Keeping Church and State Separate

One of the moments of 2019 was the signing of the amendment to the Indian Citizenship Act, which provides a path to Indian Citizenship for persecuted minorities from other countries – except Muslims. The amendment has caused much India to erupt into violent protest and in the Muslim world, this act has been seen as a deliberate attack against Muslim. This was the first time in India’s history as a secular republic that an amendment to the Citizenship Act was based on religion.

One of things I noticed on social media was the fact that some posted the message “If India cannot protect Hindu’s, who can?” This message implied that as the Hindu’s were in the majority, India was by definition a Hindu nation. This was a point that India’s ruling BJP party has argued. India’s population is predominantly Hindu and so India is a Hindu Country that allows minorities to exist – just as the United Kingdom is a Christian country that allows minorities to exist (The UK has a State Church – the Church of England – India does not).

The BJP is not alone in arguing that a nation belongs to a particular group. Israel, while officially a secular state, pushes the fact that it is the homeland for the Jewish People. America, particularly under Trump, is now in the throws of claiming that it is the home of White People. So, one has to ask, can any particular group claim a country exclusively?

When it comes to ethnicity, most people would argue that the answer is a resounding no. I live in Singapore, which while officially multi-racial, is going through some angst because of a large shift in demographics from other parts of Asia, particularly China and India. Singaporeans of Chinese and Indian decent are finding common ground against their kin from China and India. While people do look at the colour of each other’s skin, other cultural factors will end up having a stronger hold on relationships. Labels of “colour” are essentially surface level difference. Apartheid South Africa was portrayed as a White-vs-Black society. In truth it was English-vs-Boers-vs-Zulus-vs-Xhosas and so on and the nation had the good fortune of having a unifying figure in the form of Nelson Mandela and while South Africa hasn’t been the success story the world hopped it would be, it’s managed to move away from state sponsored racism (even if it was a little less successful at avoiding State Capture.)

Religion, however, is a different matter. While most people can accept that God loves all of humanity, they have a little more difficulty in accepting the fact that not everybody loves God in the same way. Conflicts of religion aren’t limited to conflicts between religions but within religions. I grew up in the United Kingdom at a time when Protestants and Catholics could not live together (the Belfast version of Why did the chicken cross the road joke, being – because it was stupid.) The inability to get along isn’t limited to Christians. The Middle East is filled with conflicts between Shias and Sunnis. Whenever you listen to religious fundamentalist talk about how they have the exclusive on God (and I even know someone who thinks he’s God), you end up feeling sorry for God as all these clowns proceed to do all sorts of horrible things in his name.

Is this worth it? Well, the obvious answer is no. Countries that allow discrimination based on race or religion are usually the countries you don’t wan to spend your money in. While the “White” part of South Africa was relatively prosperous, the nation was a “pariah” state that nobody wanted anything to do with and the inefficiencies that isolation caused were visible in things like rugby were clearly visible once isolation ended.

Another example of religion claiming a land is in Israel, which has thus far claimed to be the only secular democracy in the Middle East.  However, at the same time, there is an element that wants Israel to publicly announce that it is a “Jewish” State or the “Homeland” of the world’s Jews. While the majority of people in Israel are Jewish, there are significant number of Israeli-Arabs, who happen to be Muslim. The cynics argue that Israel can be either Jewish or Democratic.

As in the case of India, the case for a “Jewish” Israel are founded on demographics and a version of history. The BJP in India have argued that the original inhabitants of India were Hindu and Islam was only brought by an invading force, therefore India is rightfully Hindu. Israel and her Zionist supporters argue that the land was promised to the Jews – therefore Israel should be Jewish.

However, there are two key issues that pertain to the state of Israel. The most problematic question comes from the fact that there are Arabs with Israeli passports. Many of them do things that one would consider an essential part of being Israeli, like serving in the IDF. Are these Arab Citizens “less Israeli” than say the Orthodox Jews who do not serve in the IDF or work in secular jobs, but happen to be Jewish? The other issue is, if Israel is a “Jewish” state above all things – what defines Jewishness. Israel does face issues between its Orthodox Community and its secular community.

I don’t believe any state should attempt to belong to any particular community, particularly in this day and age where nationality transcends ethnicity and religion. Problems always arise when one community claims dominance to the seat of power. The State should in most cases be a neutral referee of last resort in cases where communities collide. India, as an example faces unrest as the government moves from being a secular force to a “Hindu” force. Church and State should be kept separate wherever possible.