Religion as mass politics: State and religion in Egypt, India and the United States

The study examines the politicization of religion in comparative perspective. Its focus is on state actors in three countries where commitments to secular norms were displaced by religious politics: Egypt, India and the United States. In each case, the question is asked: why did a conservative (and often illiberal) interpretation of religion become dominant in three ostensibly secular societies? The answer presented in the research is two-fold. First, religion is an essential part of the construction of collective identities, and, hence, finds expression in the discourse of modern nationalisms and communalism. Second, the influence of state actors was definitive. While state elites defended secular norms in earlier decades, this changed in the 1970's and 80's. In this latter period, they sought to co-opt, not oppose exclusive religious ideas and activists. In doing so, they helped to 'normalize' overtly religious (and sectarian) political agendas, and greatly facilitated the rise of so-called religious fundamentalisms.; In Egypt, this trend was evident in the promotion of conservative Islam by the governments of Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. This reflects the dual legacy of Islam as both a voice of opposition and a sanction for state authority. Similarly, in the case of India, the project examines the efforts of Congress Party elites to co-opt the discourse of Hindu nationalism, a marked shift from the policies of the Nehru period. Finally, in the United States, Republican Party leaders consistently promoted conservative religion as a means of building a new majority premised upon cultural, not economic concerns. In each case, secular norms were abandoned by state elites who sought to use religion as a basis of populist mobilization. These findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the historical record, and challenge long-held assumptions about the secular orientation of modern state elites. The research also brings into question the traditional character of so-called 'fundamentalisms,' and argues that the conflation of religion, nation and state inform a variety of modern ideologies used by state and opposition alike. This helps to explain the ubiquity of religious politics, as well as the failings of modernization theory.