5). These complexities have infiltrated our understanding of the country’s national identity.

Indeed, Indian nationalism has for a long time been the subject of many international scholars who often try to understand the development of the concept of nation-state in the country, which has a rich history, dotted with many cultural and social views (Seal, 1971). This analysis has brought our attention to the concept of Indian nationalism, which strives to espouse some of the social and political principles of the subcontinent that have characterized its independence movement. However, multiple forces continue to influence the politics of India today. One of them is religion.

Many studies that have investigated the concept of nationalism in India have revealed that religion is the most controversial and emotionally charged fiber in understanding the politics of identity in India (Bevan, 2015; Heimsath, 2015). Based on a succinct literature review, this paper explains how religion has influenced the politics of identity in India by demonstrating that Hinduism and Islam have been at the center stage of the nationalism movement in India, since its independence in 1947. It also shows that the politics of identity in India have developed on the back of conflicts between the two religions. One research question, which appears below, guided this analysis

Research Question

How has religion influenced India’s national identity?

Theoretical Foundation

According to Ünal (2013), national identity refers to a sense of belonging to a specific state. Although many different nations have varied cultures, traditions, and languages, the concept of national identity helps to amalgamate them into one cohesive whole of nationalism. Comprehensively, national identity refers to a set of subjective feelings that people from different backgrounds, bound by a sense of nationhood, share about their country (Ünal, 2013). According to Barucco (2014), the concept of national identity, in contemporary society, is a product of the nature of today’s global politics.

Concisely, as Heimsath (2015) observes that religion and national identities are small reference points of the nature of global politics today. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand the concept of national identity, in India, and the conception of different countries of the concept from different sociopolitical contexts. Consequently, Erikson’s theory of identity provides a framework for understanding national identity by arguing that national identity is a product of axes of relations within the “self” (Ünal, 2013). Relative to the core of its arguments, the theory postulates that, the self “represents a continuity in the ego’s integrating functions that must be achieved; it is not simply a defining attribute of the ego” (Ünal, 2013, p. 43).

The “self” is a personal determination framework for evaluating when something, or someone, is good or bad. In the context of this study, the self would determine whether religion is good or bad. If the self sees it as good, people would decide to embrace its values. This process is a product of the praxeological axis (Ünal, 2013). At the same time, the “self” may decide to ignore religion if it perceives it as bad.

This process is a product of the epistemic axis (Barucco, 2014). Based on this theoretical background, different researchers have analyzed the role of religion in shaping national identities in different scientific fields (Sharma, 2003). For example, some psychologists have analyzed the role of religion in shaping interpersonal and intrapersonal identities (Barucco, 2014). They have done so at three levels of understanding human identities – collective identity, social identity and collective religious identities (Ünal, 2013).

The collective religious identity is of more importance to this study, compared to the other levels of understanding human identity, because it shares a close relationship with ego identity, which many countries use to inform political debates of identity. Subsequent sections of this paper would show how the ego identity would explain some of the religious conflicts between Islam and Hinduism that have shaped India’s politics of national identity. The following section of this paper shows how Hinduism has shaped India’s politics of identity.

Influence of Hinduism

Many researchers agree that the nationalism movement in India started from the unity of Hindus in the country (Bevan, 2015; Heimsath, 2015). Indeed, after the collapse of Islamic Empires in India, the population of Hindus grew to more than 75% of India’s population in pre-colonial India (Sharma, 2003). The influence of the Hindu religion started from the quest by proponents of the religion to unite Indians beyond the boundaries formed by the caste system. The same proponents of the religion also wanted to unite the Indian population beyond the boundaries of linguistic groups and ethnicity (Sharma, 2003). Gandhi led such unity movements because he often viewed religion as the cohesive force binding different communities in India.

He was against the promotion of one religious outfit at the expense of another. In this regard, he was troubled at the thought that India could separate along the lines of religious intolerance (Misra, 2004). This concern emerged from his reaction to the 1942 Cripps Mission, which allowed different parties to accede from the Indian Union (Sharma, 2003). In Gandhi’s view, the British caused this divide because they were creating animosity between Hindu and Muslims to gain more control over the people. For Gandhi, unity among Indians was an important precondition to independence because Indians had to unite before the British exited, as it was the only way that the country would realize a sustainable political system (Misra, 2004).

Gandhi’s relatively liberal view of religion made some observers consider him a progressive Hindu because he interacted with people of all types of religions and even, occasionally, criticized some tenets of his faith (Hinduism) (Bevan, 2015). However, some scholars, such as Nehru (2004), held a different view of religion because they often perceived religion as the dividing force in India. People who held similar views also believed that religion had to disappear from the sphere of political identity for the country to succeed. Nonetheless, despite these contradictions, both Nehru (2004) and Gandhi advocated for an all-Indian definition of nationality that premised on the concept of human equality.

The political views adopted by the Indian National Congress, which has ruled India for more than four decades have mainly hinged on the views of Gandhi (Bevan, 2015). Until the 1970s, this party had embodied the spirit of nationalism in India by elevating itself as the guardian of India’s independence movement (Misra, 2004). However, a contrary political movement championed by the Bharatiya Janata Party has promoted a more radical religious version of nationalism, which premises on the beliefs and teachings of the Hindu faith (Bevan, 2015). Politically, it has associated nationalistic sentiments to the protection of the country’s borders from its nemesis, such as China and Pakistan (Bevan, 2015).

The creation and eventual dominance of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh in Nagpur is testament to the influence of Hinduism in India’s politics of identity because it became the focal point for the progression of Indian nationalism (Muhlberger, 1999). The concept of Hinduvta also stemmed from this movement because it strived to unite India under a larger concept of religious nationalism known as, Hindu Rashtra (Sharma, 2003). This thinking dominated most political and religious discussions surrounding the belief of proponents of Hindu nationalism. For example, Hindu nationalistic bodies, such as Bharatiya Janata Party, subscribe to this principle (Sharma, 2003). Part of the arguments informing the thinking of proponents of Hindu nationalism is the revocation of a special status to Muslims and other religious groups, which are accorded to them by Article 370 of the Indian constitution.

Misra (2004) says to understand how Hinduism affected the politics of identity in India, it is important to understand that the concept of Hindu nationalism hinged on three pillars. The first pillar of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) required people who professed an Indian identity to be paternal descendants of the country (Sharma, 2003). However, there was a problem with this description because staunch proponents of Hindutva found this requirement to be wide and unrelated to their religious beliefs (Misra, 2004).

Consequently, they introduced the second pillar of Hindu nationalism, which required Hindu Indians to have a blood connection to the religion (Sharma, 2003). People who were born in the faith found it easy to satisfy this claim. Similarly, people, who were born Hindu, but changed their faith to other religions, say Muslims, also satisfied this criterion. This tenet of Hindu nationalism shows that the concept focused on the importance of being a Hindu, first, before being Indian. The third pillar of Hindu nationalism stipulated that Hindu nationalists had to ascribe to the cultural practices of the faith and of the country (Sharma, 2003). According to some researchers, Hindu radicals proposed this requirement to lock out Muslims who had a Hindu blood connection (Barucco, 2014). Indeed, proponents of Hindutva believed that these Muslims had an alien cultural matrix that did not align with their religious beliefs (Barucco, 2014).

The concept of territoriality emerges in our analysis of the conflict between Muslims and Hindus because many researchers have asked which religious group was rightfully entitled to the geographic location known as India (Heimsath, 2015; Seal, 1971). The Hindus believe that India is rightfully theirs because they occupied the territory before all other religions. Some historical excerpts say that Islam and Hindus share a fatherland known as India (Muhlberger, 1999). However, both religions did not share a holy land in the territory. Although there is little dispute that the concept of Hindutva greatly shaped India’s national identity, it contradicts the views of researchers, such as Heywood, who emphasizes the difficulty of defining the concept of national identity using objective factors alone (Heimsath, 2015).

Influence of Islam

Many historians agree that before India got its independence, Islam was a dominant religious entity in the Asian nation (Muhlberger, 1999). Indeed, according to Muhlberger (1999), Indian nationalist traditions had a structural foundation that formed the bedrock for the formulation of the country’s national identity. The religious tenets and values of Islam partly affected the development of Indian political identity. Early scholars attribute this influence to the years of the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire in northern India (Misra, 2004). During such years, Islamic kingdoms had a lot of influence on India’s military potential. Nonetheless, the ideological foundations of Islam that influenced different facets of India’s political space stemmed from the works of scholars and reformers, such as the Aga Khan and Syed Ameer Ali (Muhlberger, 1999).

Most of the influences of Islam on Indian national identity trace back to the fight for the country’s independence. For example, many Muslim revolutionaries shared the same beliefs of non-violence in the fight for India’s independence as the Hindus did (Sharma, 2003). They also believed in the concept of self-determination. This is perhaps their main point of convergence with their Gandhi and his Hindu counterparts.

However, as history would have it, both religions failed to unify India. Muhlberger (1999) documents several episodes when the campaign for non-violent protests against the British had mixed results as it championed the cause for self-determination, but, at the same time, created animosity between Hindus and Muslims. In fact, there were some episodes of violence where some Muslim peasants killed their Hindu property owners (Muhlberger, 1999). This was a surprising fact at the time because one would think that the followers of both religions would see each other as allies in the face of British colonialism.

Indeed, one would assume that Muslims would rally their Hindu counterparts to create a strong national identity, in post-independence India, but this did not happen. Instead, Muslims created a different political and social outfit, away from the mainstream Indian society (Muhlberger, 1999). Furthermore, their exclusion from the political and social activities of post-independence India forced them to develop the All India Muslim League in 1906 (Seal, 1971). Therefore, proponents of Islamic nationalism traditionally differentiated themselves from the Hindu nationalists and other cadres of people who held different nationalistic views. Nonetheless, this action did not undermine their influence on the political debates that helped shape India’s national identity.

Since India’s pre-independence population was about 30% Islam, proponents of Islamic Nationalism felt that Muslims had a significant role to contribute in the country’s formation of a national identity (Misra, 2004). However, since Muslims were the minority in India, some reformers, such as Allama Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, expressed the need to have a separate national outfit that would promote the prosperity of Muslims in India (Misra, 2004). Concisely, the dawn of independence in India and the dominance of the Hindu religion in the country concerned many Indian Muslims who loathed the idea that they would lose control of their territories to non-Muslims (Seal, 1971). Two options were available to solve this dilemma.

The first one was allowing two countries (territories) to exist in India. The second one hinged on allowing Muslims to govern themselves in their territories (Seal, 1971). The impracticalities of both options made the Muslim League (the main political outfit of Muslims India) to demand cessation from the country (Muhlberger, 1999). Nonetheless, the two-nation theory emerged from the first proposal. It argued that India could have two nations (Islam and Hindu nations). Proponents of this theory believed that these two nations were distinct (Muhlberger, 1999).

However, a different group of Muslim scholars and reformers, led by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, felt that the best way for Muslims to advance their prosperity in India was to participate in the country’s independence movement, as opposed to running away from it by creating two nations (Muhlberger, 1999). However, their views did not gain traction among Indian Muslims because ethnic nationalism became more dominant in the 1970s and not during the 1940s and 1950s when experts made this proposal. Pakistan and Bangladesh emerged as new territories from this conflict. In other words, religious mistrust between the two religions led to the creation of two separate states, which were majorly dominated by one religious entity (Pakistan was mostly Muslim and India is mostly Hindu). Therefore, the two-nation theory prevailed.

The conflicts between Islam and Hindu did not take away the contribution of Islamic nationalism to the creation of India’s political identity (this contribution stems from the animosity between Hindus and Muslims that emerged after the exit of the British). Relative to this fact, historians document the paranoia that affected Hindus and Muslims when Pakistan split from India. More than 16 million people moved between the two territories for safety and more than 200,000 of them died in the process (Muhlberger, 1999).

The religious animosity between the two groups has never ended for more than five decades now. Indeed, mistrust and suspicion still characterize the frosty relations between Pakistan and India. Conversely, Indian nationalism has thrived, partly, on a common “hatred” and mistrust of Muslims. Comprehensively, in its worst form, India’s nationalist tradition was hostile towards Islam and its teachings. At its best, it was ambivalent towards the religion and its followers (Muhlberger, 1999).

Oral history and influences of British colonialists had the greatest influence on the creation of these perceptions. In fact, according to Misra (2004), these two influences were responsible for fashioning the country’s national identity. Contemporary India has since inherited this legacy and incorporated it as one facet of the country’s national identity. Consequently, some researchers believe that these forces have led to the development of an intransigent radical Hindu nationalism in India (Muhlberger, 1999).

Conclusion

This paper has highlighted how religion has influenced the politics of identity in India by demonstrating that Hinduism and Islam have been at the center stage of the nationalism movement in India, since its independence in 1947. It has also shown that the politics of identity in India have developed on the back of conflicts between the two religions. These insights have helped to affirm Erikson’s personality theory, by affirming the influence of the concept of “self” in shaping social identities.

Broadly, India has witnessed the creation of political identities that have been firmly rooted in religious affiliations. Religious nationalist parties, such as Shiromani Akali Dal, are testament to this fact. Indeed, most Indian states have regional political outfits that espouse the religion and culture of the inhabitants. The debate about India’s politics of national identity is useful to the global society because different parts of the world, such as Europe and America, are grappling with identity crises. This is particularly true for members of the European Union (EU) who are struggling to make sense of the convulsions of adopting a European identity, or a national identity.

References

Barucco, A. (2014). National Identity in the Age of Globalization: Changing Patterns of National Identity in India. Web.

Bevan, E. (2015). Indian Nationalism: An Independent Estimate. New York, NY: Forgotten Books.

Heimsath, C. (2015). Indian Nationalism and Hindu Social Reform. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Misra, A. (2004). Identity and Religion: Foundations of Anti-Islamism in India. London, UK: SAGE.

Muhlberger, S. (1999). Islam and Indian Nationalism. Web.

Nehru, J. (2004). The Discovery of India. New Delhi, IN: Penguin Books.

Seal, A. (1971). The Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: CUP Archive.

Sharma, J. (2003). Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism. London, UK: Penguin Viking.

Ünal, F. (2013). The Construction of National Identity in Modern Times: Theoretical Perspective. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(11), 223-232.

Click Here To Order Now!