Last month, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom listed India as a “country of particular concern” for the first time since 2004. The decision reflects increased religious hostility and sectarian conflict in India, which have been stoked further by the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed last December. In the five months since, the CAA’s use of religious identity as a criteria for citizenship has sparked widespread opposition and protest both within India and abroad. But while controversial, it is far from an isolated policy. It connects to a steady increase in religious discrimination and violence within India, throughout South Asia, and across the globe—raising important questions for policymakers and activists alike.

People at a rally to protest a citizenship law in the state of Assam, in Guwahati, India, Dec. 15, 2019. (Ahmer Khan/The New York Times)
People at a rally to protest a citizenship law in the state of Assam, in Guwahati, India, Dec. 15, 2019. (Ahmer Khan/The New York Times)

This rise in religious discrimination is not only noteworthy in its scale, but also its consequences. In many settings, increased government regulation of religion preceded an increase in political instability and conflict. Now, with the CAA sparking religious violence in one of the world’s largest countries, it is vital for peacebuilding practitioners to develop new ways of integrating religious freedom into broader strategies for development, democratization, and peacebuilding.

To that end, USIP has established a project called “Closing the Gap: Analyzing the Relationship Between Religious Freedom and Political and Economic Development.” In partnership with USAID’s Center for Faith and Opportunity Initiatives, the study will examine the CAA and other pressing issues related to international religious freedom.  

The CAA, Hindu Nationalism, and Growing Religious Tensions in India

As a matter of policy, the CAA provides expedited Indian citizenship to migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan that belong to select religious minorities and entered the country without a valid visa or overstayed their visa prior to December 2014. Absent from the list are Muslims and religious minorities from other parts of South Asia, such as Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar.

India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has long drawn on Hindu nationalism to consolidate their power. Critics of the CAA claim the law is another piece of the BJP’s Hindu nationalist agenda and will undermine India’s secular foundations and further marginalize and disenfranchise the country’s sizeable Muslim population, as well as other religious minorities.

The Indian government, however, maintains that the CAA gives millions of illegal migrants, who were vulnerable to detention and deportation, an accelerated path toward citizenship. They also defend the exclusion of Muslims by saying they are unlikely to face religious persecution in neighboring countries like Pakistan, where Islam is the official state religion.

Despite the Indian government’s explanations, the CAA has evoked impassioned dissent, as thousands of Indian citizens across the country took to the streets in protest. In New Delhi, these demonstrations led to some the city’s worst bloodshed in decades when Hindu gangs, encouraged and abetted in part by the Home Ministry and the ruling BJP party, targeted Muslims and cracked down on anti-CAA protesters of all faiths.

The Latest Concern in a Global Trend

India’s CAA is perhaps the most noteworthy instance of religious hostilities being codified into law—but it’s not the only one. In neighboring Nepal, the introduction and implementation of new anti-conversion laws followed the steady rise of interreligious tensions over the past half-decade. In Pakistan, the Election Act in 2017 retained the practice of placing Ahmadis on a separate voter registration list for non-Muslims. And the Pew Research Center’s 10th annual report on religious restrictions found that the number of countries imposing “high” or “very high” levels of restrictions increased by 30 percent between 2007 and 2017—with government favoritism of certain religious groups, such as through citizenship rights, standing out as one of the most prevalent practices.

Meanwhile, religious violence is also being used to justify more government regulation of faith communities. This has become a common practice in South Asia and has also been seen in Nigeria, Russia, and China. In Myanmar, for instance, the increase in violence that has disproportionately targeted Muslims—and the Rohingya Muslim community in particular—was followed by an uptick this past year in religious discrimination of not only Rohingya and other Muslims, but Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus as well.

A similar pattern in India, the world’s largest democracy, may mark the start of an even more sweeping cycle of religious repression and violence. Once praised for its religious pluralism, rapid economic growth, and multiethnic democratic system, India has many rethinking a conventional view that religious freedom inevitably leads to a more prosperous and peaceful society.  

Current events in India also underscore the need to know more about the consequences of religious discrimination. Many argue that the suppression of minority religions creates grievances that lead minorities to fight back. In India, however, the majority of violence to date has been initiated by Hindu gangs. In other contexts, such as Kuwait, Iran, Vietnam, and China, the repression of minority religions has increased resentment but not led to disorder and intergroup violence. When and why repression leads to instability and conflict, therefore, remains an open question.

How Can Peacebuilders Respond?

Over the next year, the Closing the Gap project will investigate the relationship between religious freedom, political stability, and socioeconomic development through statistical analysis and country case studies. While a considerable amount of new data on government restrictions of religion has been collected in recent years, we still know relatively little about the causal relationship between religious freedom and the above-mentioned structural conditions, how this varies across different contexts, and when these factors complement or counteract one another.

In addition to these questions, we will also explore whether, when, and how interfaith peacebuilding and faith-based development activities in divided societies correspond with an expansion of religious freedom.

Traditional peacebuilding practices can be—and are being—applied today to help mitigate this shift toward religious discrimination. For example, interfaith groups play an important role in promoting dialogue, reducing mistrust, and building bridges between community members of different religious traditions. And activists are drawing on nonviolent resistance tactics, such as with the street protest in India, to oppose discriminatory legislation.

But in order for policymakers and activists to rise to the scale of the problem, we need a more comprehensive understanding of how religious freedom can effectively intersect with sustainable peace and development. Ultimately, the goal of the Closing the Gap project is to identify a broader set of conditions that will complement the current tactics and lead to a more nuanced, strategic, and impactful policy and practice of advancing religious freedom.

Jason Klocek is a senior researcher with the Religion & Inclusive Societies program at USIP and a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society.

Related Publications

What a Russian Nuclear Escalation Would Mean for China and India

What a Russian Nuclear Escalation Would Mean for China and India

Thursday, November 10, 2022

By: Andrew Scobell, Ph.D.;  Vikram J. Singh;  Alex Stephenson

Since Russia began its assault on Ukraine last February, India and China have straddled the fence by hinting at their concerns regarding the war’s global fallout while avoiding direct public criticism of Moscow. Despite rhetorical consternation and calls for a peaceful resolution, neither has shown a willingness to meaningfully push back against Putin’s escalations in Ukraine. Instead, the two Asian nuclear powers are approaching the situation with caution and calculated diplomacy to preserve their own strategic interests — both in Russia and the West.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

It’s Time for South Asia to Talk Climate

It’s Time for South Asia to Talk Climate

Monday, October 17, 2022

By: Ahsan Butt

That India and Pakistan are engaged in backchannel track 2 diplomacy is the worst kept secret in South Asia. It does not take a vivid imagination to guess what dominates the agenda at these talks: Kashmir, terrorism, trade, perhaps crisis behavior under the shadow of nuclear weapons. Welcome as such conversations are, they are almost assuredly lacking focus on the biggest crisis facing the region’s inhabitants: climate change.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Environment

Modi, Putin and Xi Join the SCO Summit Amid Turbulent Times

Modi, Putin and Xi Join the SCO Summit Amid Turbulent Times

Thursday, September 22, 2022

By: Cordelia Buchanan Ponczek;  Mary Glantz, Ph.D.;  Carla Freeman, Ph.D.;  Vikram J. Singh

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) resumed in-person summits last week in the wake of the COVID pandemic and at a moment of unprecedent change and challenge. Member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are at war over their border. So are dialogue partner states Armenia and Azerbaijan. All SCO members are dealing with the economic impact of the Russian war in Ukraine as well as climate disruptions like the floods overwhelming Pakistan. Mistrust between India and Pakistan, full members since 2017, make cooperation difficult on the SCO’s original core mission of counterterrorism. And India and China, which were building toward the “Wuhan spirit” of cooperation when India joined in 2017, are hardly on speaking terms despite recent progress toward deescalating a friction point along their disputed Line of Actual Control.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global Policy

India and Pakistan at 75: Prospects for the Future

India and Pakistan at 75: Prospects for the Future

Monday, August 15, 2022

By: Ambassador Jalil Abbas Jilani;  Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi;  Ambassador Nirupama Rao;  Ambassador Arun Singh

India and Pakistan, the two nuclear-armed giants of South Asia, each mark the 75th anniversary of their independence this week. In this article, USIP interviews Jalil Abbas Jilani and Maleeha Lodhi, former ambassadors of Pakistan to the United States, and Nirupama Rao and Arun Singh, former ambassadors of India to the United States, to get their perspectives on the main foreign policy and security challenges facing their respective countries, options for rapprochement, and the role of the United States and other global powers in supporting peace and stability in the region.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & PreventionGlobal Policy

View All Publications