Feb 8, 2022. Updated: Jan 20, 2024.

Part of "Bhārata, that is India" series

Religious Conflicts in Bhārata

Contrary to popular belief, all religious communities in Bhārata live in peace with each other, almost all the time. The irony of religious conflicts in Bhārata is that the smallest minorities such as the Buddhists and Zoroastrians have had no conflicts with the majority Hindus; only the Muslims and Christians have had, thus proving that the cause of these conflicts is not majoritarianism, but something else.

Every religious conflict carries two traits, the first of which is that almost all of them are reactions to or have a basis in earlier conflicts, which too are reactions to or have basis in much earlier conflicts. The first step is for both communities to revisit the past, reconcile with it in an acceptable manner and agree on the future.

The second trait is that the friction starts among a tiny section of the concerned communities, and as it grows, it manifests in regrettable statements and violent conflicts. This friction aggravates and tribalises the concerned community members even though they didn't have anything to do with the cause of the conflict, or with those who caused it. It is hard to tackle this tendency.

There are few things that I believe is at the centre of religious conflicts, whether of recent times or of centuries back. I have listed them below and they must be addressed with utmost seriousness by their own community members.

• Religious states
• Hyper sensitivity
• Proselytism and conversion
• Appeasement politics

Religious States

Political Islam, including the campaign for an Islamic state, has and continues to cause deep concerns not just for the Hindus, but for others as well, including few Muslims. The threats of political Islam are indeed genuine, with dedicated organisations actively functioning with this objective in the nation.

Many expect the Hindus to forget the past experiences of political Islam or Islamic fanaticism and move on. This expectation disregards human nature. They say, "Why dig graves?", as in the discussion of Kashmiri Pandits. We must dig graves because history is not something to be buried deep down under and forgotten. It is something to be remembered, studied and their lessons assimilated. If justice is yet to be delivered to anyone, it must be delivered. Else, society will accumulate the debt of justice and mature gradually only to see it deliver itself in an undesirable manner.

Others ask, "Why not leave the past as the past and move on?", as in the case of temple reclamations. I agree with the idea so long as the past is indeed the past. It is illogical to call past past when the spoils of certain injustices are still enjoyed by certain group today, such as the active use of Hindu temples conquered by Islamic fanaticism, as mosques; or the active use of mosques constructed by destroying Hindu temples. It is not surprising that the Hindus feel the burn when Bhāratīya Muslims offer namaz in these structures that were once sacred places to the Hindus, some more scared than the others, but was lost to Islamic fanaticism.

It will be reconciliatory if the Muslims return these structures to the Hindus for the restoration of their temples, and in return the Hindus join the Muslims in building their new mosques; not because they lack the resources for it, but as a gesture of goodwill and harmony. And until the Muslims make such a move, there must not be another incident like the destruction of Babri Masjid, the destruction of which was a grave mistake, whether conspired or otherwise.

The fact is, almost all Muslims realise the moral responsibility in returning these structures (as far as I have seen and heard). However, certain Muslims and leftists with vested interests work against such reconciliation.

Violence can help achieve certain goals, but harmony between already conflicted communities isn't one of them. Acts such as the demolition of Babri Masjid, lynching of a Muslim on the suspicion of carrying beef (or even indeed for carrying beef), vandalism of Hindu temples as recent as the Chandni Chowk temple in Delhi, are not just counter productive to harmony, but also idiotic, fanatic, unjust and counter productive not just to the reconciliation of Hindus and Muslims, but also to the re-integration of Pakistan and Bangladesh with Bhārata as well.

Worst of all, it is the ordinary citizens, from all religious communities, that become casualties of the violence.

Nor will labelling every issue that any religious community raise against the other, as hatred, help in bringing harmony between the communities. An issue is raised because a group feels a sense of injustice in the issue. Therefore it deserves attention. Ignoring these issues in the name of harmony or labelling them as hate will only gift and an emotional tone to the issue that will manifest later in certain undesirable ways. One cannot establish peace and harmony standing on the debt of justice.

The call for Hindu rastra too, spooks the rest of the Bhāratīyar, because it is often interpreted as a religious state. If it is so, it raises genuine concerns; the biggest of which is the question: what is Hinduism as a religion?

But, as discussed in earlier section, if Hindu rastra signifies indigenousness, culture, tradition and nationalism, and if the word Hindu in Hindu rastra carries the etymological meaning and not the religious one, then perhaps, portraying Hindu rastra without the exonym "Hindu"... without the irony, will be more accurate and acceptable to all Bhāratīyar.

Another tiny force calling for a religious state is the Khalistani force. A tinier force calls for a Christian state too, as we have seen in some of the North Eastern states of Bharat.

Such calls and activism for a religious state often spooks the other communities, further tribalising their members, and often manifesting undesirably when other factors for a religious conflict align.

Hyper Sensitivity

Hyper sensitivity, along with a deep sense of victimhood instilled onto ordinary religious members by their religious leaders, can lead to certain stupid and dangerous incidents.

An example of religious hyper sensitivity among Hindu sections is the call for banning beef in the name of religion or attacking someone for the consumption of beef. When a cattle is slaughtered for food, it is done so for food and carries no colour of hurting anyone's sentiment. Therefore, there are no grounds for hyper sensitive reactions.

I also think that no Hindu should not be so sentimentally fragile that they get hurt by an innocuous slaughter done for food¹. They must save their emotions and aggressions for the true injustices showered on them by various governments and non-Hindu religious leaders — such as the governance of temples and the administration of their wealth by governments, the misinterpretation of Sanatana Dharma by non-Hindu religious leaders for proselytism, and the incessant and targeted anti-Hindu positions and remarks by certain political factions.

An example of religious hyper sensitivity among Christians sections happened during the Covid-19 partial lock downs (Saturdays and Sundays) in Kerala. The state couldn't economically afford a full time lock down, nor could it afford no lock down; hence a partial lock down. Consequently, the Christians weren't able to go to church on Sundays. There was a strong campaign within the Christian echo chamber that this was an attack against the Christians.

An example of the religious hyper sensitivity among Muslim sections is the assault on Prof. T. J. Joseph, rooting from a misunderstanding of his reference to P. T. Kunju Muhammed as a reference to Prophet Muhammad.

Religious Proselytism

Religious proselytism and conversion creates rifts largely between Hindus and Muslims, and Hindus and Christians than between any other religious communities. These acts are quite potent in attracting adversarial sentiment from the other side. Conversions by fraud and subterfuge — which I assure you from experience that they exist — makes the act more potent for the said outcome.

Religion, all over the world, is increasingly influencing elections. Therefore, religious proselytism and conversion often turns out to be a political threat too. And for this reason, any conflict rising from religious proselytism and conversion, and its aftermath proceedings, will naturally have political interferences too.

Appeasement Politics

Minority appeasement, especially Muslim appeasement, has become a manifesto guideline for certain political parties. Others practice it to some extent too. There are two main forms of appeasement politics: a) excessive praising of a particular community and its ideology, and b) gifting them resources in the name of equality and equity. The latter is of larger concern because it leaches on others' contribution and tax money.

When privileges are offered and accepted as part of appeasement politics in a land where there is equal opportunity, they certainly uplift the beneficiaries in the short term, but naturally instil a sense of unfairness and uneasiness among the non-beneficiaries in the long term. This sentiment erodes the sense of oneness among people, and contributes to religious conflicts when other factors, such as those discussed earlier, align together and cause them.