The Long Shadow of Faith: How Religion Became a Tool of Power, Exploitation, and Social Control — And Why Sarva Dharma Sambhav Cannot Substitute Secularism

 

-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.