The editor of this volume, Mujibur Rehman, informs the readers that the collection of articles presented in his book have a two-fold objective: first, to highlight the forms communalism has assumed in postcolonial India owing to the changing role of political parties, state, media and civil societies; second, to understand the persisting problem of communalism in contemporary India with the help of new conceptual tools emanating from interdisciplinary traditions.
Communalism in Postcolonial India: Changing Contours Edited by Mujibur Rehman Routledge: Oxford, New York and New Delhi, 2016
Indeed the rising tide of Hindu extremism is constantly challenging the secular credentials of the Indian state and measures taken at the time of the founding of independent India need to be revisited in the light of the experience which has accumulated in the last 69 years. India inherited probably the most diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic mix in the world. Therefore, although the top-down reforms initiated by the Nehruvian elite in favour of a secular and federal democracy have been necessary, these have not been sufficient to bring about transformative change. Sprawling poverty, minority alienation, discrimination and violence, caste and religious conflicts as well as separatist movements (especially in north-eastern India) and gender inequality continue to plague Indian society and polity. Consequently, a discussion on the key concepts of secularism, communalism and democracy is a welcome contribution of this edited work. The contributors to this volume represent several disciplines and advance different perspectives. Not surprisingly, some of these are in conflict with one another.
Shibani Kinkar Chaube’s article ‘Reflections on Secularism and Communalism in Constituent Assembly Debates and Beyond’ assesses the secular nature of the Indian constitution. We learn that India was not categorically declared a secular state with a clear separation of religion and state, although a number of measures included in the constitution ensured that secularism applied substantively while the state could go beyond the idea of a clear separation between state and religion. Moreover, an amendment by a Congress member, Professor K. T. Shah and a Muslim League member Maulana Hasrat Mohani that India be declared a ‘secular, socialist, federated republic’ was rejected. Interestingly it was Dr. Ambedkar who rejected such an amendment on grounds that ‘a constitution is a political document and should not lay down social and economic policies; they should be left to the future legislatures’. Chaube asserts that such an approach did not weaken secularism in India because a strict separation would have prohibited the state to intervene in religious matters and thus reforming the caste system and Hindu personal law would not have been possible. We also learn that while an amendment stipulating ‘no denominational religious instruction in schools’ received powerful support from S. Radhakrishnan and H. N. Kunzru, it was opposed by Sardar Patel and his close associate K. M. Munshi on grounds that the princely states may not agree to it.
A strict and categorical separation of religion and state is neither conceptually nor theoretically sound
Pritam Singh draws attention to the problem of institutional communalism, which he compares to institutional racism embedded in British society. He gives several examples of majoritarian Hindu biases that permeate the political system - including the armed forces and judiciary. He alleges that some provisions of the Constitution contain a Hindu bias. Thus for example, subsuming Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists under the Hindu category is perceived by him as an assimilationist measure. The other example he gives is that of the state intervening ‘through reform of Hindu religion’ as a measure to consolidate Hindu identity. However, as Chaube has convincingly argued, a strict separation of religion and state would disable the state from reforming egregious anachronisms in the so-called authentic Hindu culture. As far as I know, such intervention has been imperative to criminalise untouchability and set in motion ameliorating reforms through reservations of seats and posts educational, legislative and state institutions. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk would not have been able to move an inch in liberating Turkey from medievalism had he subscribed to strict separation of state and religion. A strict and categorical separation of religion and state is neither conceptually nor theoretically a sound standpoint. The danger is, of course, that majoritarian religious biases do exist and it is important to point out, as Singh does, how these negatively affect minority rights.
B. R. Ambedkar held that Partition necessarily ought to involve massive population transfers along religious lines
Dilip Simeon takes up the problem of employing terms such as ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ based on religion as if these were some natural units of society. Religion was used by the British to classify people and the idea of the nation-state which ultimately became the basis of the Partition of India was religion - as if the Partition were creating two religiously homogenous states. He takes to task the Communist Party of India for succumbing to the same conceptual confusion and supporting the Two Nation Theory as the liberation of the Muslim nation; something which in 1947 caused immense suffering to innocent people. He asserts that Ambedkar was opposed to the creation of Pakistan as it would leave large numbers of Muslims in India; a problem which Ambedkar argued could only be resolved through an exchange of populations on a religious basis. That a nation-state should necessarily be homogenous was accepted as a necessary pre-condition by Ambedkar. On the other hand, Mahatma Gandhi, even when he opposed the idea of transferring populations hoped that the majority population (that is Hindus) would provide protection to the minorities. Simeon is against such arithmetical understanding of majorities and minorities and would rather that the rights of all individuals be protected by a government committed to the rule of law and.
It is argued that if there were to be a strict separation of religion and state, the issue of untouchability would be harder to intervene in
Communalism is the belief that people following a particular religion have common social, political and economic interests
An interesting article on the trajectory of communalism and communal violence by Prateep Lahiri traces the history of communalism during the colonial period and its impact on the future of India - which resulted in the Partition and its long shadows which continue to prevail in contemporary India. I found Ramin Jananbegloo’s article, ‘Gandhi’s Critique of Religious Fanaticism’ intriguing in its suggestion that Gandhi was essentially pluralist in religious matters. The author argues that Gandhi had to confront two major perceptions in the Indian National Congress party. On the one hand, there was a group of Hindus within the Congress party which believed that Indian Muslims were not sufficiently patriotic so far as Indian nationalism was concerned. In contrast, there was a great feeling of pan-Islamism among some of the Muslim leaders of the Congress, intensified with a colour of doubt and scepticism with regard to the future of India. To counter both, Gandhi adopted the idea of equal respect for all religions while vesting ‘power of the nation… in the people and not religion’.
A contribution by Martha Nussbaum on the links of Hindu revivalism to the United States where diaspora Indian communities are connected to different branches of the Sangh Pariwar; Harsh Mander’s article Communal violence in India, Sanjoy Hazarika’s, ‘Conflict and attrition in the North-East: identity, impunity and inequality’; Hitendra K. Patel’s, ‘Aspects of Hindu-Muslim divide in literature and the role of the intelligentsia’; Savio Abreu, M. Ashok Kumar and Rowenta Robinson’s, ‘Indian Christians: history and contemporary challenges’; Mujibur Rehman’s Politics of the 2008 anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal; Odisha and Heewon Kim’s, ‘United Progressive Alliance (I) and India’s Muslims: redefining equality of opportunity’, are contributions of activists and academics and bring out in sharp relief the different aspects and dimensions of communalism in India.
The rising tide of Hindutva politics in India has again thrown questions of communalism into the limelight of public discussion
In this regard, it is worthwhile quoting the definition proffered by late Bipin Chandra on communalism:
“Communalism is the belief that because a group of people follow a particular religion they have, as a result, common social, political and economic interests. It is the belief that in India Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs form different and distinct communities which are independently and separately structured or consolidated; that all the followers of a religion share not only a community of religious interests but also of secular interests, that is, common economic, political, social and cultural interests; that Indians inevitably perceive such interests through the spectacles of religious grouping and are bound to possess a sense of identity based on religion, i.e. religion has become the basis of their social identity and the determinant of their basic social relationships.”
Indeed the contributions to this volume highlight how such objectification of religion continues to affect behaviour of state functionaries and define Indian politics. The editor is to be congratulated on taking this initiative to bring forth new perspectives on communalism in postcolonial India.
Ishtiaq Ahmed is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University, Visiting Professor at the Government College University Lahore and Honorary Senior Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
The writer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Stockholm University; Honorary Senior Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. He can be reached at: billumian@gmail.com
