By VK Lyngdoh
This is in response to the editorial “Politics, religion” that appeared in this paper on January 23, 2026. No contemporary Indian politician has matched Jawaharlal Nehru’s iconic vision of calling dams and factories the, “modern temples of India.” Today’s leaders emphasize infrastructure, digital technology, and welfare schemes, but none frame them with the same civilizational symbolism Nehru used to define post-independence nation-building.
Jawaharlal Nehru (1947-1964) saw large dams, steel plants, and factories as symbols of modern India’s progress. His famous phrase, “temples of modern India,” linked industrial infrastructure to spiritual and cultural renewal. He believed these projects embodied national unity, self-reliance and modernization, much like temples embodied spiritual life. Why is there no equivalent today? Nehru’s era equated industrialization with modernity. Today digital transformation, services and private enterprise dominate. Large dams and factories are now criticised for displacement and ecological damage, making Nehru’s metaphor less resonant. Political rhetoric today is “Make in India,” “Digital India,” rather than a philosophical metaphor.
Nehru’s framing was civilizational and symbolic, tying India’s industrial projects to India’s destiny. Modern leaders emphasize efficiency, competitiveness and global positioning but lack the poetic nation building language Nehru employed. In short, India has leaders who push infrastructure and modernization but none who elevate them to the level of spiritual-national symbols. Nehru’s metaphor of dams and factories as “temples’ remains unmatched. Today’s leaders pursue modernisation through digital and infrastructural projects, but their rhetoric is managerial, not visionary.
The editorial is correct in pointing out that when religion and politics intertwine too tightly, it risks fragmenting the idea of nationalism in India. Instead of uniting citizens under a shared civic identity, it can deepen divisions along religious and caste lines, weakening the inclusive spirit that nationalism ideally represents.
Since 2014, the BJP-led government has emphasized Hindu identity as central to Indian politics. This has created a majoritarian narrative that sidelines minority communities and reshapes nationalism into a religiously inflected project. Religious symbols, rituals, and institutions are often used during elections to rally support. This blurs the line between faith-based identity and political citizenship, making nationalism less about shared civic values and more about religious belonging. The fusion of religion and politics isn’t new. Hindu nationalism as a political language dates back to colonial times, when religious identity was mobilized against both colonial rule and rival communities.
Why does this undercut nationalism? True nationalism should unite diverse groups under one civic identity. When religion dominates politics, minorities may feel alienated or treated as outsiders. India’s constitutional commitment to secularism is weakened when political legitimacy is tied to religious majorities. Instead of fostering solidarity across linguistic, caste, and regional divides, religion-based politics risks deepening polarization. The broader implication is that communal tensions rise when political actors exploit religious differences, undermining trust between communities. The use of religion in politics can weaken democratic norms by prioritizing identity over policy. India’s reputation as a pluralistic democracy is challenged when nationalism is equated with one religious identity. Nationalism in India thrives when it is inclusive, civic, and pluralistic—rooted in shared values like democracy, freedom, and equality. The “unholy link” between religion and politics risks turning nationalism into majoritarianism, which is nationalism in name but sectarian in practice. To preserve the spirit of nationalism, India must reaffirm secular principles and ensure that political identity is not reduced to religious belonging.
Karl Marx famously described religion as “the opium of the people,” meaning it provides comfort in times of suffering but also dulls awareness of exploitation and prevents revolutionary change. He saw religion as both a protest against harsh conditions and a tool that sustains oppressive systems. Marx called religion, “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.” It gives meaning and solace to people living under exploitation. He argued that religion offers illusory happiness by promising rewards in the afterlife, distracting people from fighting for justice in the present.
Marx acknowledged that religion can express genuine protest against suffering and alienation, but he believed it ultimately reinforces the status quo. In Marx’s materialist framework, religion is part of the superstructure—an ideology shaped by economic and social conditions. It helps maintain class hierarchies by legitimizing inequality. Why did he call it “Opium?” In 19th-century Europe, opium was used medically to relieve pain but also caused dependency. Marx used this metaphor to show that religion soothes suffering but also creates dependency, preventing people from confronting the root causes of their misery—capitalist exploitation.
What are the implications of Marx’s views? Marx believed that once oppressive economic systems were dismantled, religion would no longer be necessary. His analysis highlights how ruling classes can use religion to justify inequality and discourage rebellion. Later Marxists (like Lenin) extended this critique, advocating secularism and viewing religion as a barrier to socialist consciousness. Marx didn’t dismiss religion as meaningless; he saw it as a symptom of suffering. But he argued that true liberation requires addressing the material conditions that make religion necessary in the first place.
However, the most dangerous truth today is not the one that denies God. It is the one that shows how men created Gods in their own image.
