-Ramphal
Kataria
Harmony or Hierarchy? The
Hidden Costs of Sarva Dharma Sambhav in Modern India
SUMMARY
This
article traces how religion has historically operated as an instrument of
power—legitimising kings, preserving hierarchy, and enforcing obedience. In
India, the fusion of caste, religion and labour produced a social order where
inequality gained divine sanction. Through Marx’s framework, the essay examines
how religion consoles the oppressed while simultaneously restraining
resistance. Against this backdrop, the concept of Sarva Dharma Sambhav—often
celebrated as India’s model of secularism—comes under critical scrutiny. By
prioritising emotional respect for all religions over structural separation, it
weakens the fight against caste oppression, gender inequality and clerical
dominance. The article argues that India requires a rights-based, individual-centred
secularism rather than sentimental pluralism if it is to move beyond status-quo
hierarchies.
Religion has never
existed in a vacuum. Across history, it has been inseparable from power. Kings,
chiefs, priests, empires and modern nation-states have all understood the same
truth: belief is not just spiritual sentiment — it is a mechanism of legitimacy,
obedience, and social order.
In India, this
intertwining is even more complex, because religion has been used not merely to
organise society but to manufacture inequality, justify hierarchy, and
structure labour itself.
To understand why
contemporary India struggles with caste, communalism, identity politics and the
persistent marginalisation of Dalits, women and the working class, one must
first understand the historical function of religion as an instrument of power.
And why the modern ideal of Sarva Dharma Sambhav is inadequate — even
counterproductive — for a society seeking justice, equality and emancipation.
Religion
as a Historical Tool of Power
Across civilisations,
religion has operated as the ideological arm of political authority.
1.
Religion as Legitimisation of Rule
Empires understood early
that divine sanction produces obedience without force.
ü Egyptian
Pharaohs were gods on earth.
ü Medieval
Europe justified monarchy as the “divine right of kings”.
ü In
India, caste kingship and Brahmanical ritual authority fused religion with
political hierarchy.
The message in all these
structures was the same: your place in society is divinely ordained —
questioning it is both a social offence and a spiritual sin.
2.
Religion as Social Control
Obedience to rulers was
internalised as obedience to gods. Fear of divine punishment became a
substitute for political enforcement.
This is why priestly
classes have always been aligned with ruling elites — both depend on each other
for legitimacy.
3.
Religion as the Justification of Inequality
Where India diverges from
many historical traditions is the rigidity and sanctification of the caste
system.
Caste was never merely a
division of labour, as Ambedkar insisted — it was a division of labourers.
A spiritualised hierarchy
ensured that exploitation looked like duty, and inequality seemed natural
rather than political.
Religion, therefore, did
not simply mirror economic and social power — it produced and preserved it.
Marx’s Lens:
Religion as “Opium” and as Ideology
Marx’s analysis cuts
through sentimentality and goes straight to the core: religion is both
ü an
expression of suffering
ü and
a justification for suffering.
His statement — “the
opium of the people” — is often misunderstood as mockery. It was actually
an observation of how religion soothes the pain of exploitation, while
simultaneously preserving the very systems that cause it.
In Marxist terms:
ü Religion
masks class contradictions.
ü It
prevents the oppressed from recognising the real source of their exploitation —
economic and structural power.
ü It
encourages resignation instead of resistance.
In India, this plays out
with unique intensity because caste is not simply a theological idea but a
complete economic system embedded in religious sanction.
Marx’s critique therefore
speaks directly to the core of Indian inequality: religion has been the
ideological armour of both caste hierarchy and class domination.
Indian
Secularism vs Western Secularism: Two Independently Evolved Ideas
Western
Secularism: Separation
Born from Europe’s
violent religious wars, Western secularism is built on separation of church and
state.
The state does not
endorse, support or promote any religion.
Its purpose is to protect
individual freedom by keeping religion out of governance.
Indian
Secularism: Equal Respect
India evolved a different
model during the freedom struggle — not separation, but equal respect for all
religions.
This emerged out of the
desire to keep peace in a deeply diverse society.
However, this model has
conceptual weaknesses:
ü It
entrenches community rights over individual rights.
ü It
allows religion to shape personal laws.
ü It
permits outdated, discriminatory practices to continue under the protection of
“religious freedom.”
This is where the system
begins to wobble.
Sarva
Dharma Sambhav: Harmony at the Cost of Justice
Sarva Dharma Sambhav —
the idea that all religions deserve equal respect — is often marketed as
India’s unique gift to the world.
But this idea is
philosophically and politically flawed.
1.
It originates from Hindu philosophical notions, not from a secular framework
Ideas like “all paths
lead to the same truth” come from Hindu tradition.
When this becomes the
basis of state policy, it implicitly places one religion’s worldview at the
centre and neutralises critical scrutiny of religious power structures.
2.
It equates respect with non-interference
If every religion must be
“respected”, the state hesitates to intervene even when a practice is unjust or
discriminatory.
This protects:
ü caste
hierarchy
ü patriarchal
customs
ü internal
oppression within communities
3.
It shields religion from criticism
Sarva Dharma Sambhav
discourages questioning religious dogma.
Criticism is rebranded as
“hurting sentiments”.
This is weaponised to
silence debates on:
ü caste-based
exclusion in Hinduism
ü patriarchy
in multiple religious traditions
ü discriminatory
personal laws
ü social
control by clergy
4.
It strengthens religious identity over individual rights
A citizen becomes a
member of a religious community first and an individual second.
This community-centred
approach fits perfectly with the political agenda of both majority and minority
religious elites.
It weakens the most
vulnerable:
ü Dalits
within Hinduism
ü Women
under patriarchal religious norms
ü Lower
classes in all religious groups
ü Atheists
and rationalists who reject religious authority
5.
It creates a status quo favouring existing power structures
Equal respect for all
religions sounds noble.
But in practice, it means
equal respect for:
ü caste-based
inequality
ü gender
injustice
ü medieval
personal laws
ü religious
authority
ü the
combined dominance of clergy and political elites
This is why Sarva Dharma
Sambhav is often co-opted by populist forces to maintain harmony without
justice.
How
This Weakens Opposition to Religion
1.
No space for rational critique
Arguments against
religious injustice are dismissed as “anti-national”, “communal”, or “against
harmony”.
2.
Religion becomes culturally untouchable
Sacralising all religions
prevents scrutiny of:
ü caste
atrocities
ü honour
crimes
ü triple
talaq-like injustices
ü discriminatory
inheritance rules
ü exclusion
of women from religious spaces
ü economic
exploitation of marginalised groups via religious sanction
3.
Dalits become invisible under the rhetoric of unity
When all religions are
placed on an equal pedestal, their internal hierarchies disappear from public
discussion.
Dalit issues get erased
under the rhetoric of “unity”, “harmony”, or “respect for traditions”.
4.
Political power shifts to religious elites
Those who speak in the
name of “religion” gain immense public influence.
This directly undermines
democratic accountability.
Why
Sarva Dharma Sambhav Pushes India Toward Cultural Majoritarianism
The concept borrows from
Hindu philosophical traditions.
Once embedded in national
identity, this framework subtly establishes:
ü Hindu
cultural norms as the default
ü minority
practices as tolerated only if they align with majority sensibilities
Thus:
ü uniformity
is promoted as unity
ü dissent
is painted as divisive
ü religion
is re-legitimised as a public force
ü secularism
becomes sentimental rather than structural
This is the ideological
space in which majoritarian nationalism thrives.
Through
Marx’s Eyes: Religion in India as a Tool Against the Proletariat
Marx would point out that
in India:
ü religion
legitimises caste
ü caste
organises labour
ü religious
identity divides workers
ü religious
sentiment prevents class consciousness
ü political
elites exploit religious emotion to divert attention from economic injustice
Thus religion becomes:
ü a
distraction from unemployment
ü a
shield for exploitation
ü an
instrument of political mobilisation
ü a
mechanism to pit oppressed groups against each other
The proletariat — Dalits,
workers, landless labourers, urban poor — remain locked in a structure where
economic and religious ideologies work together to keep them submissive.
Conclusion:
The Need for a Critical, Structural Secularism
India cannot move forward
with a sentimental, harmony-focused concept like Sarva Dharma Sambhav.
Harmony without justice
is merely polite inequality.
A mature democracy
requires:
ü separation
of religion and state
ü universal
civil laws
ü individual
rights over community rights
ü protection
of criticism, not sentiments
ü dismantling
of religious authority where it violates equality
ü recognition
that emancipation requires confronting, not flattering, religion
Until this happens,
religion will continue to operate exactly as it has for centuries:
as an ideological tool
protecting power and suppressing the oppressed — just as Marx warned.
References
1.
Ambedkar, B. R. 1936. Annihilation of
Caste. Bombay: Self-Published.
2.
Ambedkar, B. R. 1946. Who Were the
Shudras? Bombay: Thacker & Co.
3.
Baxi, Upendra. 2002. The Future of Human
Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
Bhargava, Rajeev. 2009. The Promise of
India’s Secularism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
5.
Chakravarti, Uma. 2003. Gendering Caste:
Through a Feminist Lens. Calcutta: Stree.
6.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1994. “Secularism and
Tolerance.” Economic and Political Weekly 29(28): 1768–77.
7.
Dumont, Louis. 1970. Homo Hierarchicus:
The Caste System and Its Implications. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Dirks, Nicholas. 2001. Castes of Mind:
Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
9.
Gandhi, M. K. Various Years. Collected
Works of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Publications Division.
10.
Guha, Ranajit. 1983. Elementary Aspects of
Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
11.
Ilaiah, Kancha. 1996. Why I Am Not a
Hindu. Calcutta: Samya.
12.
Jaffrelot, Christophe. 2003. India’s
Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India. London: Hurst.
13.
Larson, Gerald James, ed. 2001. Religion
and Personal Law in Secular India. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
14.
Madan, T. N. 1997. “Secularism in Its
Place.” Journal of Asian Studies 46(4).
15.
Marx, Karl. 1844. A Contribution to the
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Paris: Deutsch-Französische
Jahrbücher.
16.
Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. 1846.
The German Ideology. Berlin: Dietz.
17.
Nandy, Ashis. 1995. “An Anti-Secularist
Manifesto.” Seminar.
18.
Nehru, Jawaharlal. 1946. The Discovery of
India. Bombay: Signet Press.
19.
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2007. “Religious
Violence and India’s Pluralism.” Harvard Theological Review 100 (1–2).
20.
Omvedt, Gail. 1994. Dalits and the
Democratic Revolution. New Delhi: Sage.
21.
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000. Rethinking
Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
22.
Rege, Sharmila. 2006. Writing
Caste/Writing Gender: Narrating Dalit Women’s Testimonios. New Delhi: Zubaan.
23.
Sarkar, Tanika. 2001. Hindu Wife, Hindu
Nation: Community, Religion, and Cultural Nationalism. New Delhi: Permanent
Black.
24.
Sen, Amartya. 1998. Reason Before
Identity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
25.
Smith, Donald Eugene. 1963. India as a
Secular State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
26.
Srinivas, M. N. 1966. Social Change in
Modern India. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Thapar, Romila. 1966/1978. A History of
India, Vols. 1 & 2. London: Penguin.
28.
Teltumbde, Anand. 2018. Republic of Caste:
Thinking Equality in the Time of Neoliberal Hindutva. New Delhi: Navayana.
29.
Varshney, Ashutosh. 2002. Ethnic Conflict
and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press.
