“The introduction of religious passion into politics is the end of honest politics, and the

introduction of politics into religion is the prostitution of true religion.” said Lord Quintin McGarel Hogg

Hallsham. According to Benjamin Disraeli there is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political

party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour; in politics nothing is contemptible. It is in this context

Mahatma Gandhi said that religion and politics are inextricably blended and their separation tantamounts

to the separation of blood and body and called politics without religion a dirty game. For, he also said in

another occasion, “Most religious men I’ve met are politicians in disguise, I however wear the guise of a

politician but am at heart a religious man”. He clearly contrasts here two facets of the religion, religion as

politics in disguise per contra religion at heart in politics. His contempt for the former is obvious. He sees

the latter face of the religion having ethical and spiritual nuances a la religion of Emperor Ashoka in the

state affairs as inexorably blended to a healthy politics.

Poles Apart

According to Otto Von Bismarck, politics is the art of the possible. Itimprimis is opportunism and

deception. It is hic et nunc and ergo ephemeral unlike religion which seeks divinity and eternity through the

principles of Rhadamanthinesittlichkeit and truth. Politics is selfish au fond while religion is love and

sacrifice. Politics seeks power and excitement while religion seeks peace and salvation. They are poles

apart in their means

General Election is near in India; politicians are playing various drama/dance/play/stage shows to
attract us as usually they do. Majority of the youth are not really bothered because it is not a T-20
Cricket match, Indian Idol reality TV show. Lack of youth leaders in politics may be the major
setback for youth not taking much interest but compare to 2004 General election; I am sure this time
the young voters will increase. Mumbai terrorist attack may be a reason behind it.

Political parties wear any dirty dress, play blame games, use money power, actor celebrities
campaign to attract voters and it is common anywhere in the world even in the US, but casting &
gaining votes on the basis of religion/caste/region is what mainly happens  in India and it has taken
our country behind.

In UP, Varun’s hate speech against Muslims was to steel Hindu emotions. Mayavathi applied NSA
over Varun. She might say it was due to stop violence/riots but the real intension may be to make
happy Muslims voters.

In Orissa BJP+JDU was in power when the riot happened against Christians. Killing of Hindu Sadu is
the reason behind the riot but so far the killers of Swami are not arrested and the issue is still kept
alive. Naveen Patnayak of Orissa CM left BJP long friendship just before the elections giving the
reason of BJP's Hindutva agenda and sponsoring riots in Kandamal against Christians. But the
question is why Patnayak waited until the general elections to come closer to leave BJP? Why can't
his govt. catch the culprits? Why, the police were silent when the Nun was cruelly gang raped in
public? Why there are no laws against forcible conversion in the state to control the missionaries?
So again it is clear Mr. CM's drama is to steal minority emotions as well to prove he is not the sinner
but not to stop any future attacks against Christian

Attack on young women in a pub in Mangalore made us shame & and it was international news.
Girls drinking in the pub and dancing is not at all out culture, I agree. Assaulting/beating girls is our
culture? Why doesn’t the Govt. ban Pubs in Karnataka? Why didn't SRS fight with the Govt. to close
pubs in Karnataka? If they did, it would have meaningful, so again the real intension behind the
attack was to steel emotions of Hindus in the name culture.

Let's come to the Central ruling party UPA (Congress) and opposite party NDA (BJP). Congress
blames on BJP for Gujarat riot and BJP blames on Congress for 1984 Sikh riot.
BJP blames Congress on Mumbai terrorists attack and Congress blames BJP on Kandahar Flight
hijack.  

Now let us think,

why was congress (UPA) soft on terror? Why didn't they form strong anti terrorist laws when they
ruled out POTA? The party which once said we don't require strong anti terrorists laws, and after the
Mumbai terrorist attack UPA formed NSA against terrorism. Congress has to stop minority aspects
and take the whole country together.

BJP always takes up Hindutva. What I feel is BJP has to change their mindset. Instead of promising
Ayodhya, doing Ratha Yatra & supporting Sangha Pariwar activities BJP has to take the country as
one. Positive activities such as voice against corruption, injustice Etc, from Sangha Pariawar is
always welcome. BJP is a National party and it should not be based on any one religion or caste.
The country needs unity among its citizen and as a national party it can’t go against Muslims and
Christians and think about only Hindus. Every person who has born in this country has got the right
to live in this country, So that BJP should not divide the country based on religion caste or culture.

Political parties & politicians must;

1. For Terrorism, Don’t point the entire Muslim community, terrorism has no religion and it is attack
against mankind. Need to enforce strong laws which can’t be misused and security has to be
strengthened. Spreading hate against any religion community may lead to rise in anti national
activities.

2. To control or stop forced conversion there should be strong laws, also missionaries should be
controlled converting people from one religion to another in the name of help and charity, but
attacking churches, killing/burning alive, gang raping women is also one kind of terrorism and it is
again attack over humanity.

Let us realize the hidden tricks of politics, how they keep on playing with common man for
the votes. When every party is involved in this dirty game we can’t choose a good party. All
are dirty and corrupt in one or another way. What we can do is, we should aware about the
games politicians play to create vote bank, and not to dance according to their tune. Let us
don’t give any chances to create religious, caste regional sentiments for vote bank, but
accept every man/woman as our own brother and sister. I hope then only we will have peace
in our country and we will be safe. Jai Humanity!

VIEW: Gandhi and the politics of religion —Ishtiaq Ahmed

Gandhi opposed the creation of Pakistan. Such opposition was based on his conviction that
Hindus and Muslims and other communities could live together and make their particular
contributions to building a multi-religious, multi-cultural nation with equal rights for all
citizens. However, when partition did take place he took positions that have no parallels,
historically or contemporaneously

There is no doubt that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi brought religion into politics in a big
way, but religious revivals were underway among all religious communities of India since
the late 19th century. He wanted religion to play a positive role in bringing India’s myriad of religious,
sectarian, ethnic and caste-based communities into an inclusive grand composite nation.

Gandhi was by no means an advocate of fundamentalism. He did more than any other upper-caste
Hindu to speak out against the curse of untouchability. On a number of occasions Hindu
fundamentalists attempted to assassinate him because of his campaign against untouchability. The
first such attempt took place in 1934 when a bomb was thrown at him in Pune. While critiquing
untouchability, he did find arguments for the justification of the caste system. According to him and
other Hindu reformists, the castes were based on the division of work and equal dignity of all
professions. Such an explanation may not sound convincing to many of us since caste is hereditary in
practice. However, such a middle position helped him bring Hindus from all sections behind the anti-
colonial struggle and therefore compromises were necessary.
However, India was home not only to the Hindus but millions of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and other
groups as well. He developed a novel idea, Sarva Dharma Sambhava: equal respect of all religions.
His daily morning sessions began with prayers and hymns and recitations from the Bhagwad Gita,
Quran, Bible and other religious scriptures to underline the common moral roots of all humanity.

Conclusion

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that both integrative and disruptive forces have been
simultaneously released by developmental and political dynamics in India. It is the changing
balance between these two mutually incompatible forces that defines the characteristics of the
ethnic scene in the country. Looking at the prevailing situation, one cannot avoid the impression
that over the past few years ethnic conflicts and disorders in India have gained in ascendancy and
ugliness.

However, the battle of preserving and promoting "unity in diversity" in India is far from being
lost. It can be won not because of the coercive power of the Indian state, but because of the
inherent strength and resilience of Indian society. Notwithstanding the raging ethnic conflicts in
the Punjab, Kashmir, Assam, and the North-East region, the ethnic situation in India is still not
unmanageable, keeping in view India's vastness and diversity and the challenge of externally
inspired subversion (which we have not discussed in this paper).

It must be recognized that the Indian masses, not the power élites, are strongly rooted in their
composite culture and secular commitments, evolved over centuries of cultural synthesis. This
composite culture's vitality and resilience have not been lost even in the face of distortions
brought about by India's power élites, its developmental dynamics, federal polity, or democratic
politics. No wonder, then, that the Akalis in the Punjab have to accept the reality of their internal
ethnic contradictions and fluctuating electoral fortunes. Similarly, the BJP has to realize that
there are severe limits on the "profitability" of communalizing politics - otherwise they could
continue to spit fire on the Ayodhya issue. Even the intensity of the Mandal issue, so closely
linked to the ideas of social justice and egalitarianism enshrined in the Indian Constitution, has
had to fade out politically.

For the future, one thing is clear: if India is to resolve its ethnic conflicts and work for a
harmonious balance in its ethnic and cultural fibre, political opportunism and expediency cannot
be allowed to go uncurbed. To permit this would distort the logic of development and the thrust
of federal and democratic institutions. The problem is not with the institutions and the common
people in India, but with a leadership that surrenders values and larger gains for short-term,
selfish advantages.