By, soupsteve311 March, 30, 2022
The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India
“This book charts the history of the term communalism and the politics and attitudes it seeks to encapsulate. While attending closely to the social, economic, and political issues underlying Hindu and Muslim struggles, it investigates and meanings different participants in the sectarian politics of the period attached to these politics.” (see full abstract here).
BY Gyanendra Pandey
The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India
Main Argument
Pandey lays out an argument for how the term “Communalism” was thrust upon the India people during British colonization. He believes this happened because there is not a term in the English vernacular which described Indian culture, in the way the British viewed culture. He shows how the use of this term portray’s India to be essentially different, and helps to further a British hegemony over India’s populace, because they are not, in the eyes of the colonizer’s, ‘like us’, and certainly not as ‘advanced as us.’ This term, communalism, has withstood the test of time in pertaining to India. It is still having a negative impact on the way the world as a whole views Indian culture, as well as how Indian’s view themselves in India, and around the globe.
The Labeling Function of Colonization
Pandey believes in grouping all of India together as being communalist helped the British to equate the native Indian people to a tribal mentality, and the native populace inherited this image. Essentially Indian communalism is a socially constructed pejorative, created by Imperial Britain, but perpetuated by all. This outsider manufactured identification led to conflict between Hindu’s, Sikh’s, Muslim’s and other groups, which the British termed “religious organizations.” Colonial writers of this period, inheriting a false image of India, wrote about these religious conflicts “out of the prejudices, biases, and ‘common sense’ of the writer’s.” (Pandey 32). All of this literature was written from a western mindset which wrongly believed that other cultures fit into their worldview in the same, but not as advanced, way. These writings still lead to many biases and misconceptions about India today.
The British use of grouping all Indian’s together as being communal, and thus primitive, with no sense of nationalism, is akin to how Durkheim viewed native Australian’s who he classified as following Totemism, and being an earlier primitive religious institution. Durkheim, like imperial Britain, believed that eventually these more primitive religions would become more advanced. More like Christianity, in their minds.
The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition
“This study lays the foundation for a major reinterpretation of religion and society in India. By extensively using post-structuralist theory…” (see full synopsis here).
By Harjot Oberoi
The Construction of Religious Boundaries
Main Argument
Oberoi methodically paints a picture for the reader of how Religious boundaries in India were not opaque, but rather transparent, with many instances of crossover between the various Indian institutions. His emphasis are on Sikh’s in general, and how the image of a unified Khalsa Sikh identity, which many have today, was very disparate in the past. Even the remembered history of the Sikh’s agency, formation, practices, beliefs, and makeup, are in disparate contrast to the actual history of Sikhism. He shows there was an abundance of different practices within the Sikh Panth throughout it’s history.
With a large portion of SIkh history being written about by the British Imperialists, who had agency through their hegemonic relationship over colonial India, their writings were in turn given agency regarding the history of colonial SIkh’s. The literature of these British authors portrayed Sikh’s in a fashion which tended to show them as being more homogenized in their religious practices. This was because the British demarcated them from the Muslims, and Hindus of colonial India, and did not allow for meshing of different cultural institutions. When they did witness intertwining of religious practices, the British passed it off as being aberrant. In their minds there was a solid line of demarcation separating beliefs of catholic, protestant, and orthodox Christians. They mistakenly believed these same boundaries carried over to all religions world wide. Oberoi sees “religion as a social and cultural process; not something given, but an activity embedded in everyday life, a part of human agency.” (Oberoi 23). Viewing religion in this way we can see the fluidity in all religious institutions, as they are shaped by common culture, and as they help to shape the culture that they are entwined within. Sikhism is not an exception to this.
Function of Historical Fallacies
Contesting the believed history of such a proud institution as the Sikh’s has led to much criticism of Oberoi’s work from within the Sikh community. People like to believe that their way is the first, the truest, and the foremost way to practice their beliefs. This is evidently clear in the case of many Sikh’s. They believe they have an unchanged religion since the days of their founder, Guru Nanak. This has led to many people who identify as being Sikh’s to be considered patits (apostate). Some, self identifying SIkh’s do not practice the ‘5 K’s‘ of Sikhism, or only adhere to certain ones. Some Sikh’s also use tobacco, which many Sikh’s believe is against century old Sikh beliefs. Practitioner’s who do adhere to strict rules are seen by many SIkh’s, and non-Sikh’s alike, as being “true” Sikhs. This is a result of the belief that Sikhism has been static, due to colonial literature, not allowing for varying practices within the SIkh Panth. This brings to mind Durkheim’s belief that religion is formed by society. Society views Sikh’s in a certain way, and they are expected to do certain things.
The Context Of Ethnicity: Sikh Identity In A Comparative Perspective
“The Context of Ethnicity questions the widely held conceptualization of nation-states and ascriptive identities, through a study of Sikh extremism in the Punjab. The book argues that contrary to popular opinion, regional sympathies can co-exist with nationalist loyalty.” (see full description here).
BY Dipankar Gupta
The Context of Ethnicity
Main Argument
The author’s main purpose in this book is to point out a fallacy that many people have in viewing conflicts, especially conflicts involving Sikh’s in the Punjab. Gupta shows how most people observe conflicts as being diadic in nature, such as Sikh’s versus Muslims, or SIkh’s against Hindu’s. He posits the argument that most all of these conflicts however, are triadic. There must be a nation-state, or government as the third part of this triad, or there would be no unfairness for one group to have grievances against another group. Dealing with colonial India Gupta states that, “the relationship between Hindus, Sikhs and the colonial state was truly triadic, as both the ethnic communities constantly petitioned the colonial rulers by appealing to legalese and to principles of equality and liberty.” (Gupta 111). This triadic relationship is not monopolized on the sub-continent, but it is ever present in every nation-state, and government throughout the world.
Triadic Conflict Functions
If we accept conflicts involving two or more cultures, within a single nation, as being triadic in nature, to be true, than we can see how the different parties in these conflicts affect, not just themselves, but the nation as a whole. A conflict does not arise unless a party sees a problem with the existing status quo. In the case of colonial India, a majority of Muslims believed they were being disenfranchised because of the majority of Hindu’s who filled prominent offices. We could see this triadic conflict in action between Hindu’s, Muslim’s, and the British hegemony. This dispute functioned to culminate in the demarcation of Hindu’s and Muslims, and the birth of 2 independent nations (India and Pakistan), where there was previously just one (India). Therefore, this traidic conflict not only affected the quarreling parties, but the Sikh’s, Parsi’s, Christian’s, and the rest of the sub-continent inhabitants as well.
The 1947 partition was bloody, violent, and broke a lot of ties, which have never been mended to this day. A function of this is also fear of another triadic skirmish which may lead to yet another partition. This fear of a Sikh partition is what led to Operation Blue Star under Indira Ghandi, and other conflicts in India, and has caused the death of thousands of Sikhs nationwide. Durkheim believed that society had the collective at the core of it’s being and this belief holds true in this situation as well. It is the desire for the collective society to stay intact which leads to a fear of another Indian partition. The Indian collective witnessed the brutality, and the destruction of society which the 1947 partition furnished, and they do not desire a repeat.
Culminating Exhibit
All three of these books help to paint a picture of how Sikh identity, in India and elsewhere, is ever changing, and how societal changes coincide with, and oftentimes, prompt these variations. Ethnicity, religion, and community all play pivotal roles in what it means to be a Sikh, or what society views as a “true” SIkh. More broadly these books all follow a theme showing how labels, written history, and identification affects a community, and how these effects are usually excruciatingly long term. All of these books teach us how we should not look down upon other cultures, and blindly believe all aspects written about different cultures. They show how history is always changing and how we can learn new things about the past by revisiting historical events from new, less prejudiced, perspectives. The main thing to take away from these books is to not view cultures outside of our own as being weird, or wrong, as the colonizers did, but instead to self reflect and see how what appears normal to us may appear strange to them.
Soup Steve’s Religious Studies Blog 
Your summary of the first book was very interesting because I had never heard the term “communalism.” I had no idea it was a negative label, and I like how you highlighted the power that labels and categorization have in colonialism. It reminds me of how Western people put the label of religion on Eastern cultural practices even though they don’t have the same concept of religion as the West, and how that changed their perceptions of their own cultures, especially with Hinduism. This also relates a lot to the second book you talked about, with the British imposing their more rigid ideas of religion on Sikhism. It is interesting (but upsetting) to see how the ideas formed by oppressors about the cultures they subjugate circle back and change the perceptions of those cultures from the inside. This makes Marx’s theory of religion as an oppressive force understandable since he was speaking of religion from a Western perspective. The rigidity of Western ideas of religion give it an enormous power to oppress when it is wielded by oppressive structures. The concept of a triadic conflict that you detailed in the third book summary is really insightful. I never considered that one demographic really wouldn’t have grievances against another if there wasn’t a power imbalance.
LikeLike