What is Communalism?
‘Communalism’ refers to a narrow-minded ideology that, in the name of religion and sect, prioritizes individual religious and sectarian interests over the broader welfare of society and the nation. Communalism fosters blind devotion to one’s own religion while generating hostility toward other religions and their followers.
Fundamentally, communalism is based on the belief that because certain people follow a particular religion, they share common social, political, and economic interests. Communalism creates tensions between religious groups that can escalate into separatism. The politics of alienation and hostility between different major sects within the same country is called ‘communal politics.’ In India, this communal politics first saw the rise of Muslim communalism, followed by the emergence and development of Hindu communalism as a reaction.
The Historical Context of Communalism in India
Three Stages of Communal Ideology
Communal ideology in India developed through three distinct stages that showed clear progression:
First Stage: This ideology assumed that people following a particular religion shared common worldly interests—social, political, and economic. In India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians were viewed as separate and distinct communities whose followers shared not only spiritual interests but also temporal ones.
Second Stage: This phase held that the social, cultural, economic, and political interests of followers of one religion differed from those of another religion. In India’s multi-religious society, the worldly interests of followers of one religion were considered distinct from those of any other religion.
Third Stage: Communalism reached its most dangerous phase when it was assumed that the interests of different religious communities were mutually antagonistic. The interests of various religious groups came to be viewed as conflicting and hostile.
In its first stage, communalism heavily emphasized religious identity, giving birth to the concept of religion-based socio-political communities. The second stage has been called liberal or moderate communalism, where communalists still maintained some belief in liberal, democratic, humanitarian, and nationalist values. In the third stage, communalism became militant and adopted fascist methods.
The Historical Roots of Indian Communalism
Why Communalism Emerged
The mere presence of multiple religions in a country does not necessarily lead to communalism. In multi-religious societies, communalism is not inevitable. Religion is a belief system that people follow as part of their personal faith. Communalism, however, is an ideology of social and political identity based on religion. Religion is not the cause of communalism, nor is communalism inspired by religion. Communalism is essentially the political exploitation of religion. Religious devotion alone does not significantly promote communalism.
Because India lacked widespread education and people had minimal awareness of the outside world, religiosity served as a catalyst for communalism. Modern political consciousness developed later among Muslims of the lower and middle classes compared to Hindus and Parsis of the same classes.
Communalism is not an ancient or medieval remnant, as often claimed. Although communalism used and was based on ancient and medieval ideologies, it was fundamentally a modern ideology and political tendency that expressed the social aspirations of modern social groups, classes, and forces, and fulfilled their political needs.
Social and Economic Causes
Economic Competition and Middle-Class Anxiety
Communalism in India resulted from the colonial economy and the backwardness it created. Colonial exploitation caused stagnation in the Indian economy, particularly affecting the middle class and creating conditions conducive to social division and conflict.
Nationwide economic stagnation led to fierce competition for government jobs, professions like law and medicine, and industrial opportunities. To secure the maximum share of available economic opportunities, middle-class people relied on collective identities like caste, province, and religion. Communalism could provide—and did provide—immediate assistance to some members of the middle class. In that era of shrinking economic opportunities, communalism had its roots in the middle class, through which it expressed its interests and aspirations.
Educational and Professional Disparities
A major reason for the development of communal and separatist tendencies among Muslims was their relative backwardness in education, trade, and industry. In the first 70 years of the nineteenth century, upper-class Muslims were anti-British, conservative, and opposed to modern education, resulting in very few educated Muslims in the country.
Statistical Evidence of Educational Gaps:
- In 1874-75, Muslims comprised only 29% of school-going children in Bengal, while Hindus made up 70.1%
- In higher education, the gap was even wider—in 1875, only 5.4% of college students in Bengal were Muslim compared to 93.9% Hindu
- Among literate Muslims, only 1.50% knew English, compared to 4.40% of Hindus
Due to lack of education, modern Western ideas—science, secularism, and nationalism—could not spread among Muslim intellectuals, and political consciousness did not develop among them. In contrast, Hindus enthusiastically pursued English and Western education, resulting in Hindus securing government jobs and other economically advantageous positions.
Government Employment Patterns
Although the 1858 proclamation stated that the government would not discriminate based on caste or religion in public appointments, the government severely punished Muslims by denying them government positions and marginalizing them in education and economic sectors. High positions went to Europeans and lower positions to Hindus, while Muslims were deprived of government jobs, creating an economic and cultural divide between the two communities.
Shifting Demographics in Government Service:
- In 1871, Muslims comprised only 5.9% of government officials in Bengal, while Hindus were 41%
- When English replaced Arabic and Persian as the official language in 1883, positions of power increasingly went to Hindus
- In executive and judicial services, Muslim representation fell from 63.9% in 1857 to 45.1% in 1886-87 and 34.7% in 1913
- During the same period, Hindu representation increased from 24.1% to 50.3% and then 60%
British Colonial Policies: “Divide and Rule”
Post-1857 Strategy Shift
After the 1857 rebellion, where Hindu and Muslim soldiers united shoulder-to-shoulder against British rule, the British government adopted discriminatory policies against Muslims and began favoring Hindus. Post-1857, appointments of Muslims to government positions were nearly stopped, and they were viewed with suspicion.
This discriminatory policy led Muslims to believe that an alliance existed between Hindus and the British against them, planting seeds of suspicion and distrust between Hindus and Muslims.
Encouraging Separatism
After 1870, as Indian nationalism emerged, advocacy for good Anglo-Muslim relations increased. William Hunter’s book “The Indian Mussulmans” emphasized the need for Anglo-Muslim friendship, laying the foundation for this alliance.
To prevent the development of national sentiment, the British decided to attract Muslim landlords, landowners, and the newly educated class to their side under a “divide and rule” policy to encourage communal and separatist tendencies in Indian politics.
British Tactics Included:
- Promoting provincialism by invoking Bengali dominance
- Using the caste system to pit non-Brahmin castes against Brahmins and lower castes against upper castes
- Replacing Urdu with Hindi as the official language in the United Provinces and Bihar
- Treating Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs as separate communities
- Allowing complete freedom to spread poisonous communal ideas and hatred through press, pamphlets, posters, literature, and public platforms
The Role of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan
Early Nationalist to Communal Leader
Sir Syed Ahmad Khan (Sitar-e-Hind), a pioneer of Muslim renaissance, played a significant role in developing religious separatism. In his early public life, Sir Syed was an ardent nationalist with an intelligent, far-sighted, and reformist outlook, but in his later years, his nationalism transformed into communalism.
Sir Syed’s Two Main Objectives:
- Bridging the gap of distrust between the British government and Muslims after the 1857 rebellion
- Spreading modern education among Muslims to overcome their backwardness and make them eligible for government positions
Sir Syed argued that despite being a minority, Muslims should receive special representation in power due to their status as a former ruling class, and should have a special relationship with the political system.
Impact on Hindu-Muslim Relations
Sir Syed’s political ideology was based on the idea that Indian society was a collection of various mutually antagonistic communities. He believed that after independence, a Congress-led government would naturally be Hindu-dominated, and Muslims would be treated as second-class citizens. This ideology had adverse effects on Hindu-Muslim unity, and Muslim attendance at Congress sessions continuously declined.
Congress Attendance Statistics (1892-1909):
- Approximately 90% of representatives were Hindu
- Only 6.5% were Muslim
- Among Hindus, about 40% were Brahmins and the rest upper-caste Hindus
Communal Interpretation of Indian History
Historical Distortion as a Political Tool
To strengthen British imperialism, many British historians provided distorted interpretations of Indian history that fostered communal sentiments among Hindus and Muslims. British historians and their Indian imitators labeled ancient India as the ‘Hindu period’ and the medieval period as the ‘Muslim period.’ The rule of Turkish, Afghan, and Mughal rulers was called ‘Muslim rule.’
Although Muslim masses suffered just like Hindu masses under tax burdens, and both communities faced equal contempt from the ruling class, communal historians made the unhistorical claim that in medieval India, all Muslims were rulers and all non-Muslims were ruled.
In reality, like other countries, politics in ancient and medieval India was based on economic and political interests, not religious ideas. Both rulers and rebels used religion to disguise their material interests and ambitions.
Hindu Revivalism and Militant Nationalism
The Rise of Hindu Revivalism
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, following the failure of the liberal movement in India, the need to connect common people with the national movement, and the desire to highlight ancient Hindu glory, ‘Hindu revivalism’ emerged.
This Hindu revivalism was not merely obscurantism—it had a strong political voice inspired by the historical necessity of creating a modern Indian nation. However, the Hindu revivalist movement inadvertently promoted the misleading notion that Indian society and culture stood at heights of ‘greatness’ and ‘ideals’ in ancient times but declined continuously during the medieval period due to Muslim rule and domination, and now faced threats from the British.
Militant Nationalist Methods
While initially social in nature, Hindu revivalism quickly prepared a political role for itself and became a promoter of the national movement through religious symbols, deities, and cultural-religious festivals.
Key Militant Nationalist Activities:
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak initiated Ganpati and Shivaji festivals to unite Hindus
- Appeals to Hindus to boycott Muslim festivals and celebrations
- The Arya Samaj started the cow protection movement for political mobilization of Hindus
- Hindu demands for legal prohibition of cow slaughter and Congress’s silence increased minority fears
The Partition of Bengal and Its Aftermath
Strategic Division
Although administrative convenience was heavily promoted as the reason for Bengal’s partition, its main purpose was to break Hindu-Muslim unity in Bengal by dividing it on a regional basis. Additionally, the British government wanted to send a message to Muslims that the new province would provide them more political and administrative opportunities.
The British government and Governor-General Lord Curzon were largely successful in convincing Muslims that Bengal’s partition served Muslim interests. This is why a large section of Muslims, falling for British deception, supported the partition and labeled the anti-partition movement as Hindu majoritarian tyranny.
Impact on Communal Relations
Anti-partition Swadeshi leaders, instead of adopting a secular approach to political questions, constantly harped on the theme that special facilities were being given to Muslims at the expense of Hindus. The Swadeshi movement quickly stamped Muslims as the ‘other,’ and the anti-partition movement soon became an anti-Muslim movement in Muslim consciousness.
Not all Muslims were separatist or pro-government. Progressive Muslim intellectuals like Abdur Rasul and Hasrat Mohani joined the Swadeshi movement in large numbers. However, many Muslims were swept away in the flood of communal riots, and Hindu-Muslim riots occurred in many parts of Bengal.
The Formation of the Muslim League
Birth of a Communal Organization
When India Secretary Morley indicated in his 1906 budget speech that representative government would be introduced in India, all Muslim leaders became concerned. Muslim leaders felt that in new self-governing institutions, majority Hindus would dominate, being well-organized in Congress.
A Muslim delegation met Governor-General Lord Minto in Shimla on October 1, 1906. The Viceroy assured that Muslim rights would not be harmed. The Muslim delegation decided to organize their community for independent political action so they could obtain from the government “recognition of a nation within a nation.”
Formation and Goals: With British encouragement, on December 30, 1906, in Dhaka (capital of Bangladesh), Nawab Bakar-al-Mulk, Aga Khan, and Mohsin-ul-Mulk formed a loyal, communal, and conservative political organization called the ‘All India Muslim League.’ The Muslim League not only supported Bengal’s partition but also demanded separate electorates for Muslims. The Muslim League’s struggle was not against British power but against the Indian National Congress and Hindus.
The Morley-Minto Reforms and Separate Electorates
Institutionalizing Division
The Morley-Minto Reforms gave official legitimacy to the separate political identity of Indian Muslims by providing separate electorates and reserving seats for Muslims in central and provincial legislatures far exceeding their population proportion. In separate electorates, all voters belonged to one religion, leading to intense communal-based election campaigns.
India Secretary Lord Morley wrote to Viceroy Minto: “By creating separate electorates, we are sowing seeds of deadly poison whose harvest will be very bitter.”
Opposition from Nationalist Muslims:
- Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan stated: “Teaching Muslims that their political interests are separate from Hindus is not good”
- Muhammad Ali Jinnah called separate representation “a poisonous element maliciously introduced into India’s political body”
- Jinnah opposed “separate representation or special facilities for Muslims” at the 1906 Congress session
The Lucknow Pact: A Turning Point
Congress Accepts Separate Electorates
To give new direction to the national movement, the annual sessions of both the Muslim League and Congress were held in Bombay in December 1915, and for the first time, prominent leaders of both political parties gathered at one place. Through efforts by Tilak and Jinnah, League and Congress sessions were held in Lucknow at the end of 1916.
Under the ‘Lucknow Pact,’ the League and Congress agreed to cooperate in the political sphere based on a joint program and presented similar political demands to the government.
Significance and Consequences: In the Lucknow Pact, Congress formally accepted the demand for separate electorates for Muslims, which was a very positive achievement for the Muslim League, as Congress had been opposing it until then. By accepting the principle of separate elections, Congress actually accepted communal politics and indirectly recognized the Muslim League as a representative institution of Muslims, leading to the development of a new type of communalism.
The Khilafat Movement: Temporary Unity
Religious Politics Enters Nationalism
To gain Muslim support, linking the Muslim religious movement ‘Khilafat’ with the Non-Cooperation Movement brought Hindu-Muslim unity to its peak for some time, but it proved temporary. The Khilafat movement gave conservative Muslims an opportunity to enter politics—those who saw independent India as nothing more than a confederation of religious communities.
While the Khilafat movement awakened anti-imperialist and national sentiments in the Muslim middle class, it failed to elevate their religious-political consciousness to a higher plane and transform it into secular political consciousness. Consequently, the League-Congress alliance provided an opportunity for communalism to flourish in India.
Hindu Communalism: The Other Side
Origins in Arya Samaj
Parallel to Muslim communalism, Hindu communalism also emerged. Many Hindu writers and leaders repeated the ideas and programs of Muslim communalism and the Muslim League. In fact, the foundation of Hindu communalism was laid by the Arya Samaj’s (1875) purification movements.
Early Manifestations:
- The Hindi-Urdu controversy was given a communal color in the United Provinces and Bihar
- The unhistorical concept was promoted that Urdu was the language of Muslims and Hindi of Hindus
- After 1870, Hindu landlords, moneylenders, and middle-class professionals began inflaming anti-Muslim sentiments
- In the 1890s, some Hindu organizations launched an anti-cow-slaughter campaign across India, leading to severe riots
The Hindu Mahasabha
Hindu communalism found its most potent organizational expression in the Hindu Mahasabha.
Formation and Ideology:
- In 1909, B.N. Mukherjee and Lalchand established the Punjab Hindu Sabha
- Lalchand was deeply troubled that the National Congress was trying to organize all Indians as one nation and was “sacrificing Hindu interests” to please Muslims
- Lalchand declared that Hindus should consider themselves “first Hindus and then Indians”
- In April 1915, the first session of the All India Hindu Mahasabha was held
These militant organizations formed by the majority community advocated Hindu nationalism and Hindu interests, which had negative impacts on the Muslim community and promoted communalism.
Conclusion: The Legacy of Colonial Communalism
Indian society had traditionally been an integrated society—religiously, socially, economically, and politically—different from Western society. Due to British colonial policies and the interests of certain Indian leaders and economic classes, the religious-social fabric of India’s integrated society became fragmented.
Key Takeaways:
- Multi-Causal Origins: The rise and development of communalism in India was not merely religious but resulted from the political and economic interests of the upper classes of both communities
- Colonial Strategy: For the British, breaking India’s socio-religious unity was essential to maintain their power
- Economic Competition: The middle and affluent classes of both Hindus and Muslims needed to use their religious identity as a basis for seeking political and economic opportunities and facing each other’s competition
- Victims and Beneficiaries: Common people suffered most from the rise of communalism in India, while economic-political elites of both communities mostly benefited
- Political Nature: Communalism in British India was political rather than spiritual or religious, culminating in the country’s political partition
The communal divide that emerged during the colonial period fundamentally altered the trajectory of Indian nationalism and left a legacy that continues to impact South Asian politics to this day. Understanding this history is crucial for comprehending contemporary religious and political dynamics in the region.
SEO Title: Communalism in India: How British Colonial Policies Created Hindu-Muslim Division | Historical Analysis
