Political Responses to Religious Diversity in Ancient and Modern India
| Published date | 01 June 2013 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2321023013482786 |
| Date | 01 June 2013 |
| Author | Rajeev Bhargava |
| Subject Matter | Article |
A Global Threat
Article
2121
Political Responses to Religious
Studies in Indian Politics
1(1) 21–41
Diversity in Ancient and Modern India1
© 2013 Lokniti, Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
Rajeev Bhargava
DOI: 10.1177/2321023013482786
http://inp.sagepub.com
Abstract
One of the distinctive features of the Indian sub-continent is its rich religious diversity. This article exam-
ines two political responses to religious diversity, one, in third century bce and the other in the middle of
the last century as India became independent from British colonial rule. In Ancient India, Emperor Asoka
issued edicts that advised people of all religious faiths to live together and claimed that the condition
of sociability are fulfilled by all religious perspectives as each values self-restraint and self-purification.
In the public arena, this translates into restraint of speech and civility towards one another. Modern
India presented an entirely different scenario. Here the state had to respond to well demarcated, often
conflicting religious communities, each of whom, was at least partially committed to freedom and
equality-oriented reforms. This necessitated that the state take a somewhat combative stance
towards both inter and intra-religious domination. The article argues that the only way in which to
undermine these forms of domination is that the state adopts a policy of principled distance towards
all religions.
Keywords
Restraint of speech (vacaguti), pasanda (followers of a path), toleration, secularism, religious diversity,
inter and intra-religious domination, religion–state separation, principled distance
The fact of India’s rich diversity is widely registered, as also the general evaluation that its historical
record in managing religious diversity has not been bad. Less understood is how this was achieved in the
past or reproduced now. Even lesser known is what this really means, what the extent and depth of such
achievement is.
In this article, I hope to explore the conceptual resources in India to properly deal with religious diver-
sity. What are contemporary India’s moral expectations in response to religious plurality? To answer this
I present what, in my view, is the best interpretation of constitutional secularism in India. Furthermore,
I view it as an imaginative and morally defensible response to the specific conditions of inter-religious
conflict in a country on the verge of political independence. I do not intend this account to be historically
accurate or exhaustive but I hope that the broad contours I draw here provide some explanation of the
nature of Indian secularism. The allusion to a historical narrative is more to make my account of secular-
ism plausible and less to capture the history of that period in detail. I don’t want the reader to forget that
this article is an exercise in political theory not history.
Rajeev Bhargava
India Quarterly
is Director, CSDS, Delhi. E-mail: rbhargav4@gmail.com.
, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149
22
Rajeev Bhargava
Indeed, my ambition is somewhat monumental. I wish to take the reader back into time to almost
2500 years ago. Here, I focus on political responses to religious diversity in Emperor Asoka’s reign. I do
this in order to give the reader a glimpse into one of ancient India’s best normative assessments of reli-
gious differences. Some clarification is required with even greater urgency in this context. I do not wish
to convince the reader that Asokan Empire was a pre-cursor to modern Indian secularism. I am not sug-
gesting that there is historical continuity or connectedness between ancient and modern responses to
religious diversity. Even if some continuities exist, it is not my intention to demonstrate them. My objec-
tive is served if the reader is adequately convinced that there are at least two distinct responses in the
collective repertoire of India from which all of us might draw some suitable lessons to manage religious
diversity today. Undoubtedly, many more responses, from within (for example, Akbar) India and outside
it (for example, the Ottoman Empire), can enrich this rather meagre stock but I focus quite arbitrarily on
these two which I find deeply interesting and innovative. Since most societies today are characterized by
religious diversity, we might ask if such experiments with religious diversity hold a lesson for other simi-
larly placed societies.
Religious Diversity and Domination
What does religious diversity mean? We might first distinguish between diversity of religion (External)
and diversity within religion (Internal).
External diversity exists when different co-existing religions, each with a distinct identity of its own,
exist within a single society. Examples include Israel with Jews, Muslims and Christians or contempo-
rary European Societies with Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs and India which has always
had multiple religious communities.
Internal diversity also takes two forms. The core beliefs, values and practices of any religion are
invariably interpreted and elaborated differently by different sub-groups within a religion. This increas-
ing internal differentiation creates a horizontal diversity that could cut very deep, creating schisms that
often lead to bitter wrangling and sometimes violent conflict. Examples include Protestants and Catholics,
the many denominations within Protestantism, or within Islam, Shias, Sunnis. Ismailis, Ahmedis etc.
Likewise, Hindus could be seen to be differentiated into Vaishnavites, Shaivites and so on. Such internal
diversity is fairly well recognized. Less acknowledged is what might be called vertical or hierarchical
diversity. Sometime during the course of the evolution of religions, some people are barred from partici-
pating in its mainstream rituals and practices. Over time, such groups are compelled to develop their own
beliefs and practices that stand within an overall relation of subordination to the mainstream. They pos-
sess less or no value in relation to dominant practices and beliefs. Such powerless groups develop their
own distinct modes of religiosity within an overarching system from which they have little escape. Thus
people of the same religion engage in diverse practices that are hierarchically arranged. For example,
caste-ridden Hinduism makes a distinction between pure and impure practices. Practices performed by
certain castes are pure, and members of other castes are excluded from them. For instance, women or
dalits may not be allowed entry into the inner sanctum of temples and in many cases even into the pre-
cincts of an upper-caste temple.
This example already brings home a point that I ought to have made at the very outset of this discus-
sion. Every form of diversity, including religious diversity, is enmeshed in power relations. If so, endemic
Studies in Indian Politics, 1, 1 (2013): 21–41
Political Responses to Religious Diversity in Ancient and Modern India
23
to every religiously diverse society is an illegitimate use of power whereby the basic interests of one
group are threatened by the actions of another. It further follows that inherent in religiously diverse
societies is the possibility of both inter-religious and intra-religious domination—a broad term that
encompasses discrimination, marginalization, oppression, exclusions, humiliation and the reproduction
of hierarchy.2
To sum up, most societies are marked by religious diversity in each of the three forms specified
above. Endemic to these diversities is intra- and inter-religious domination. A society deals well with
religious diversity when it manages to continually reduce both these forms of domination. Its record in
managing diversity is bad when it allows or fosters institutionalized religious domination. However, the
reader may notice that though its success in handling religious diversity presupposes that it has the con-
ceptual resources to do so, its failure does not automatically entail that it has no such resources. To be
sure, without such resources, a society is destined to fail. But institutionalized religious domination
might grow because such resources are neglected, ignored, deliberately suppressed and so on.
Modern India
Modern India provides one such instance of a society mishandling the cohabitation of its many religious
groups, despite the vast resources it possesses to ensure that they all flourish. Such mismanagement
occurred, wittingly or unwittingly under colonial rule. But it continues to happen in India even after
independence. How can such mishandling be reduced? How did newly independent India imagine the
political response to problems endemic to religious diversity?
As India came closer to its independence from British colonial rule, sadly it became more and more
deeply divided. By 1940s, vocal sections of the Muslim elites had raised the demand for a separate
nation–state, Pakistan, paranoid that a nation based on universal adult franchise would not only be
Hindu but invariably have a Hindu state, detrimental to Islam and to sub-continental Muslims.
This demand was part of and in response to the majority–minority syndrome, a condition of spiralling
estrangement between Hindus and Muslims, one where animosities between groups circulate freely,
adding layers upon layers of mutual...
To continue reading
Request your trial