Religion and Politics #3: Britain, US, and India

Now that we’ve seen the origin/ original meaning of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics, let’s take a quick look at the role of religion in these two groups in some of the major (English speaking) democracies. Why English speaking only? Because those are the countries whose news sites I can read and understand.

 

British politics today shows minimal signs of religion or religious groups having a huge say. (Before you applaud them too much, the keyword there is ‘today’ – in the past, politics and religions have mixed and interfered freely). Though there are signs of rising hatred of Islam in recent times – but that’s more an anti-Islam feeling than a pro-Christianity feeling.

 

In the US, on the other hand, Christianity is projected openly by almost all politicians (Even the Indian origin politicians who made national headlines like Kamala Harris and Bobby Jindal are Christians – it’s hard to find too many non-Christians rising high in American politics). Actually, America politics is entirely Protestant headed. For a 225+ year democracy, the US has only had one non-Protestant as President (Kennedy). The religious groups have been with the political right in American politics, esp. since Ronald Reagan’s times. In American politics then, the right includes a very vociferous and influential religious component.

 

In India, things are very twisted if you go by the definition of left and right we’ve used so far (fast v/s slow change). Harsh Madhusudan and Rajeev Mantri’s A New Idea of India points out that a major fault line today lies not with secularism itself, but with what Nehru described and institutionalized as secularism in India (and his political descendants have continued ever since). The textbook definition of secularism calls for governance that is not be based on religion. And yet Nehru decided against having common civil laws:

“Despite the carving out of Pakistan… in the name of political Islam, and the secessionist insurgency seen in Kashmir due to similar motivations, so-called secular India did not adopt common personal laws.”

The “correctness” of this approach is deeply entrenched today. Today, even the idea of common laws not based on religion (aka Uniform Civil Code) is opposed by those who truly think of themselves as liberal and secular. While those who support common laws not based on religion are called communal! Go figure:

“(This is) an Orwellian kind of secularism.”

The term “Orwellian” is apt here: having religion in governance is being called secularism. Black just became white. Orwell couldn’t have imagined a more dystopian world. Unfortunately, this continues beyond just laws, and extends to benefit schemes and reservations.

“Any government that creates minority religion-based schemes and reservations – it would be baffling how these are termed ‘secular’.”

 

When the BJP doesn’t field Muslim candidates in an election, the left goes up in arms. Why exactly? Where does it say that one must field candidates in a constituency based on the religious demographic of that constituency?

“The ‘secular’ intellectuals derided the BJP as ‘communal’ for not fielding Muslim candidates during elections, not realizing that their demand was akin to Jinnah’s demand for separate electorates.”

Ironical? Hypocritical? Dumb? You decide.

 

In India then, we have this weird situation where the left are generally status-quo’ists. The left in India has have rarely done any quick changes, except when things are on the brink of collapse (e.g. liberalization). Which, as we see, is the opposite of the origin of the term ‘left’, who were defined as the ones who wanted fast changes!

 

This is why the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are so confusing today – they mean very different things in different democracies today. Trying to glean another country’s politics based on what these terms means in one’s own country is totally misleading.