3711.pdf

Media

extracted text
Religion and Politics
The Debate at the end
of the Century

luly, 1995

The Second M.A. THOMAS MEMORIAL LECTURE

RELIGION AND POLITICS - THE DEBATE AT THE END
OF THE CENTURY

by NINAN KOSHY

I consider it a great honour to have been invited to give the Second
Rev.Dr.M.A.Thomas Memorial Lecture. I had the privilege of
associating myself with Achen over a long period. I value most the
privilege of encouragement and support I received from him. 1 owe
to him a great debt of gratitude.

I have chosen to speak on "Religion and Politics - The Debate at
the End of the Century". The relationship between religion and
politics has emerged as one of the most crucial issues of our times.
This is an important issue globally and in our nation. However this is
a highly complex issue and we can hope to look only at some aspects
of it.

In choosing the topic 1 had another important consideration. Achen
was involved in politics, in the broader sense of the term. He believed
that Christian faith demands involvement in politics. At crucial stages
in the life of the nation he took clear positions in a public manner on
the basis of his Christian faith. The courageous stance he took during
the Emergency in India is particularly remembered.

In the address that Achen gave on the occasion of the Diamond
Jubilee Celebrations of the West Bengal Christian Council in January

0

1984. he recalled J.H.Oldham, one of the founders of the ecumenical
movement who had said "A return to religion is a return to politics".
And Achen added. " a true church cannot escape political
involvement".

That is why 1 chose the topic religion and politics.

The title speaks of the debate at the end of the century. Thc debate
is about a new relationship, a new equation, a new nexus between
religion and politics. This new relationship seems to be in the
process of evolution.

According to the historian Eric Hobsbawm, the twentieth century
has already come to an end. His recent book "The.Age of Extremes.
The Short Twentieth Century" says that the century began with the
First World War in 1914 and ended with the collapse of the Soviet
Union in 1991, There can be no doubt that in the late 1980s and early
1990s an era in world history ended and a new era began. So in a
way we are talking about religion and politics at the beginning of a
new era rather than at the end of a century.

Today the term religion and politics conjures up before us
dramatic and disturbing images in Bosnia, Algeria. Rwanda. Sudan,
India and a host of other countries. The new debate on religion and
politics is so intense in many parts of the world that political
discourse invariably has to deal with religion, though most often in
negative terms. In ethnic conflicts, in the challenge to the secular
state, in the new manifestations of nationalism, in the political
developments of a number of countries and in international relations,
religion plays an important part. In India.
Ayodhya to the uniform civil code.

3711
P.JS-/0O

3
One might speak of a religionisation of war in the recent period.
More than any other war of the twentieth century, the Gulf War
called forth a profusion of moral argument and religious discourse.
President George Bush made explicit and persistent use of the
concepts of'just war' tradition in justifying his policies in the Gulf and
religiously legitimising the political decision to go to war. Fie struck
a religious posture during the war in public addresses, meetings
with Christian evangelists, prayer breakfasts and proclamations
of special days of prayer.

Saddam Hussain who for years had styled Iraq as a secular state
affected a holy war posture against the US in calling for Arab
solidarity in ajihad.

In the United States aT.V. evangelist dressed up in desert battle
fatigue eloquently spoke about the war against Iraq and compared it
with the spiritual war against the devil. The Palestinian Islamic
movement Hamas said that the war was another episode in the fight
between good and evil, a Christian plot against our religion, our
civilization, our land. On both sides there was demonisation of the
enemy.
The struggle between religion and politics is age-old. Both are
about power though not necessarily about the same kind of power.
But their roles as they deal with human affairs have always been over­
lapping. Both often vie for the same territory. The contest varies in
nature and intensity from time to time and from country to country.
Both religion and politics can make absolutist claims. Both can be
totalitarian.
In the early stages of human society the influence of religion
was all-embracing - economics, ethics, law, philosophy, art,
architecture, food-all were controlled and determined by religion.

4
But as society evolved and the political expression of the state
developed, lines had to be drawn and new equations had to be
found. In the process both religion and politics have manipulated

each other.

Are we at a new stage in human history when new equations are
emerging and some lines may be disappearing? - If so what are the
reasons?

Throughout the world there are several conflicts, many of them
violent, in which religion is a factor, though not necessarily the cause
or origin. Massive human rights abuses, wars, atrocities and
genocide continue. At the same time movements for freedom and
reform have brought new life to millions. These too, often, have a
religious dimension. The map of the world has changed radically and
so has the pattern of events. There is a sense that what is happening
in the world is a siesmic shift in the dynamics of war, the direction of
history and perhaps in the very destiny of humanity. The rapidity and
the seemingly chaotic quality of events often defy explanation. Steep
waves of violence caused by the invisible currents and winds of change,
erupt in far-flung places for seemingly different reasons. In many of
these places an accusing finger is raised against religion.

How do we look at this historical context in which the new debate
on religion and politics takes place?

The Cold War ended. The demise of the Soviet Union which came
about soon after also broke up the largest multinational state. Other
multinational states also broke up. The nation-state entered a new
crisis, some said it was terminal. In many countries nation-building
ailed. New struggles for self-determination, national and sub-national
i entity emerged; old struggles were revived. Ethnic struggles

5
proliferated. All these also brought new dimensions into the
discussions on national sovereignity, legitimacy and territorial
intergrity. Boundaries of states considered almost sacrosanct after
the Second World War were redrawn. But there was no international
system or powers that could impose or enforce the new boundaries.

Thus for the first time in two centuries the world of the 1990s
lacked any international system or structure. The very fact that after
1989 dozens of new territorial states appeared without any
independent mechanism for determining their borders speaks for
itself.

Where are the borders between Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia? Where
is the boundary of Azerbarjan? Why is Georgia independent but not
Chechanya? Historical memory and claims are intertwined with
religious memory and sentiments.

The new debate on religion and politics takes place at a time of
crisis of the nation-state. Since the French revolution, nationalism
has been the main spiritual and emotional force cementing all the
elements of statehood into nation-states which have become the
typical political unit. Like all great popular faiths, nationalisms
require invention of symbols, heroes, even martyrs.

Not every nation has its own state. There may be several nations
in one state. A nation may be divided into two or more states
(formerly Germany, still Korea).

Nation, one may say, is an elastic concept; its elasticity has three
dimensions; cultural, political and psychological. The cultural and
political dimension can be assessed by internally observable criteria.

6
Stalin’s definition of nation, in terms of historical continuity, shared
culture and common language, is still useful.
A subjective definition describes nationalism as 'a state of mind'. It
is a feeling that one belongs to a nation. In India during the
independence movement nationalism was called territorial national­
ism, the sense that all who live in the territory of India belong to the
nation irrespective of religion. Renan's 1882 description of the nation
as 'soul', 'a spiritual principal whose existence is a daily plebiscite' is
often quoted.

There has been a failure of nation-building in many countries. Large
sections, especially ethnic groups feel they do not belong to the
nation. The process of state building has marginalised many sections.
The role of nation-state has also been challenged by other actors
on the scene. There have been threats inside and outside. The free
market poses challenge to the state often from outside through
transitional economic forces. Ethnicity poses challenge from inside.
Secularism in terms of separation of religion and state has been the
ideological ally of the nation state. Today both secularism and the
nation state are under threat.

A secular state is one that guarantees individual and corporate
freedom of religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular
religion and does not seek either to promote or interfere with
religion.

In the relation between religion and state five aspects of religion
aie important. First, the view of history taken by a religion ; whether

7
human history is regarded as real and important. Second, attitude of a
leligion to other religions. Third, the capacity a given religion has
demonstrated tor effective eclesiastial organization. Fourth, his­
torical traditions of separation or fusion of political and religious func­
tions. Fifth, the extent to which a religion has tended to regulate social
life.

The opposition to the secular state in many countries is that it is
Western. That it is Western in origin is not denied. But it has been
conveniently adapted to particular situations and clearly accepted in
many regions as a legitimate expression of indigenous sentiments.
Historians like Dr. S. Gopal maintain that secularism has strong roots
in India.

One prominent Christian theologian has suggested long ago that
the idea of secular basis for politics is not only culturally European
but specifically Christian. In "Christianity in World History" Arend
Theodor van Leeuwen argued that secularism in the sense
of separation of religious and temporal spheres for political
organization of the state was Christianity's gift to the world.

Today it is interesting to hear Hindu nationalists and Muslim
nationalists, without any reference to the ideas of van Leeuwen,
reject secularism on the basis of the argument that it is essentially
Christian. The secular state is opposed because it is perceived to be
Western and Christian and as part of the package of modernization
from the west.

The secular state seems to be under threat in many countries. It
appears that religion defines nationalism and provides its basis in a
number of situations. Many believe that religious nationalism has
emerged as the biggest challenge to the secular state.

8

"The New Cold War" by Mark Juergensmeyer is about the
confrontation between religious nationalism and the secular state. He
says that one of the features of the new world order is the resurgence
of identities based on ethnic and parochial religious allegiance.

We hear a lot about ex-Yugoslavia and the 'ethnic cleansing' there.
Nationality there is closely linked to ethnicity and religion. 'Ethnic
cleansing’ is a sanitized European term for genocide. One is made to
feel that some purifying process is going on whereas what happens is
killings, rapes and other atrocities.
The term gives also the
impression that 'cleansing' is on ethnic lines. This is not true. In a way
the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims in Bosnia are ail Slaves. The
vast majority of Bosnian Muslims are actually Serbs.Religion is mis­
used in the war to gain territory.The Bosnian Serb Leader speaks of
"fighting against Muslims to defend Western Christian Civilization'.
He claims to be a nationalist fighting against fundamentalists.
There is an impression that there is a world-wide religious
resurgence and this has led to political mobilization on religious lines.
Is this correct?

In the 1950's and 60's it was fashionable to speak about
secularization and the decline of religion. Western theologians joined
sociologists in arguing that modernization would weaken or even de­
stroy religion's grip over traditional cultures, reduce the political sig­
nificance of religion and diminish individual attachment to religious
values.
Haivey Cox eloquently described what happened to these
theories. In 1965, he wrote a book called 'The Secular City' about the
world of declining religion. In his book 'Religion in the Secular City'
in the early eighties he admitted that rather than an era of rampant
secularization and religious decline it appears to be more of an era of

9

religious revival and the return of the sacred. Some commented that
'the gods have come back with a vengeance'.

Many observers saw religious resurgence as a response to crisis
that stems from the inconclusive modernizing efforts of secular elites
in the third world, growing disillusionment with secular nationalism.
problem of legitimacy, and political oppression.

Two important qualifications are called for here. One is about the
limits of religious resurgence. The belief that we are witnessing a
global revival of religion with far-reaching political consequence has
to be qualified by careful analysis.

The other, perhaps more important qualification, is that the
resurgence is largely political. Or rather than the revival of religion
what we are witnessing is a political revival in the name of religion.
In theory the distinction may not apply so much to Islam, the political
dimension of which occupies the centerstage in the current debate.

This may be the place to examine in some detail what is usually
known as 'Islamic fundamentalism'.

Religious fundamentalism is a much discussed term. There is
however a serious problem of definition. Religious fundamentalism
as known today is basically a media term, used in a variety of
meanings, which has gained some academic respectabiltiy. This is an
issue which has to be addressed with sensitivity and care.

The general impression is that it is a global phenomenon of increas­
ing importance in international relations.lt has to be mentioned that

10
what is often referred to as a global reality is not religious
fundamentalism in general but specifically Islamic fundamentalism.
This perception is contributed largely by Western preoccupation with
the politics of Islamic countries and Islamic movements. This has
much to do with the predicament of the West and its political agenda.

Fundamentalism stems from the attempt of a group of
conservative Protestants in the USA early in the century to define
what they held to be the fundamentals of Christianity.
The
terms 'fundamentalism' and 'fundamentalists' were originally coined
in 1920 by a US Baptist and harked back to a set of 12 booklets of
essays entitled 'the fundamentals'.These essays defended conservative
Christianity against liberal views in addressing such topics as
scriptural authority. Christology and evangelism. The term is too much
loaded with Christian presuppositions and Western sterotypes and has
serious limitations when applied to other religions and across cultures.

The term fundamentalism is used to describe political movements
in which there is the use of religion, its symbols, motifs and
scriptures for political purposes. But it is important to note that it is a
selective use.

Two examples may be useful. In former Yugoslavia, Serbs who
use symbols of Christianity and specifically that of Orthodox
Christianity are called nationalists. Muslims who defend their nation
are called fundamentalists.

During the time of the intifada (uprising) of the Palestinians, as a
result of the repressive measures of the Israeli authorities, often the
mosque provided the only facility for communication among those in
the struggle. The media often used the term fundamentalists to
describe sections of Palestinians.
<

11

In the late seventies and early eighties in many countries of Latin
America and Asia (Korea and Philippines) and in the late eighties in
East Germany, churches provided the space for protest, dissent and
communication. But the Christians involved were not known as
fundamentalists. They are radicals, reformers, democrats and
liberationists.

Fundamentalist Islam is portrayed today as the new enemy of the
West.

Islamic political movements are called fundamentalists and
fundamentalism is equated with militancy and militancy with
terrorism.When the Oklahoma federal building in the US was bombed
it was immediately assumed to be the work of Islamic
fundamentalists.There was considerable disappointment in some
sections especially of the media in the USA and Israel when it was
found that the bomb was actually planted by home - grown right wing extremists. At one time the phobia used to be 'a red under every
bed'. Today it is 'a Muslim behind every bomb'.

However the conceptualization of an Islamic fundamentalist threat
does not sit well with the reality of the situation. It does not seem to
be based on a clear understanding of either the nature of the Islamic
faith and the radical movements it has given rise to or of the social
and economic conditions in the countries concerned.

The term Islamic fundamentalism is ambiguous. It is all too often
employed in the same simplistic all-embracing and emotive fashion
as the term communism once was and it falls far too short of
capturing the reality of the complex social movements. It has mainly

12
within the Muslim World; those who have used Islam merely as a
cover for violent anti-western action that cannot find justification
within the bounds of Islamic dictates and those who have used Islam
as an active ideology both of resistance and assertion and
repudiated foreign ideologies as unworkable.

The ambiguity and inadequacy of the term Islamic fundamentalism
are illustrated when the term is applied to governments of Libya and
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran.

What does that really tell us about these states other than the fact
that their leaders have used Islam to legitimate their rule or policies?
Quaddafi of Libya has claimed the right to interpret Islam, questioned
the authenticity of the tradition of Prophet Mohammed, silenced the
religious establishment as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and
advocated populist state of the masses. To the United States Libya is
fundamentalist and terrorist. Rulers of Saudi Arabia by contrast have
aligned themselves with the 'ulama' (the clergy) preached a more
literalist and rigorous brand of Islam and used religion to legitimate a
conservative monarchy. It is definitely the most fundamentalist of all
the regimes in the region. As someone commented Saudi Arabia may
be fundamentalist but it is our own fundamentalist. Pakistan became
constitutionally 'Islamic fundamentalist1 two years before the Islamic
revolution succeeded in Iran. But USA continued its friendship
with Pakistan while it became hostile to Iran.

Washington thus draws a distinction between those Islamic forces
it cannot influence and therefore rejects as enemies and those it can
influence and therefore embraces as friends and allies. So there seems
to be nice fundamentalists and bad fundamentalists. I have already
mentioned that the use of the term fundamentalism in relation to
political activism inspired or undergirded by religion is selective in the

13

sense that it is usually applied only to Muslims. The one exception
may be Christian fundamentalists in the USA. In the begining the
fundamentalist in the USA did not deal with politics. Even today,
Christian fundamentalists in many parts of the world are apolitical.
But in the late twentieth century Christian fundamentalists in the USA
are playing an increasingly visible role in support of right-wing
policies domestically and internationally. At the moment they are
making a concerted effort to 'capture' the platform of the
Republican convention prior to the Presidential elections.

A perceptive analysis by Ashis Nandy is very helpful here. He
says that each religion in South Asia perhaps all over Southern
hemisphere as split into two: faith and ideology. By ideology he means
religion as a sub-national or cross-national identities of populations
contesting for or protecting non-religious, usually political or
socio-economic interests.

This analysis helps to explain the fact that it is often misleading to
describe 'religious' nationalist movement or other so-called 'religious’
political movements as religions. Only in a few cases are they linked
to main stream religious organizations or theological thought. Many
of them just use or misuse religion for political ends.. It is often
politics that decides and not religion.

Nandy's analysis also helps us to understand communalism.
Communalism is the political mobilization on the basis of the
ideology of religion. It has little to do with faith.

There are several popular misconceptions or half-truths in India
about religion as a result of a shallow debate on secularism.

14

It is said that religion is a private affair or personal affair. There
are at least two difficulties about this proposition. First of all
Christians and for that matter followers of many religions do not
accept that religion is a private affair. Our relation with God has its
implications for our relations with our neighbours. It affects our
relations to society. It has a societal chaiactei. Secondly, most
constitutions including the Indian constitution and international law
provides for religious freedom individually and corporately making
it-a public affair. Perhaps it is the only fundamental human right
which is both individual and corporate.

The second misconception is that all religions are equal. When
we discuss the secular state, all what we have to say is that all
religions are equal before the law. There are no discriminations on
the basis of religion. Whether they are equal or not in their essence is
a different discussion.

The third misconception is that religion has nothing to do with
politics. Politics is usually defined as just elections and political
parties. Politics is a large process. Politics is an area in which
decisions about our lives are made, decisions about people, about
their needs, their aspirations. When we talk about politics we are
talking not just about elections but about the institutions, about the
mechanism, about the values which are the basis of this process.
Religion should not be used for sectarian political ends or to capture
political power. That is different from saying that relgion has nothing
to do with politics. Religion has much to do with ethics and morals
in public life including politics.

When the Prime Minister of India and other leaders spoke of
delinking religion and politics during the introduction of two bills in
the parliament two years ago, to them religion appeared to be nothing

15

more than communalism or misuse of religion and politics nothing
more than elections.

Religion in the recent past has also shown its capacity for social
transformation and liberation. In the struggle for human rights in Latin
America, in the heroic fight against apartheid in South Africa, in the
expansion of freedom in several countries of Eastern Europe, in the
movements for peace and disarmament in a large number of social
action groups around the world, sections of the churches and other
religious bodies and thousands inspired by faith have been actively
engaged.

As Raimundo Panikkar says politics is always more, or other than
just 'politics’. Religion is always less or other than religion. But the
manipulation by the one or the other is equally self-destructive of
both religion and politics.

How do we express our Christian concern in politics today? In the
fifties and sixties we spoke of Christian participation in nation­
building. That formulation may not be appropriate now. Today not
only new formulations but new forms of witness are called for.

We are living at a time of crisis of institutions and crisis of
governance. The nation-state in India also is in a crisis and there is a
withdrawal of state from social issues.

Politics is an inescapable duty. It is no service therefore to
denigrate politics nor to be starry-eyed about. To be non-political or
neutral in the sense of doing nothing is tacitly to support the status
quo and to do so irresponsibly without thinking about it.

16

Politics is decisive in the lives of people, and it is one realm in
which a Christian can visibly express faith. It is an important
vocation for the individual Christian and for the churches.
Obedience to the gospel demands such an expression of faith. The
church must always emphazize the necessary and useful nature of
politics while pointing out its temporal and relative character.

It is in that sense that J.H.Oldham spoke of return to religion as a
return to politics.

We need a new discussion of religion and politics in this country.
That should involve a new discussion on secularism. Secularism in
India has to be a secularism that takes religions and religious
traditions seriously.

That discussion should also involve a redefinition of, a
reconceptionalisation of both religion and politics. We have to speak
in a language of faith that is not domestic. We have to see politics in
the larger perspective. We need to have faith in politics.

It is in that sense that M. A.Thomas Achen understood the role of
faith in politics. He acted accordingly. The best tribute that we can
pay to Achen, whose memory we honour today, is to uphold faith in
politics.

Starting his career in 1958 as a college lecturer
in Kerala after graduating from the Agra
University.
Ninan
Koshy
was General
Secretary of the Student Christian Movement of
India (1968-73) and Director-in-charge of the
Ecumenical Christian Centre (1973-74) before
joining the staff of the World Council of Churches
(WCC) in Geneva.

He served as the Director, Commission of the
Churches on International Affairs, World
Council of Churches (1981-1991) and was a
Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Law School for
an year soonafter retiring from the WCC.
Religious Freedom in a Changing World (1992)
and Churches in a World of Nations (1994) are
two of the six books he has authored besides
several articles and commentaries. He was
conferred the Degree of Doctor of Divinity
(Honoris Causa) by the Serampore College,
Calcutta in 1995.

Ninan Koshy now lives in Trivandrum and is
associated as one of the Visiting Faculty of
the National Law School University, Bangalore
offering courses in Human Rights.

Position: 2612 (2 views)