Religion and Communalism

Religion, Religiosity and Communalism, 1996

When religion is understood as a concrete organization which determines the entire life of its followers, it becomes a source of conflict and violence. But there is a more basic aspect of religion in the form of faith and experience which can never be a source of hate and violence. This implies a distinction between the essential and peripheral aspects of religion. Also, if religion is asserted to be the exclusive criterion of a people’s identity, it causes severe rift between various religious groups, called ‘communities’, in a plural society like India’s. The conception of ‘community’ in India is flawed as it makes religion as the exclusive basis of a people’s identity, and does not take into cognizance several other factors which condition the identity and secular interests of a person or group of persons. This approach results in the phenomena of communalism and conflict. If we emphasize other bonds between people, as language, local culture and shared economic interests, we would be both nearer the lived reality and also able to provide a firmer foundation for a shared national life and culture.

2010

Recognition of Religion S ecularism may have been an important, if not the distinguishing, attribute of the modern West in the twentieth century, but in contemporary times Western liberal democracies are increasingly being represented as 'post-secular' societies. To be post-secular means, as Habermas 1 reminds us, that these societies must have been secular once. They must have been governed, at one time, by the social indicators that marked secularised societies. But in the present world, particularly after 9/11, these societies are witnessing a change, one in which religion is reappearing as an important marker of identity, compelling these secularised societies to come to terms with the existence of religion and religious communities in the public domain. Secularism was informed by the understanding that when societies become modern the signifi cance of religion and religious institutions would decline. Religious explanations of events would give way to scientifi c and rational explanations, and functional differentiation within the social system would diminish the role of religious institutions, like the Church. The Church might continue to exist but its control over individual and collective life would diminish. Religion would be primarily a personal matter, restricted to the private realm.

2015

It has become part of the Indian commonsense to regard “communalism” as simply another term for “religious intolerance”. Scholars seem to treat it as more or less a historical accident that this special term came to be coined in India for the phenomenon of religious antagonism. This essay proposes that the British did not see “communalism” in the same way as the religious intolerance they were familiar with in Europe. This becomes clear on considering that the British, no strangers to a history of religious antagonism and intolerance themselves, never saw the solutions drawn in Britain as being applicable in India. In fact, most of them believed (a) that “communalism” was a peculiarly Indian problem, one that did not have a parallel in the West and (b) that India already had toleration, the solution to religious intolerance in the West. But, communalism was still a major problem in India. How does one reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions? Therefore, before one begins to assess how British conceptions of community have impacted India, one must excavate what those conceptions were and why they arose.

1999

It appears that fifty years after the first Partitioning of India, history is repeating itself. However, this time the partitioning is occurring along psychological lines and not along physical or geographical boundaries. Once again Hindus, Muslims and Christians seem to be experiencing a deep mental and emotional divide between them. Feelings of suspicion, hatred and violence seem once again common place between the three communities. Identities are questioned and definitions sought as to who is a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian or worse still, an Indian! In other words, restrictive and exclusive identities are fuelling a communalism which pits one community against another. Thus, seeds of disunity and conflict are sown within the whole country.

Communalism, as defined by Bipan Chandra, is a belief that in India Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians form distinct and different communities which are independent and separately structured. These independent communities have their own independent interests and it is inevitable that they are having conflicting interest. Because which part of resource should be given to which community is the matter of priority both from the point of providing affirmative action and from the communal angle and this creates tension among the existing groups in society. As one set of people gets the benefits at the cost of other add hostilities towards other group.

Abstract Communalism is one of the great threats in Indian stability, one side it is consider for the love and respect for one's community, on the other side; it acquired the symbol of derogatory attitude towards the other community, based on intolerance and almost verging abhorrence of being violence. Earlier this had happened in India; due to the sudden impression of various socioeconomic and religious forces happened in India, as well as the role of British Empire in India. The nature of this ideology was changing from time to time. After partition of India, this moved on surface more and more and it was understood as a conflict and hatred between the India's two major communities Hindus and Muslims. For the sake of power politics many political parties used religions as their target and also started moblising one community against the other for considering their narrow political interests.

Critical Humanities from India: Contexts, Issues, Futures, 2018

It has become part of the Indian common sense to regard communalism as simply another term for religious intolerance. Scholars seem to treat it as more or less a historical accident that this special term came to be coined in India for the universal phenomenon of religious antagonism. This essay proposes that the British did not see communalism in the same way as the religious intolerance they were familiar with in Europe. This becomes clear on considering that the British themselves, no strangers to a history of religious antagonism and intolerance, never saw the solutions drawn in Britain as applicable in India. In fact, most of them believed (a) that communalism was a peculiarly Indian problem, one that did not have a parallel in the West and (b) that India already had toleration, the solution to religious intolerance in the West. But, communalism was still a major problem in India. How does one reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions? This essay suggests that Christian theological assumptions that shaped the colonial understanding of Hinduism form at least one key aspect of the answer to this question.

South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 1997

CONFLICT BETWEEN GROUPS DISTINGUISHED BY RELIGIOUS MEMBERSHIP-'communalism'as it is known locally-is one of India's most persistent social problems. Hundreds of studies have been published describing and attempting to explain various aspects of Indian communalism. Most of these have been written by historians, though in recent years anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists have also turned their attention to the problem. 1 Thus far, historians have made comparatively little use of the work of ...