Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.

(OPINION) We tend to pay attention to news that impacts us most directly. So for Americans, the culture war playing out between religious — and some nonreligious — traditionalists and social progressives is most compelling.

Halfway around the world, however, another building struggle over religion and culture has heated up yet again. This one has direct international ramifications and has the potential to negatively impact global religious-political alignments, perhaps as much or more than America’s nasty cultural war.

It also contains an important lesson about the possible consequences of governments and politicians employing divisive culture war tactics for political gain (more on this theme below.) I do not think it absurd to fear that our homegrown culture war could become just as bad, or worse.

I’m referring to India, a constitutionally secular nation wracked by interreligious conflict between majority Hindus and minority Muslims. Christians have been caught in this imbroglio, too, but put that aside for the duration of this post.

Here’s a recent overview of India’s situation from The Washington Post. And here’s the top of that report:

NEW DELHI — After a spokeswoman for India’s ruling party made disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad during a recent televised debate, rioters took to the streets in the northern city of Kanpur, throwing rocks and clashing with police.

It was only the beginning of a controversy that would have global repercussions.

Indian products were soon taken off shelves in the Persian Gulf after a high-ranking Muslim cleric called for boycotts. Hashtags expressing anger at Prime Minister Narendra Modi began trending on Arabic-language Twitter. Three Muslim-majority countries — Qatar, Kuwait and Iran — summoned their Indian ambassadors to convey their displeasure. The governments of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Afghanistan on Monday condemned the spokeswoman, Nupur Sharma, as did the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Inflammatory comments by right-wing activists and political leaders in India often make headlines and spark outrage on social media. But rarely do they elicit the kind of attention that Sharma drew in [early June], which sent her political party — and India’s diplomats — scrambling to contain an international public relations crisis.

Let’s step back from the news coverage for a moment to consider some underlying dynamics and their impact on journalism.

Culture wars, to my mind, are in essence political struggles in which one group seeks to impose its values, structures and narrative — its world view, in short — on another. At least, this is the way the term is used in most mainstream coverage, as opposed to the actual work of the sociologist — James Davison Hunter — who wrote the most influential book on this topic.

Individual and societal values drawn from religious sources provide the ammunition for clashes over gender and sexuality issues, religious tolerance and intolerance, acceptable speech, immigration and other hot-button topics spurred by today’s unprecedented rate of social change.

Americans have seen how ugly culture wars can become when electoral politics are caught in its talons. Witness the vitriol that dominates the news out of Washington and various state capitals these days.

Witness the level of culture wars’ manipulation that occurred under former President Donald Trump — of course pro-MAGA conservatives will argue that progressive Democrats are the problem. And witness what happened in Idaho, where 31 anti-gay demonstrators were arrested for allegedly planning to “riot” at a gay pride parade last Saturday. The Coeur d’Alene incident underscored how dangerous America’s culture war has become — and what we might expect more of.

The situation in India — the world’s largest Hindu-majority nation with the third-largest Muslim population after Indonesia and Pakistan — is arguably even worse. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have long been accused of rallying their Hindu nationalist base by sowing, for example, Hindu fears about Muslim men seducing Hindu women.

In truth, many Muslims seem no more accepting of Hindu-Muslim unions than are Hindus. This Hindustan Times story from May underscores this reality.

Here’s a bit more explanation from the Post piece to which I linked above.

The (insult) controversy highlights one of the challenges to Indian foreign policy at a time when Modi is seeking a greater role on the world stage: Although his government has cultivated strong diplomatic ties with many Muslim nations, including both Saudi Arabia and Iran, his party has come under growing criticism for its treatment of India’s Muslim minority. It is accused by rights groups of stoking Hindu nationalist sentiment and turning a blind eye to religious violence.

“India under Modi has been quite deft in dealing with the Muslim world, but this was almost inevitable,” said Sumit Ganguly, a professor of political science at Indiana University. “At home, a lynching takes place and Modi remains deafeningly silent. Now, he feels compelled to act because he realizes the damage abroad could be extensive. When it comes to foreign policy, the stakes are high.”

The Indian government has sought to downplay a string of local religious controversies in recent months, including a ban on headscarves for female students, the razing of Muslim neighborhoods after communal clashes, and efforts by Hindu nationalists to reclaim high-profile mosques (that were once Hindu temple sites).

To better understand India’s complicated religious landscape, read these two partisan pieces. The first is from an Indian Hindu perspective. The second is from a Muslim viewpoint, featured at Religion News Service.

What’s my bottom line? Governments and groups that stir conflict by focusing on religion and culture, for their own preservationist desires, are playing with fire.

Examples abound: From the American Civil War to Nazi Germany, from Israel and Palestine to Northern Ireland’s Protestant-Catholic troubles, to Myanmar’s treatment of its Rohingya Muslims and China’s claim that its minority Muslim groups all represent a terrorist threat.

The reality is political leaders have long — perhaps always — used so-called culture war tactics to harden their support. Is it worse today? I can’t really say.

What I can say, however, is that the deadliness of modern weaponry — a category that includes the internet as well as tactical nuclear weapons — raises the specter of culture wars becoming bloodier than ever. That includes the United States of America — because we’re no smarter about these incessant problems than are Indians or any other of the other nationalities mentioned here.

That, dear readers, should worry you. It should also make you wonder about the responsibility journalists have in this issue.

My take is that it’s not enough to just regurgitate manipulative comments from leaders on both sides and then call it “fair and objective” journalism. I think we need context and the courage to challenge those who care more about careers than the country.

Walking that path is, of course, far from easy. It has its own set of problems that are far too complex for me to detail here. But if you simply give additional serious thought to this issue, I’ll consider my work here done.

This piece is republished with permission from GetReligion.org. Ira Rifkin is an award-winning journalist and author specializing in the intersection of religion, culture, and politics, with special emphasis on globalization. He was formerly the news director of Belief Net, a Washington-based national correspondent for Religion News Service and has contributed to many publications, including the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun and others.