1.
Meaning and Nature of Communalism
Communalism, in the Indian historical context, refers to a politico-ideological phenomenon
wherein religion is used as the primary basis for the social and political organisation of
communities. It assumes that people belonging to the same religion share not only common
beliefs and practices but also uniform political interests which are inherently antagonistic to
those of other religious communities.
At its core, communalism presupposes the primacy of religious identity over other social,
economic, and cultural affiliations, thereby reducing the pluralistic and diverse nature of society
into monolithic categories. In this light, the Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or Christian communities are
projected as cohesive entities, each with distinct and often conflicting political goals. Thus,
communalism thrives not simply on religious differences, but on the politicisation and hardening
of these differences to create boundaries between communities.
A crucial aspect of Indian communalism, as highlighted by various scholars, is its instrumentalist
character. Religion is not merely a spiritual force but a potent political tool employed to mobilise
masses, consolidate vote banks, and challenge rival groups. Bipan Chandra, one of the foremost
historians on this subject, describes communalism as a belief system where a community’s
interests are defined solely in religious terms, and political demands are framed accordingly.
Communalism manifests itself at multiple levels. The first is mild communalism, where
religious groups assert their cultural rights but within a broader national framework. The second
is moderate communalism, which seeks special political privileges or autonomy for a religious
group. The third and most virulent form is extreme communalism, which involves incitement to
hatred, violence, and even calls for secession.
What makes communalism particularly complex in colonial and post-colonial India is its
intersection with colonial governance, modern electoral politics, and socio-economic divisions.
Far from being a pre-modern remnant, communalism in modern India was shaped, if not entirely
produced, by processes of modernity—such as print capitalism, identity-based censuses, political
representation, and competitive communal mobilisation.
2. Theoretical Approaches to Communalism
Several schools of thought have emerged over time to explain the genesis and growth of
communalism in India. These historiographical approaches not only offer different causal
frameworks but also reflect broader ideological orientations.
(a) Colonial School
The colonial interpretation viewed communalism as a natural expression of India’s primordial
religious divisions. British administrators and scholars claimed that India was not a nation but a
conglomeration of distinct religious communities with their own historical traditions, cultures,
and political aspirations. This view justified colonial rule as a neutral arbiter between
antagonistic communities and laid the ideological foundation for the infamous "divide and rule"
policy.
However, modern historians critique this approach for its essentialist assumptions and strategic
motivations. It not only ignored shared cultural spaces and syncretic traditions but also actively
contributed to the institutionalisation of communal divisions through mechanisms like separate
electorates and communal censuses.
(b) Nationalist School
Indian nationalist leaders and historians, such as Bipan Chandra and R. C. Majumdar (though
with differing tones), located the roots of communalism in colonial policies that systematically
encouraged religious division to weaken the national movement. They argue that the introduction
of separate electorates in the Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) and the communal award of 1932
gave legitimacy to communal claims.
This school posits that Indian society, before colonialism, experienced inter-religious harmony
which was ruptured by colonial interventions. Communalism, thus, is seen not as a natural
outgrowth of Indian society but as a direct product of colonial statecraft and economic policies
that created insecurity and competition among communities.
(c) Marxist Interpretation
Marxist historians explain communalism through the prism of class relations and material
conditions. They argue that communal consciousness emerges when class-based discontent is
diverted into religious channels. According to this view, communalism serves the interests of the
ruling classes by fragmenting the unity of the oppressed and preventing class-based solidarity.
Bipan Chandra, influenced by Marxist methodology, contends that communalism is a form of
false consciousness, used by the propertied classes—both Hindu and Muslim—to mobilise their
respective communities against the rising tide of anti-colonial nationalism or socio-economic
reforms. Communal organisations, in this perspective, represent elite interests disguised as
community welfare.
(d) Cambridge School and Subaltern Critiques
The Cambridge School of historiography, led by historians like Anil Seal and John Gallagher,
criticises the nationalist and Marxist schools for being overly ideological. They focus on
patronage networks, elite competition, and localised power struggles to explain communal
mobilisation. From this view, communalism was not simply driven by colonial policy or class
conflict but was deeply embedded in the structures of local politics and societal hierarchies.
Meanwhile, the Subaltern School, represented by scholars such as Gyanendra Pandey, critiques
the elitist orientation of previous schools and emphasises the role of mass participation, local
consciousness, and cultural factors in the formation of communal identities. Gyanendra Pandey,
in particular, questions the neat binary between nationalism and communalism and suggests that
both were complex, overlapping phenomena shaped by modern political processes.
3. Colonial Policies and the Growth of Communalism
The British government played a very important role in encouraging communalism in India.
Many historians believe that communalism did not exist in the way it did before the British
came. The colonial state created policies and systems that made people see themselves more as
members of religious communities than as Indians.
a. Census and Religious Labels
From 1871 onwards, the British started conducting regular censuses. In these, people were asked
to identify their religion. This made people think of themselves mainly in religious terms—
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, etc.—even though earlier identities were more mixed and local. This
classification made religious boundaries look stronger than they actually were.
b. Separate Electorates
The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 introduced separate electorates for Muslims. This meant
that Muslims would vote only for Muslim candidates. Later, other groups like Sikhs, Christians,
and Dalits also got separate electorates. This divided Indian politics along religious lines and
gave political importance to religious identity. It was a clear example of the British policy of
“divide and rule.”
c. Communal Awards and Political Representation
In 1932, the British introduced the Communal Award, which gave separate electorates to even
more communities. Instead of bringing unity, these steps created more divisions and competition
among communities. Leaders of different religious groups started demanding more political
power for their own religion, which increased communal feelings.
d. Legal and Administrative Support
The British also supported communal organisations like the Muslim League and Hindu
Mahasabha by giving them more importance than they deserved. Sometimes, communal leaders
were given government jobs, land, or political benefits. The British also used communal riots as
an excuse to show that Indians were not fit to rule themselves.
Historians like Bipan Chandra believe that British policies created the base for modern
communalism in India. They did not just reflect divisions—they created and deepened them.
According to him, communalism helped the British by weakening Indian unity and the national
movement.
4. Communalism in Indian Politics (1906–1937)
Between 1906 and 1937, communalism became stronger and more visible in Indian politics.
Many events and decisions during this time increased religious divisions in politics.
a. Formation of Muslim League (1906)
In 1906, the All India Muslim League was formed. It claimed to represent Muslim political
interests. The League was supported by the British and wealthy Muslim landlords. From the
beginning, it said that Muslims were a separate nation with different political needs. This was
one of the first major communal steps in Indian politics.
b. Rise of Hindu Organisations
In response to the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha was formed in 1915. It promoted Hindu
unity and started demanding protection for Hindu culture. Arya Samaj also became active with
its ‘Shuddhi’ movement to convert non-Hindus (especially Muslims) back to Hinduism. These
actions increased religious tensions.
c. Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movement
In 1919–22, the Khilafat Movement tried to protect the Caliph of Turkey and gathered large
Muslim support. Gandhi supported it to bring Hindus and Muslims together. But when the
movement failed and communal riots broke out, many Muslims felt betrayed by the Congress.
This weakened Hindu-Muslim unity.
d. Communal Riots and Tensions in the 1920s
The 1920s saw many communal riots in different parts of India—especially in Bengal, Punjab,
and the United Provinces. The use of religious symbols, like cow protection and music in front
of mosques, created more anger. Many of these riots were also linked to economic and political
competition between communities.
e. The Nehru Report (1928) and Jinnah’s Fourteen Points (1929)
The Nehru Report was prepared by Indian leaders as a future constitution for India. It rejected
separate electorates. The Muslim League, led by Jinnah, opposed it and later gave Fourteen
Points demanding special rights for Muslims, including separate electorates. This clearly showed
growing divisions.
f. Civil Disobedience and Muslim Disengagement
During the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34), Muslim participation was very low. The
League did not support the movement. Many Muslims felt Congress did not represent their
interests. The gap between Congress and the Muslim League widened.
g. Government of India Act (1935) and 1937 Elections
The Government of India Act, 1935 gave more power to Indians at the provincial level. In the
1937 elections, Congress won most provinces but did not form a coalition with the Muslim
League. The League did very poorly. This made Jinnah and other Muslim leaders feel isolated
and insulted. After this, Jinnah began to talk more about Muslims being a separate nation.
5. Communal Organisations and Ideologies
From the early 20th century, several communal organisations began to emerge, each claiming to
protect the interests of a particular religious group. These organisations played a major role in
spreading communalism by promoting the idea that different religious communities had
opposing political needs.
Founded in 1906, the All India Muslim League started with a loyalist approach towards the
British, focusing on protecting the interests of upper-class Muslims. Over time, it began
demanding more political rights for Muslims, such as separate electorates and reservations in
government jobs. After Jinnah’s return to Indian politics, the League’s ideology became more
aggressive. It projected Muslims as a separate nation with their own political destiny, which later
developed into the idea of [Link] in 1915, the Hindu Mahasabha responded to
both Muslim League politics and British policies. It stressed the idea of Hindu identity and unity.
Leaders like B.S. Moonje and Lala Lajpat Rai promoted the idea that India was essentially a
Hindu nation and Muslims were outsiders. It also opposed the idea of composite nationalism
promoted by Congress. Formed in 1925, the RSS aimed to organise Hindu youth under a
disciplined and militaristic structure. Its focus was on character-building, physical strength, and
dedication to Hindu society. While it claimed to stay away from politics directly, it had strong
ideological influence in spreading anti-Muslim sentiments and supporting Hindu nationalist
ideas.
Communal organisations also used newspapers, pamphlets, and literature to spread their
message. Communal writings often exaggerated historical wrongs and portrayed other
communities as threats. This helped increase suspicion, fear, and hatred between groups,
especially among the common people.
These organisations created a mindset that saw Indian politics not in terms of class, region, or
occupation—but mainly through the lens of religion. Their propaganda strengthened communal
thinking and weakened the idea of a united nationalist movement.
6. Role of Religious Symbols and Mass Mobilisation
Religious symbols and rituals were widely used in political mobilisation during the early 20th
century. These were not just cultural practices—they were turned into political tools that helped
spread communal ideas among the masses.
a. Religious Processions and Festivals
Both Hindu and Muslim groups started organising religious processions in public spaces.
Hindu festivals like Ram Navami and Shivaji Jayanti, and Muslim observances like
Muharram and Eid, were turned into large public events. These processions often passed
through mixed neighbourhoods, leading to tensions and sometimes violent clashes.
b. Music before Mosques and Cow Protection
One common issue was the playing of music in front of mosques during Hindu processions.
This was seen as a provocation by Muslims and led to riots in many places. On the other hand,
the cow protection movement, especially led by Arya Samaj, targeted Muslim butchers and
traders, accusing them of cow slaughter. This created further hostility and polarisation.
c. Use of Historical and Mythological Symbols
Both sides used historical or religious figures to create a strong sense of identity. Hindus
glorified figures like Rama, Krishna, and Shivaji, while Muslims recalled the Mughals,
Khilafat leaders, and early Islamic warriors. These symbols were used to remind people of past
"glories" and "injustices," thus creating a narrative of victimhood and competition.
d. Emotional and Cultural Mobilisation
By using symbols of faith, pride, and community, communal leaders connected with the
emotions of ordinary people. This emotional connection was often more powerful than logical
political arguments. As a result, people who had never been politically active started to think and
act in religious terms.
7. Economic and Social Factors in Communalism
While religion was the most visible factor in communalism, many of the tensions actually came
from economic, social, and class-related problems, which were then expressed in communal
terms.
a. Economic Competition
In many towns, Hindu traders and Muslim artisans or labourers competed for jobs, markets,
and government contracts. When one group felt left out, communal leaders used that
dissatisfaction to blame the other community. For example, if Muslim weavers suffered due to
modern industry, leaders claimed that Hindu businessmen were responsible.
b. Educational and Job Opportunities
There were also differences in education levels and access to government jobs. Muslims,
especially in North India, had been left behind in English education after 1857. As Hindus
progressed in education and secured more government positions, some Muslim leaders blamed
Congress policies and demanded separate reservations.
c. Urban Class Tensions
In urban areas, rising middle classes from different communities clashed over influence and
resources. For example, Muslim landlords and Hindu moneylenders often had conflicts in rural
Uttar Pradesh, which were then given a religious colour. The same happened in cities between
Hindu shopkeepers and Muslim workers.
d. Use of Religion to Hide Class Problems
Instead of fighting over class issues, leaders from both Hindu and Muslim elites used religion to
divert attention. So rather than uniting as workers or farmers, people were divided into Hindus
and Muslims. This helped rich and powerful people in both communities maintain their control.
Historians like Bipan Chandra have argued that communalism was a form of “false
consciousness”—people were made to believe that their enemy was another religious group,
when in fact, their problems came from inequality, poverty, and lack of rights.
8. Impact of Communalism on the National Movement
The growth of communalism between 1906 and 1937 created serious challenges for the Indian
national movement. It weakened the unity that was needed to fight colonial rule and created deep
mistrust between communities.
a. Alienation of Muslims from Congress
As communal ideas spread, many Muslim leaders and organisations began to claim that the
Congress was a Hindu party. This belief grew stronger after the failure of the Khilafat–Non-
Cooperation alliance and the 1937 elections, where the Muslim League performed poorly and
Congress did not form coalition ministries with them. As a result, Muslims felt left out of
mainstream politics, and many turned towards separatist ideas.
b. Weakening of Secular Nationalism
The idea of composite nationalism, which aimed to unite all Indians regardless of religion,
started to lose strength. Both Hindu and Muslim communal leaders began to argue that the two
religions were so different that they could not live under one nation. This was especially visible
in the League’s “Two-Nation Theory” and the Hindu Mahasabha’s demand for a Hindu
Rashtra.
c. Rise of Parallel Political Structures
As communal organisations like the Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha gained more
power, they began to operate as parallel political forces alongside the Congress. This divided
Indian political society and made it harder for Congress to speak for all Indians. The British used
this division to delay constitutional reforms.
d. Communalism as a Tool for the British
The British used growing communal tensions to justify their rule. They claimed that India was
not ready for democracy because its communities could not cooperate. Communal violence and
divided demands also gave the British an excuse to avoid transferring real power to Indians.
9. Historiographical Debates on Communalism
Many historians have studied the roots and development of communalism from different
perspectives. Their debates help us understand how complex the issue really is.
a. Bipan Chandra and the Marxist School
Bipan Chandra argues that communalism was not natural, but a result of colonial policies and
elite manipulation. He says it acted as a “false consciousness” that distracted people from real
issues like poverty and class oppression. According to him, both Hindu and Muslim elites used
religion to protect their own interests.
b. Nationalist Historians
Nationalist historians also blame the British for creating and encouraging communalism through
separate electorates, communal awards, and the divide and rule strategy. They say that Indian
society was not deeply communal before the British came, and that colonial rule made these
divisions worse.
c. Cambridge School
The Cambridge historians like Anil Seal and John Gallagher take a different view. They say
communalism was not just about religion or colonial policy, but also about local power
struggles and patronage politics. According to them, leaders used religion to win the support of
certain groups in their areas.
d. Subaltern and Cultural Historians
Historians like Gyanendra Pandey argue that communalism must be understood from the point
of view of ordinary people. He says that communal identities were shaped through everyday
experiences, local tensions, and emotional politics. He also warns that nationalism and
communalism were not always separate—sometimes nationalist leaders also used religious
ideas to mobilise people.
10. Conclusion (Short)
Communalism between 1906 and 1937 grew due to a mix of colonial policies, communal
organisations, religious mobilisation, and economic tensions. It deeply affected the national
movement by dividing communities and weakening the fight against British rule. Understanding
communalism requires looking at political, social, and cultural factors together—not just
blaming one group or event.
