Political actors weaponising religion through the assertion of majoritarianism

By Osman Sher* 

Historian Arnold Toynbee, in his book "Mankind and Mother Earth," observes: "In most periods of the history of the Indian subcontinent the Indians have felt more concern about religion than about politics and economics." A survey of history, beginning in the mid-sixth century BC, when recorded history emerged in the Indian subcontinent with the establishment of Bimbisara's rule in southern Bihar, confirms the truth of this observation. This phenomenon continued through the eras of the Mauryas, Kushanas, Guptas, Vardhanas, Muslim rulers, the British, and into the present day.

The subcontinent has been exceptionally fertile in the sphere of religion. It has given birth to four of the world's major religions—Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. Kabir Panth may be regarded as a fifth indigenous faith, although it never flourished on a comparable scale.

But what exactly is religion?

Human beings are born fragile, weak, and helpless, entirely dependent on others for survival. They fear their surroundings, yet the presence of their parents gives them a sense of security. Consequently, they seek their company, obey them, love them, and revere them. This instinct has existed since the earliest times.

Similarly, early humans living in the wilderness felt vulnerable before the overwhelming forces of nature. The vastness of the universe, the rising and setting of the sun, the darkness of night, prowling predators, harsh weather, thunder, storms, fierce winds, forest fires, and disease all contributed to a profound sense of helplessness. Gradually, they came to perceive nature as possessing powers far beyond their own. These sublime and formidable forces were elevated to the realm of the divine. Seeking protection, they began to venerate them, hoping to win their favor.

Thus, in their helplessness, humans found religion. It established a reciprocal relationship: devotion and submission on one side, protection and blessing on the other. Whether there was one deity or many, the divine was expected to guide humanity through moral principles communicated by sages and prophets. Religion thereby became an instrument of social cohesion, ethical conduct, self-restraint, and respect for order.

As the eighteenth-century American revolutionary and philosopher Thomas Paine wrote, "Religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy." If a person lives by these principles, restrains selfish impulses, and disciplines wayward desires, religion exists with or without belief in a deity.

Throughout history, the Indian subcontinent has attracted wanderers, settlers, traders, raiders, conquerors, and colonizers, who brought with them different cultures, customs, religions, and languages. Yet the country generally demonstrated remarkable resilience and an extraordinary capacity for coexistence. At the highest levels, rulers often sought to maintain equilibrium among communities despite the inevitable struggles for political power and the brutalities that sometimes accompanied them. At the social level, mutual affection, sympathy, understanding, cooperation, and shared living usually prevailed, enriching the larger fabric of society. This spirit of togetherness became one of the principal forces behind the growth of Indian civilization and nationhood.

It may fairly be said that religion was seldom used by either the state or the people as an instrument of separatism. It was the British who first weaponised religion in India. They promoted the notion that Indians constituted two separate nations based on religion and governed the country accordingly. Although their objective was to prolong British rule, the policy undermined religion's essential purpose: fostering a harmonious society.

Instead of remaining united in the struggle for independence, Indians became increasingly divided, consumed by communal rivalries and competing claims over rights and privileges. Indeed, British rule was prolonged, and the colonial administration departed only after the Second World War had so weakened Britain that it could no longer maintain its global empire.

The weaponisation of religion also produced enduring and destructive consequences. Before British rule, India had never witnessed communal intolerance on the scale that later emerged. Colonial policies fostered deep hostility between Hindus and Muslims, resulting in recurring communal violence of unimaginable magnitude. The poison proved so enduring that it continues to produce periodic outbreaks of bloodshed.

Most tragically, these policies culminated in the Partition of the subcontinent on religious lines. Partition did not merely divide territory; it fractured rivers and mountains, disrupted established communities, severed cultural traditions, split languages and literature, and shattered countless hearts and minds. Encouraged by this precedent, dissatisfied communities and sectarian groups in both successor states have repeatedly invoked the politics of separate nationalism, threatening further fragmentation.

Today, religion is once again being weaponised—not by foreign rulers with no attachment to the land, but by our own political actors through the assertion of majoritarianism. Ironically, they seem oblivious to the example set by the greatest emperor of this very land, the Buddhist Asoka. His Rock Edict XII proclaims:

"On such occasions one should honour another man's sect, for by doing so one increases the influence of one's own sect and benefits that of the other man's; while, by doing otherwise, one diminishes the influence of one's own sect and harms the other man's."

Equally striking is the resemblance between today's divisive politics and the methods employed by British colonial administrators. Jagdish Narayan Sarkar, in his book "History of History Writing in India," described the colonial interpretation of Indian history in these words:

"In their books the advent of Islam in India was too closely associated with the conquests of the Turks, the Afghans and the Mughals; military and political contentions amongst the rulers were generally presented as religious issues, and the offensive character of Muslim rule was given a false prominence and described as tyrannical and oppressive. The wealth of culture and spiritual values that came in the wake of the conquests and by non-militant Muslim immigrants were relegated to the background, and the catalytic effects of Islamic institutions on the existing social and intellectual conditions were overlooked; the significance of their endeavors and contributions to synthesize Hindu and Muslim legacies was minimized; and the fact that it was the joint efforts of Hindus and Muslims that gave rise to one of the world's greatest civilizations was almost completely ignored."

The lesson of history is unmistakable. Religion, when understood as a moral force, binds societies together; when manipulated for political ends, it tears them apart. India's greatest strength has always lain in its civilizational capacity for coexistence. To weaponise religion is not merely to betray that heritage—it is to endanger the very foundations of the nation.

---

*Former diplomat based in New York