Communalism is a significant social issue in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Communal conflicts between religious communities in India, especially Hindus and Muslims have occurred since the period of British colonial rule, occasionally leading to serious inter-communal violence. Communalism can take different forms in politics such as the laws favouring one religion over the other, communal violence and campaigns based on religion. This leads to people of one religion turn against people of other religions, which is harmful to society.
Communalism or communal ideology consists of three basic elements or stages- one following the other: • Mild Communalism: It is the belief that people who follow the same religion have common secular interests i.e., common political, social and cultural interests. For example, nobles of different communities (Hindustani, Turani, Afghan, Irani etc.) co-existed (largely) peacefully in the courts of the Mughal kings. • Moderate Communalism: In a multi-religious society like India, the secular interests of followers of one religion are dissimilar and divergent from the interests of the followers of another religion. For example, the Muslim League was initially founded upon the realization of such differences in interests. • Extreme Communalism: Interests of different religious communities are seen to be mutually incompatible, antagonistic and hostile. For example, groups advocating partition of the country as the only solution for safeguarding the interests of the religious communities. Communalism is more about politics rather than religion. Although communalists are intensely involved with religion, there is no necessary relationship between personal faith and communalism.
A communal person may or may not be a devout religious person, and devout believers may or may not be communal beings. However, all communalists believe in a political identity based on religion. The key factor is the attitude towards those who believe in other kinds of identities, including other religion-based identities. Communalism claims that religious identity overrides everything else- such as poverty, occupation, caste or political beliefs. It rules out the possibility that Hindus, Muslims and Christians who belong to Kerala, for example, may have as much or more in common with each other than with their co-religionists from Kashmir, Gujarat or Nagaland. It also denies the possibility that, for instance, landless agricultural labourers (or industrialists) may have a lot in common even if they belong to different religions and regions.
The origins of communalism can be traced back to history, particularly the British Raj. After the Revolt of 1857, the British started to follow the ‘divide and rule’ policy consciously and deliberately. The antagonistic feelings got strengthened during their rule and ultimately led to the partition of British India on the basis of religious identity. This did not steam out post-independence, and time and again india witnessed communal clashes in various parts of the country. For example, the 2020 Bangalore riots, Delhi riots. the word “communal” means something related to a community or collectivity as different from an individual. In common parlance, the word ‘communalism’ refers to aggressive chauvinism based on religious identity. Chauvinism is an attitude that sees one’s own group as the only legitimate or worthy group, with other groups seen as inferior, illegitimate and to be opposed. Thus, communalism is an aggressive political ideology linked to religion. This is a peculiarly Indian, or perhaps South Asian, meaning that is different from the sense of the ordinary English word. The English meaning is neutral, whereas the South Asian meaning is strongly charged. The charge may be seen as positive – if one is sympathetic to communalism – or negative, if one is opposed to it. Therefore communalism, in the Indian context, is most commonly perceived as a phenomenon of religious differences between groups that often lead to tension, and even rioting between them.
In its not so violent manifestation, communalism amounts to discrimination against a religious group in matters such as employment or education The causes of communal clashes as such are rarely religious in its fundamental context. In India communalism arises when religion is used as a marker to highlight socio economic and political disequilibrium between communities as a force multiplier to demand certain concessions. Communalists cultivate an aggressive political narrative and identity and are prepared to condemn and attack anyone who doesn’t agree with their perceived political social and religious narrative. Before 1857 British encouraged Hinduism over Muslims in matters of employment and education. Muslim learned intellectuals realised that Muslims need to widen their education assertions and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan a Muslim intellectual found Aligarh college to fight the bias against modern education among Muslims and also started numerous scientific societies in 1860’s in which both Hindu and Muslim participated. Communalism got its earlier stance after 1880’s when Sir Syed Ahmed Khan opposed the national movement started by Indian National Congress and deemed it a Hindu centric party opposed to Muslims.
In India even presently communalism is strengthening its hold over public since 2014. Renowned economist and social activist Jean Dreze was made to cut short his speech on “growing communalism” in Jharkhand after the state’s agriculture minister Randhir Kumar Singh created furore over his remarks on Monday. Dreze was speaking at an event organised by a Hindi daily, where he commented on the functioning of saffron organisations like Rashtriya Swayansewak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrang Dal. Communalism, today, is not only a tool for stray outfits like Bajrang Dal and Islmaic state. Even the govt’s policies, especially the Jharkhand state, also reflects the communal agendas,” jean dreze said in his remarks.
several prominent activists gathered outside Jharkhand’s Raj Bhavan, a day later, to protest against the economist being prevented from finishing his speech, calling it a reflection of the intolerance in the country.
An era where the free transfer of knowledge is imperative for national development, Nobel prize-winning economist Amartya Sen cautioned that the climate of communal conflict in India and rising communalism in Indian politics is continuously impeding the development and spread of knowledge in India. Taking a dig at the growing popularity of “Vedic science” in the country which claimed to encompass “the golden age of Indian mathematics,” the Nobel laureate chastised this as “a world of fantasy” which has crept into parts of university education in India. The theme of his talk was ‘barriers to friendship’, either between nations or within nations, because sectarian and communal conflicts have their bad effect on political and social life. They can also make the development of knowledge and the spread of knowledge much harder,” he said. Polarization in India is more toxic today than it has been in decades, and it shows no signs of abating.
Since the late nineteenth century, the primary source of political and societal polarization in India has been a fundamental question of nationhood: Should India be a secular country or a Hindu rashtra (Hindu nation), given that roughly 80 percent of the population is Hindu? Although the political hegemony of the secular, pluralist Congress Party tempered polarization over this issue until the 1970s, the rising prominence of Hindu nationalist organizations in recent decades has sharply increased tensions. Divisive political leadership—coupled with India’s economic transformation, changes in the media landscape, and the rise of competitive caste politics—has steadily brought polarization to a boil.
since the landslide electoral victories of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2014 and 2019, the consequences of severe polarization have grown ever more worrisome. Partisan attacks on India’s independent political institutions have intensified, opposition parties have become extremely wary of defending pluralism and secularism, and hatred and violence against minority communities have flared up. The coronavirus pandemic has eased this polarization on the surface by engendering more unifying political leadership, yet at the societal level the crisis has only amplified intolerance, particularly against India’s Muslim minority community. Although various actors have launched efforts to counter the country’s majoritarian turn and improve civic dialogue.
The divide between secular and Hindu nationalist visions of national identity forms the central axis of polarization in India today. This is not to ignore polarization based on differences in caste, class, language, or region; however, these cleavages are more important at the subnational level because no one group is able to predominate nationally. Polarization along these axes thus has never posed an existential threat to Indian democracy, with the exception of one major episode between 1975 and 1977 when the government of prime minister Indira Gandhi suspended basic rights for twenty-one months—a dark chapter in the country’s astounding democratic journey. The significance of other episodes of polarization notwithstanding, the divide over Hindu nationalism is seriously endangering liberal freedoms and pluralist democracy in India today.
