Divide and Rule

The concept of divide and rule is not merely a relic of the British Raj in India but continues to be actively employed by modern-day politicians. Much like other aspects of British influence, this practice has been inherited and faithfully sustained by Indian political systems, regardless of which party holds power. While there are a few exceptions, most politicians seem united in perpetuating this legacy.

In the hands of theologians, doctrine may become a tool to divide people. In the hands of politicians, religion plays a similar role in the context of contemporary Indian politics. Many spiritual and religious leaders remain indifferent to these manipulative tactics, but figures like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar stand out by actively raising awareness. Sensible citizens of India must join hands with such leaders to challenge the divisive policies of politicians. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s opposition to the central government’s plan to prioritize the development of 200 villages with a Muslim majority raises serious concerns about the secular fabric of the nation.

“Just because a particular community is poor, it’s not fair to rob Peter to pay Paul. If a community doesn’t use available opportunities, development cannot be thrust down its throat,” says Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. His argument is compelling, and he further highlights:

“Take the Sindhi community—after Partition, they lost everything. Yet, they stood on their own without receiving special privileges. Every community must take responsibility for its growth and nurture leaders from within. Otherwise, we risk creating a situation like Ethiopia’s, where a large segment of the population depends on aid and loses the drive to work, eventually demanding aid as their right.” (emphasis added)

Indian governments of the past have already engaged in the practice of robbing Peter to pay Paul, beginning with subsidies for Hajj pilgrimages funded by taxpayers. India’s secular government has, thus, set a precedent. Criticism of government funding for religious pilgrimages should not be construed as hatred for any community. As Sharif Ahmad Amni notes in his work Rituals and Sacraments in Islam, “The pilgrimage is obligatory only if one can afford the journey and if the trip is feasible” (Holy Quran 2:197 and 3:98). This raises the question of whether a spiritual event like Hajj, when funded by public money, is reduced to a mere ritual—at least from the perspective of many Hindus.

Religious minorityism runs counter to the true spirit of secularism. Even if a single Hindu remains in India while others adopt different faiths, that individual is not a minority in essence. This truth should resonate across all religious communities, fostering true harmony and upholding the spirit of secularism in the nation. If the government’s concern is genuine development, it would be wise to heed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s advice:

“Broad-based education, intermixing of religious and ethnic groups, and encouraging diversity is what is needed today. The government’s recent moves will stifle diversity and lead to polarization. Villages where people of all communities live harmoniously, without violence, should be made model villages and rewarded financially. Alternatively, villages with a history of communal violence should be incentivized to renounce such behaviors. If the government truly seeks social equity, its policies must ensure justice for all communities—Hindus, Muslims, Dalits, or upper castes alike.” (Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, End Divisive Policies, The Times of India, Bangalore, March 12, 2007, p. 14.)

Mathigiri, March 12, 2007, 10:00 pm

Dayanand