Professor Rattan Lal Hangloo*
India began its journey of independence and democracy with the deep scars of the country’s partition, engendering one of the worst communal massacres. In the following decades, there were occasional communal riots in various regions of India including the Gujrat carnage of 2002. In the decades following the Cold War, India witnessed the challenges of terrorism, sponsored by Pakistan, peppered with doses of Islamic radicalization.
While terrorism devastated Kashmir and led to a huge loss of men and material in various parts of India, politically it also helped the BJP and its Hindutva agenda to spread its tentacles across India vigorously, and brought the party to power, first in 1999 under Atal Behari Vajpayee, and with a brute majority in 2014 under the present Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In these last two decades, the BJP has eroded India’s secular fabric, pushing the country to a critical situation.
Alienation of Muslims
The majority of Indian Muslims feel alienated because the BJP with its Hindutva ideology pleads for religious exclusivism which is often and mainly associated with the marginalization of non-Hindu communities, particularly Muslims and Christians. The majority of Hindus may not associate with BJP or attribute to Hindutva ideology. Still, many among them have also begun to view with serious concern the apprehension manufactured and tutored by BJP that the increasing number of Muslims with its global linkages may threaten the country’s polity, harmony and superimpose their political dominance in the long run.
Both these perceptions may or may not seem to be genuine, but they raise the fundamental question about the survival of Indian democracy in the future.
The stability of any given democracy depends not only on economic development but also upon the effectiveness of satisfying the basic aspirations of the people and the legitimacy of its political system.
Whether it is Hindus, Muslims, or Christians, the growth or decline of the population of any of these communities in any region or country is an important characteristic of demographic change that takes place slowly but continuously from time to time. Whether it is the predominance of Hinduism or Islam or any other religion, in a multi-religious and multicultural Indian society, the religious basis of any political system undermines democracy, defaces nationalism, disrupts constitutionalism, and infuses the functioning of the state with totalitarian tendencies.
The problem is a complex one. Indian Muslims consider themselves a connecting link with the world Islamic community Umma and are receptive to their agenda, but at the same time they feel nationally their identity is threatened, they bring in their religiosity to become cohesive against what they perceive as Hindu majoritarianism. Although modernization is concerned with society’s need to maintain institutions and values that facilitate stability and cohesion, the majority of Muslims are indecisive and pull apart in different directions. These developments make Islam a suspect of being at odds with democracy, in popular perception. But this notion is ill-conceived.
BJP and Hindutva raise very serious questions about the nature of the relationship between Islam and the democratic system and project all Muslims as quarrelsome and anarchists – a perception borrowed from colonial historians.
The BJP points to the growing Muslim immigration in the West, which it claims struggles to embrace democracy, reinforcing its perception of Muslims, especially Indian Muslims. The party promotes the view that Muslims haven’t assimilated into Indian life, seeing them as disloyal outsiders. If this belief deepens, India may face ongoing conflict rather than consensus, reminiscent of the tensions that led to the 1947 partition.
The lack of sustained democracy in many Muslim countries is a complex issue shaped by historical, political, cultural, and socio-economic factors.
Islam and Global Democracies
In many parts of the world, democracy spread through colonialism which often came from Christian-majority countries like Britain, France, and the U.S. While colonialism was far from democratic, the political systems left behind by colonialists often included democratic elements of parliamentary governance. The sustainability of democracy in Christian-majority countries is not due solely to Christianity but rather a combination of historical, social, and political factors.
The philosophical evolution of political thought, the rise of secularism, and the development of strong institutions all contributed to the stability of democracy. Christianity, in some contexts, provided moral and ethical frameworks that supported democratic ideals, but the success of democracy in these nations depended on broader social dynamics beyond religion.
Though the robust characteristics of democracy also grew in the countries that were under European colonialism, in the long run democracy has not been fully sustained in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Iran, and Iraq. The political systems which they project are not fully institutionalised democracies, but totalitarian wrapped in religious clothing. Afghanistan is a classic example. Such political systems have an inbuilt tendency which is imbued with religiosity and anarchy.
When some of the Muslim countries gained independence, they lacked the democratic institutions and norms that had developed organically in other parts of the world. Instead, many post-colonial states inherited authoritarian structures and elites who were more concerned with maintaining power than promoting democratic governance.
Many of these Muslim countries experienced authoritarian rule, often led by military dictators. These leaders, such as Nasser in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya, or Saddam Hussein in Iraq, often claimed to act in the interest of national unity or anti-colonialism but suppressed political opposition and civil society. Military coups and entrenched elites often disallowed democratic transitions.
Furthermore, the Western powers and other international actors intervened in the politics of Muslim countries, often to protect their strategic interests, such as oil resources, or to counter perceived threats like communism during the Cold War. Such interventions sometimes propped up authoritarian regimes that were friendly to foreign interests, undermining local democratic movements. Examples include U.S. support for monarchies or military regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.
Another reason has been economic challenges such as poverty, unemployment, inequality, and lack of development which have also played a role in hindering democratic transitions. In many Muslim-majority countries, weak economies have contributed to a lack of a strong middle class, which is often seen as a key driver of democracy. Economic instability has led to disillusionment with democratic processes, making authoritarian solutions more appealing as a way to bring stability.
Furthermore, the role of religion and the politicisation of Islam has complicated the democratic landscape in some Muslim- countries. The absence of a robust civil society is another factor that neither enables citizen’s participation, nor holds governments accountable, and fails to promote political pluralism. I
In many Muslim countries, civil society organizations have been fully controlled by the state. The repressive governments have often stifled independent media, political parties, and non-governmental organizations making it difficult for democratic forces to mobilize. Several Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa are monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Morocco.
These monarchies often maintain political power through a combination of religious legitimacy, wealth (especially oil revenues), and support from foreign powers. In such systems, democratic reforms are either slow or nonexistent, as ruling families seek to maintain control.
Sectarian divisions, particularly between Sunni and Shia Muslims, have fueled conflicts in several countries, such as Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. These divisions also undermine democratic institutions, as political parties often form along sectarian lines, leading to polarization and instability.
Civil wars and conflicts have also created environments where authoritarian leaders or external actors can justify the suppression of democratic movements in the name of national security. Many Muslim-majority countries do not have long histories of democratic governance.
The absence of a deep-rooted democratic culture, combined with challenges like illiteracy, weak state institutions and war in Syria, Yemen, Gaza, Palestine and has made democratic consolidation difficult. In some cases, the fear of political instability and chaos has discouraged moves toward democratization.
The experience of failed or unstable democracies such as in Libya or post-Egypt, makes citizens and elites wary of democratic transitions, associating them with disorder, economic hardship, or civil conflict.
Therefore, unstable democracy in many Muslim countries is not due to Islam or Muslim attitudes but due to a variety of historical factors. While some nations like Tunisia and Indonesia have seen democratic progress, others remain constrained by authoritarianism, economic difficulties, and external pressures.
Islam itself is not inherently incompatible with democracy, political movements that seek to implement strict interpretations of Islamic law (Sharia) do challenge liberal democratic values, particularly on issues of individual rights, gender equality, and freedom of expression. In some cases, Islamist movements have been repressed by authoritarian regimes, creating further political polarisation and conflict in Muslim countries that also influence and impact attitude of Indian Muslims.
Religious Identities and Democracy
The problem of contemporary politics is the relationship between religion and democracy, since most countries that lack an enduring tradition of democratic institutions live in underdeveloped sections of the world.
In such circumstances the Indian Muslims should not feel alienated because a democratic system allows citizens to participate in political decisions, hold leaders accountable, and replace them peacefully when needed. They should continue to open themselves more and more to democracy. As legitimate citizens of India, they should not understand their identity as essentially in religious terms only. Because the dynamic form of spirituality both in Hinduism and Islam can help Indians to strengthen fraternity on a much broader scale.
In any polity, legitimacy involves the capacity of the system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for society. The extent to which contemporary democratic political system in India is legitimate depends in large measure upon how the key issues which have historically divided the Indian society have been resolved.
Different social groups and communities regard a political system as legitimate or illegitimate according to how its values fit with theirs. India’s historical and cultural legacy is deeply rooted in secularism and tolerance. The country’s freedom struggle and its post-independence trajectory have been marked by efforts to foster unity among its diverse population. The secular values that underpin Indian democracy have been crucial in maintaining social harmony and political stability. This historical commitment to secularism continues to influence public sentiment and political discourse.
If the Indian Muslim community faces continuous conflict among its members and groups, it can never maintain social cohesion and the legitimacy of the state’s authority. Politics would be not only hopeless but meaningless too if any community in a country is apathetic toward the state, it will undermine consensus.
Pluralism and Democracy
Balancing religious freedom with secular values will continue to be a topic of discussion. However, if we broaden our view, we can see a strong lasting connection between pluralism and democracy in India. The way some Hindus and Muslims are driven by the inflammatory rhetoric of their leaders and modeled on tactics for their respective political ends will prevent democracy from securing legitimacy and thus weaken its ability to withstand the crisis.
India’s Constitution enshrines secularism as a fundamental principle, guaranteeing equal rights and protection for all religions. This legal framework is designed to ensure that no single religion dominates public life or policy.
While political ideologies may seek to challenge this framework, the Constitution remains a strong institutional barrier to any ideology that seeks to undermine secularism. We must remember that in India, democracy does not depend on a specific cultural or religious attribute. If we argue that democracy requires the public use of reason and a tolerant attitude that values other beliefs, we are falling into the trap that society is unchangeable which it is not. Therefore, the ruling elements in India should also find essential prerequisites for democracy in all cultures outside religion.
*Professor Rattan Lal Hangloo has been Professor of History at Hyderabad Central University. He is the former Vice-Chancellor of Kalyani University West Bengal and the University of Allahabad. He is currently an Honorary Vice-Chancellor at Noble International University Taranto Canada. (He originally belongs to Village Hangalgund Kokernag Kashmir but is at present in Raliegh, North Carolina USA.)
—–
Have you liked the news article?