Recently, the newly appointed RSS Sarsanghchalak, K.S. Sudarshan, stated that India will soon witness "an epic battle between the Hindu and anti-Hindu forces". Sudarshan's "war cry" clearly divides the Indian nation-state along religious lines. The RSS agenda of "Hinduising" Indian society is a part of a process of homogenising national culture, which openly challenges the notion of cultural pluralism.

To fathom the ongoing contest between "cultural pluralism" and "cultural nationalism", one must understand the tension between the nation-state and religion and their struggle to establish supremacy .. Religion and the nation-state cannot be linked. A nationalism based on religion is not tenable because whichever way one defines a nation, the concept of a "common homeland" is necessary for it to exist.

One cannot have a part of one's nation in Asia and the other part in Africa or America. Separated sections become ethnic communities like the Sindhis in India or they establish new nations in new "homelands" the way French Canadians did. On the other hand, religious communities are always territorially dispersed and have no common homeland.

This does not apply only to religions like Christianity, Islam and Sikhism which have the-concept of conversion at the core of their belief systems. Geographical dispersion can also occur through migration or colonisation. Thus Judaism, without being vigorously proselytising, is one of the most geographically dispersed religions in the world.

Hinduism does not convert, but gradually assimilates ... But Hindus do migrate as in the case of countries such. as Fiji and Mauritius. In such cases, an automatic link between religion and territory is disturbed. Therefore, any effort to establish a nation based on religion is doomed to fail.

If religion was indeed an accepted basis of nation formation, there would have been only a few nations in the world. If religion alone had been the basis of the nation-state, Pakistan would not have splintered to create Bangladesh. Also, there would be no rationale for Pakistan and Afghanistan to remain separate states.

Religions are diverse and heterogeneous from within. Intra-religious intolerance is as much pronounced as inter- religious animosity ...

To confuse matters more, Hutus and Tutsis – fierce enemies in Africa - are both Catholics. In the case of Hinduism, deep divides based on castes and languages is also prevalent. Therefore, the proposition of "one-nation, one religion" is untenable.

Is the commonly floated idea of "one culture, many religions" then plausible? The postulate is a summation of a basic confusion, as the coexistence of many religions necessarily implies the existence of different layers of culture. To bring all these layers under one cultural rubric - whether one calls it Indianisation or Hindutva -- is to homogenise them. To annihilate their specificities is the exact opposite of cultural pluralism.

There are two inevitable consequences in establishing a religion-based nation - genocide and/or a systematic liquidation of cultures. Both are utterly anti-democratic and admittedly fascist. If culturocide is attempted, this should inevitably lead to homogenisation of cultures and hegemonisation by the dominant community ..

.. In a multi-religious democratic nation, the customs of all religious communities ought to be respected. This is the essence of cultural pluralism. If a nation based on religion is established, those who do not belong to the "national religion" are not simply  "minoritised", they are also marginalised as a whole. Buddhists, Christians and Hindus are marginalised in Bangladesh as well as in Pakistan. In Sri Lanka, Hindus, Christians and Muslims are marginalised.

In India, although Hinduism is not the official religion, for all practical purposes Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists - particularly the first two – are marginalised. Additionally, the majority religious community of the country may be marginalised in some parts of the country, as in the case of Hindus in Kashmir.

Some religious minority groups are even viewed as outsiders. This is the case of Muslims, Christians, Zoroastrians, Baha'is and Jews in India ..

Even states with official religions treat co-religionists as outsiders when they are outside their homelands. Thus, Muslims who migrated to Pakistan from Uttar Pradesh with great enthusiasm are now treated as outsiders or mohajirs. It is a similar case for Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh. A state based on religion provides no guarantees to treat dislocated co-religionists .as co-nationals.

In a polity in which an exclusionary religious orientation prevails, secularists, agnostics and atheists will have no freedom of expression ... When actual or contrived mass protests ... that both the state and oppositional forces are intimidated by violent protests ...

It is argued that Hinduism cannot be fundamentalist because it does not have an identifiable founder, an  ultimate text and a regulating church. And ... both Gandh and his assassin Godse are widely perceived by conflicting groups as "good Hindus". The difference between the two is fundamental. While Godse championed the cause of a Hindu nation and state, the former rejected such a notion lock, stock and barrel. It is this exclusionary orientation which tends to make Hinduism fundamentalist ... (Source: The Hindustan Times, 23 March, 2000)