Religious Populism Is Here To Stay: The Indian and American Examples

By Kaveri Pillai ’23

Staff Writer

The word “populism” is often synonymous with dictatorial regimes and authoritarian states. Adolf Hitler used the ideology of populism to carry out various anti-Semitic operations in the early 20th century. Joseph Stalin used his communist foundation and the ideology of populism as a way to justify his purges of and distrust in the bourgeois class. Despite this violent history and regardless of the increased number of democracies in the 21st century, populism has only increased in influence. 

 Initially, populism was defined as a range of ideas that distinguished “the people” from “the elite,” which appropriately explains the Russian Revolution of 1917 between the Tsar and the Bolsheviks. But this strict class division is not the only definition that can be applied to populism today. 

 Some of the world’s largest governments, including those of Brazil and China, house the most famous populist leaders, who stand for things other than Marxist ideals. More specifically, former U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi are more than just oppressive and controlling. Their populist streak and archaic British colonial idea of “divide and conquer” goes beyond class hatred and is deeply rooted in religion. The religious divide that has been instigated by Trump and Modi is the catalyst that allows populism to stay in 2021 and threatens the sanctity of secularism. 

 Religion gives people an essential sense of belonging and provides communities with a purpose and a sense of direction. More importantly, religious faith is often intensified when there is a threat to this idea of inclusion and affinity.

 The 26/11 terrorist attacks and the surge in illegal mafia activities conducted by Dawood Ibrahim in the city of Mumbai are two isolated examples of the perceived Islamic threat to the Hindu-dominated country. With classes of individuals feeling unsafe, the political opposition found religious affiliation an easy target, unearthing years of unresolved animosity that existed between Muslims and Hindus in India. 

 This religious “us versus them” blame game goes beyond national borders, as is the case with American Islamophobia. The tragedy of 9/11 and military involvement in the Middle East has only aggravated the hostility many Americans feel toward an entire religion, and this prejudice was further instigated by Trump’s public verbal attacks on Muslims and his anti-Muslim immigration bills.

 In India, the idea of “Hindutva,” or Hindu nationalism, is a dangerous fire fueled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Self-proclaimed gatekeepers of Hindu superiority, the BJP has long perpetuated the idea of replacing secularism with their own religious inclination. 

The Babri Masjid situation captures this infiltration of religious biases in government action. Built in the 16th century by the Islamic Mughal Emperor Babur, the masjid was supposedly constructed on Ram Janmabhoomi, or the sacred place where the Hindu idol Lord Ram was born. In 1990, BJP’s President L.K. Advani led the movement to demolish the masjid and replace it with a Lord Ram Hindu temple, which led to riots in the state of Uttar Pradesh. With the courts of law dragged into a spider web of religious strife and thousands of violent Hindu-Muslim riots disturbing the bedrock of religious harmony, Modi’s devout Hindu administration announced in 2019 that a Hindu temple was going to be constructed on that land. 

 The birthplace of a god can be a difficult statement to prove with archaeological evidence, which can only tell researchers so much. However, it is not the accuracy of the claim being made by the likes of BJP that is alarming. The complete disregard for the disruption of sanctity and the threat to destroy another holy site emphasizes the dangers of the Modi administration and the general public who blindly normalize this explicit religious discrimination. 

The Trump administration’s view on abortion similarly echoed the danger of religion seeping into governance. Abortion is arguably the most divisive issue in U.S. politics, and with the constitutional Tenth Amendment ensuring that rights are reserved for states to decide, the Roe v. Wade argument may be overturned. While Trump might not be president anymore, his influence could be everlasting. 

As of now, according to a Gallup poll, only 20 percent of Americans support the idea of abortion being legal under any circumstances, and 50 percent believe that it should be legal only under a few circumstances. The fact that a majority of the GOP hold staunch Christian beliefs that make them resist pro-choice legislation, and that the Trump administration appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, endangers many who might not have access to affordable and safe abortions without Roe v. Wade. Having President Joe Biden in the White House means nothing to states like Alabama and their abortion laws. A few of Trump’s devoutly religious followers have used his wish of making abortion harder to access as a way of brainwashing the public into seeing this critical health care issue as either black or white. 

These instances from the last few years say a lot about the clear psychological in-group and out-group behavior that has been established thanks to populists like Modi and Trump. The social movements in the U.S. and India still need time and effort to disrupt the continuity of this religious populism, and one cannot disregard the various negative implications it has on intergroup relations.