Religion and Social Change

Unit 20
Secularism and Secularization
Contents
20.1 Introduction
20.2 Definitions of Secularism
20.3 What is secularization?
20.4 Theories of Secularism
20.5 The European Experience
20.6 The Indian Experience
20.7 Conclusion
20.8 Further Reading
Learning Objectives
After you have studied this unit you should be able to:
z provide definitions of secularism;
z outline what is secularization;
z delineate theories of secularism; and
z describe the Indian and European experience of secularism and
secularization.

20.1 Introduction
The word secular is derived from the Latin word saeculum which means
century or age. Saeculum was the profane time and the time of ordinary
historical succession, as opposed to sacred time. Time was interwoven
with higher times variously called ‘eternity’, the time of the Ideas, or the
time of the Origin, or the time of God. Human beings were living in all
these times but only some acts, institutions, lives and social forms were
more thoroughly directed towards temporal and non-spiritual goals.
Government was more ‘in the saeculum’ in contrast with the Church
(Taylor 1998: 31-2). The division of life in these two spheres was recognised
as far back as Jesus Christ. In circa 30, legend has it, when he was asked
whether taxes should be paid to Rome, Jesus replied, ‘Render to Caesar
the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’(Storey
and utter eds 2002: 32).
The term secularism was coined in 1851 by George Jacob Holyoake, a
socialist. In the background of 19th century liberalism, the term secularism
was a by-product of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. While
Renaissance asserted the dignity of the person, Enlightenment highlighted
the autonomy of reason and science. Before proposing the term secularism,
Holyoake had considered the terms ‘netheism’ (meaning neither theism
nor an atheism) and ‘limitationism’ (probably hinting at limiting the
religious influence). His first aim in proposing secularism was not to negate
religion but to counter the irrationalism and supernaturalism of Christian
theology. Holyoake’s second aim in proposing secularism was to affirm
the worth and dignity of a person and the autonomy of secular life
90 (Jhingran 1995: 39-40).
20.2 Definitions of Secularism Secularism and
Secularization
Out of the commonly accepted three definitions of secularism one is
people-centric, another is state-centric and yet another is India-specific.
Firstly, the first people-centric definition emphasises the idea of separating
religion from politics, economy, education, social life and culture. The
purpose of this separation is not to stamp religion out from life but to
contain it to the private lives of individuals. A secular state is not supposed
to discourage the practice of religion but neither can it base its policies
on religion. The ultimate goal is to make religion a personal affair. The
initial steps in the containment of religious influence in society were
taken at the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648 and during the French
Revolution. In 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, properties
of the church were transferred to the exclusive control of the princes.
Another significant moment in secularization came on 2 November 1789
when Talleyrand declared in the French National Assembly that all
‘ecclesiastical goods’, meaning religious institutions of which schools were
prominent, were at the disposal of the nation (Mandan 1998: 298-9).
Most societies have followers of different faiths and this puts a great
responsibility on the state to be neutral. The state-centric definition of
secularism emphasises the need to keep the state neutral to all religions.
Religious people would like to see the state to show equal regard to all
faiths but others may demand the same respect for atheism. The demand
normally is that the state must treat all its citizens equally. This means
that the state must neither favour nor discriminate against citizens on
grounds of their religion.
The containment of religion in life and the separation of state from
religion are universally accepted definitions of secularism, even though
these ideas had a distinctly European origin. The third India-specific
definition of secularism underlines the importance of the unity of all
people against colonialism and communalism. A secular state and society
were a part of the social vision of the Indian national movement. Hence,
despite the horrendous violence in 1947 and the making of Pakistan
ostensibly on religious lines, secularism remained the abiding principle and
opposition to communalism was the chosen policy in Independent India
(Chandra 2004: 3-29).

20.3 What is secularization?

The process by which the sphere of influence of religion was contained in
institutions and human consciousness is secularization. Secularism is no
longer an active movement in the West and hence, scholars there prefer
to talk about secularization of institutions and human consciousness. Bryan
Wilson defines secularization as the process in which social institutions
gain ‘considerable autonomy’ and religious consciousness declines whereby
instead of being the pervasive, determinant influence, religion becomes
‘a department of the social order’. Wilson mentions the following three
features of a secular society, viz. the prevalence of instrumental values,
rational procedures and technological methods (Wilson 1987: 159-60). In
his The Secular City Harvey Cox maintained that secularization was a
consequence of industrialisation and urbanisation and that its characteristics
were urbanization, pragmatism or lack of interest in the mystery of life,
profanity or this-worldliness, pluralism and tolerance due to which no
world-view is imposed on anyone (Cox 1966:2-3). Peter Berger defined
secularization as the ‘process by which sectors of society and culture are
removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols’ (Berger
1973:113).
90 91
Secularisation causes a decline in the social importance of religion and
Religion and Social Change secularism minimises the role of religion in the social and political affairs
of society. The important processes of change triggered by secularisation,
which comes in tow with modernity, are:
1) withdrawal of religion from such social spheres as education and
marriage following a differentiation in institutions, structures and
functions;
2) the development of pluralisms at the level of social groups (including
religion) and world views;
3) rationalisation as described by Max Weber which refers to the
emergence of a scientific, rational world view which ‘disenchants’
society from myths, mysteries, miracle and magic; and
4) the development of critical consciousness that reveals the ideologies
hidden in the institutional and belief structures of religion (Alam
2002:106).
Box 20.1 Process of Secularization
The process of secularisation was greatly aided by transformation of
human consciousness triggered by the popularisation of scientific ideas
among common people. Secularism was the product of the
Enlightenment which emphasized the autonomy of reason and science.
The contributions of the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-
1543) who said the earth moves around the sun and was immediately
condemned by the Church, the Italian Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who
suffered house arrest for life after the Catholic Church denounced
him as a heretic because he endorsed the discovery that the earth
moves around the sun, the German Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) who
spoke of planetary bodies following some laws of motion and the English
Issac Newton (1642-1727) who gave the laws of motion a sound footing
by incorporating mass, force and gravity into them. Newton’s book
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles
of Natural Philosophy) or Principia (1687) was popularized by Voltaire
and its ideas that the world is governed by rational laws overflowed
from science into philosophy and politics. Principia, therefore, became
a major inspiration for the 18th century Enlightenment. All this together
demolished biblical cosmology. Biblical worldview asserted that creation
took place a few thousand years ago, that the earth was the centre of
the universe, and that the entire creation was anthropomorphic
(meaning human form was the measure for everything, whether God
or animal). Astronomical time and space, on the other hand, reduced
humans and their history to absolute insignificance.
Similarly, the theory about evolution demolished another dogma that the
entire human species descended from one ancestor, viz. Adam and Eve.
Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist, wrote to Karl Marx in
1880, ‘It seems to me … that direct arguments against Christianity or
Theism hardly have any effect on the public; and that freedom of thought
will best be promoted by that gradual enlightening of human understanding
which follows the progress of science. I have therefore avoided writing
about religion and have confined myself to science.’ He is well known for
his theory of evolution. He collected data during his round-the-globe trip
on HMS Beagle in 1831-36 when he observed variations between related
species on the Galapagos Islands. By 1837 Darwin had already concluded
that species ‘change’ or ‘evolve’ over time through the appearance of
new traits that slowly modify ancestral forms until their forms are distinctly
different (Rohmann 1999: 89-90). There was opposition to the ideas of
these scientists also around the same time. For instance, in USA, the
92
state of Oklahoma passed the first anti-evolution law in 1923. This law
banned the teaching of Charles Darwin’s theories of biological evolution in Secularism and
public schools (Storey and illter 9eds) 2002: 34) Secularization

20.4 Theories of Secularism

Theories of secularism grew in a historical context of differing religious
visions and acute strife among people having these differences. In his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1776), David Hume asked, ‘If
religion is salutary to society, why are its consequences so pernicious (like
factions, civil wars, persecutions, subversions of government, oppression
and slavery) to public affairs?’ (Lorenzen (ed) 1995) The point of origin of
modern secularism in Europe is the Crusades or rather ‘the search in
battle-fatigue and horror for a way out’ of religious wars. Crusades, as
we know, were a series of eight holy wars that took place between 1095
and 1464 ostensibly to reclaim the holy lands in Palestine from the Muslims.
‘Rules of peace, even with heretics, and of obedience to legitimate
authority, even where schismatic, had to be put beyond revocation in the
name of one or other version of orthodoxy.’ Two approaches were devised
in those days to overcome religious hatred. One was the common ground
strategy to establish the ethics of peaceful co-existence and political order.
In giving their different versions of natural law, Aquinas, Pufendorf and
Locke subscribed to this strategy of secularism. This strategy downplayed
confessional dogma and highlighted common beliefs, and it could manifest
in Deism (or the belief in one God which is in contrast with polytheism or
atheism). This strategy appealed to people with different commitments
to converge on certain fundamentals.
The second way devised to overcome religious conflict was to evolve an
independent political ethic. Outside warring beliefs, this strategy proposes
a political morality which provides a common basis for living together.
Certain norms of peace and political obedience were deduced from features
of the human condition. It was said that humans were rational creatures
who were sociable and they would not violate any solemnly given word.
Grotius is the celebrated earliest explorer of this strategy. He said ‘even
if God didn’t exist, these norms would be binding on us’ (Tuck 1979 pp
33-4).
Secularism, as an ideology, consists of the following five ideas. Firstly, it
stresses the role of human autonomy. This means that secularism recognises
the right of an individual to order her life independent of authority. The
Secular Humanist Declaration declares, ‘Secular humanism places trust
in human intelligence, rather than divine guidance. Sceptical of theories
of theories of redemption, damnation and reincarnation, secular humanist
attempts to approach the human situation in realistic terms; human beings
are responsible for their own destinies.’ (Kurt 3 (n.d.) p 12)
Secondly, secularism asserts that not only state and laws but family
relations, education, morality, knowledge and values are also completely
free from the dominance of religion. The specific point in India, according
to Marc Gallanter, is not to keep religion out of politics but to keep it out
of social relations (Gallanter 1998).
Thirdly, secularism seeks not just the autonomy of the individual but also
the autonomy of reason. Reason is made the sole criteria of truth and
this undermines the faith in religion and the authority of the church.
Fourthly, secularism makes room for the values of pluralism and religious
toleration because it does not make any religion final, infallible and beyond
rational scrutiny. A plurality of religious world-views is therefore considered
natural by secularists and tolerance is an attitude they value towards
other religions and value systems. 93
Religion and Social Change Fifthly, secularism is not anti-religion. Instead, it is concerned with the
affairs of this world and considers that secular life and knowledge is
autonomous (Jhingran 1995: 46-9) People’s Republic of China officially
has a policy opposed to religion and going strictly by the definition of
secularism, it is not a secular state.

20.5 The European experience

Secularism was the conscious affirmation of the goals of Reformation and
the Renaissance which asserted the dignity of the person. The individual
person was the concern of Reformation in the 16th century. Martin Luther
(1483-1546), the principal initiator of the Protestant Reformation, had
advocated the individual’s right to understand the word of God, independent
of the Church. The problem, however, was that Reformation was basically
a religious movement which later became quite reactionary. Two notable
things about the Reformation were that it did not produce more toleration
and religious liberty and that the popular masses/ illiterates were little
influenced by the sophisticated controversies of the Reformation. Popular
religion continued to be the folk religion. The biggest influence of
Reformation was that Christianity was divided into several Churches, mostly
into national churches. Political authorities tried not to formally recognize
more than one Church but yet the universal Catholic Church gave place to
several religious perspectives, bitterly opposing one another. The existence
of different religious options did not entail a sense of toleration or religious
liberty because all parties believed in the notion of objective truth and
they claimed to be against the public expression of religious error
(Hillerbrand 1987: 253).
The secularization process could be initiated only after non-metaphysical
rational and scientific explanations were satisfactorily provided for the
evolution of the universe and human life thereon. The Renaissance thinkers
and astronomers, as noted above, challenged the theological visions of
the cosmos. Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection
confronted the Christian dogma about the earth being a creation of God
and Adam and Eve being our common ancestors. The ideas produced by
the astronomers and naturalists were confined to a few. The secularization
process popularized them among people through publicity, viz. mass
education, free press and social movements. In the 19 th century, the
great secularist campaigner, Charles Bradlaugh believed that extensive
propaganda would ensure secularization. He held that secular ideas could
be spread better not by playing on flutes but by the beating of drums
(Chadwick 1985: 103)
Secularization Process
The secularization process in the West, as also in India, took place in a
specific social milieu. It had several distinctly national features. The struggle
between feudal lords and the bourgeoisie took a religious form in England
and in The Netherlands but not so in France (Havrilyuk 1984). It is necessary
to take cognizance, howsoever briefly, of the social history of secularisation
‘for we live not only in nature but in human society which has its history
of development and science’ (Engles and Marx 1976: 206). The feudal
state had very close relations with religious institutions. Monarchs lavished
revenue-free land grants on religious institutions and the latter endowed
their feudal patrons with the ‘Grace of God.’ For a short duration in its
fight with the feudal state, the bourgeoisie took recourse to science and
rationality with an anti-religious edge. The demands of parishes were
curtailed, a number of clerical establishments were liquidated, the staff
of the clergy was reduced and the principle of election was instituted
94
among clergy men. Practice of feudal privileges based on heredity,
oppression based on the will of the Sovereign and the ‘Divine Right’ of Secularism and
monarchs to rule was challenged on rational grounds. In the emerging Secularization
modern nation-states, democracy was proclaimed and the rights of citizens
were guaranteed through evolution as in England or through revolution as
in France. One of these rights was the freedom of conscience.
Freedom of conscience is considered the ‘voice of God within us’ by
theologians. Instead, the rationalists believe that conscience is a by-product
of the development of society. They hold that freedom of conscience
passed through three stages in its development. The first stage was when
people struggled for religious tolerance in a confessional state. The second
stage was when religious freedom of conscience was asserted in a liberal
democratic polity. In the third stage genuine freedom of conscience was
accomplished because atheism was freely allowed on the assumption that
conscience is the yardstick of religion and not vice versa.
Action and Reflection 20.1
Talk to a cross section of people and ask them what is secularism and
secularization. Note your discussion in your notebook.
Even before the current phase of globalisation, capitalist institutions, like
the market, integrated vast areas and people in different parts of the
world. But the capitalist social relations divided the large national states
distinctly into what Disraeli called ‘two nations’, viz. the wage-earners
and the capitalists. The wage earners were devoid of ownership of the
means of production due to their poverty. After being paid a subsistence
wage, these workers were alienated from the fruits of their labour due to
the prevailing social relations. Hence, they grasped the conception of God
and institutions of religion to compensate in imagination what they had
lost in the real world. Religion was welcomed by them into their culture in
order to make the conditions of the ‘heartless world’ slightly more bearable.
On the other hand, capitalists needed religion to buffet the brutal
uncertainties strewn in their lives, both as individuals and firms, busy
with the task of accumulating capital. The capitalists may occasionally
also need religion to be used as an instrument to pacify potential rebels
among wage-earners. Ironically, therefore, the liberal state, dominated
by the capitalists, also resorted to religion to bless its actions, crown its
dictators, sanction its laws, define as just its war against its enemies or
violence against its citizens and generally be the decorous master of national
ceremonies.
Secularization and other Institutions
Secularisation also gave birth to a large mosaic of relations between socio-
political institutions and religion in western Europe itself. Lutheranism is
the established faith in the Nordic countries (like Denmark, Iceland,
Norway, Sweden and Finland) and Catholicism enjoys a privileged position,
though is not the established faith, in Italy, Spain and Portugal. Church of
England has never been the state church but it has enjoyed some privileges
like 26 top most Anglican bishops have seats in the House of Lords and
Anglican priests preside over most state ceremonies. Yet, the Church of
England is subordinate to the British sovereign because s/he is also the
supreme governor of the Church of England. France, though Catholic, has
become rigidly secular since 1905 when the Catholic Church was
disestablished. Now, the French Government shows no preference for any
religious group and prohibits clerics form teaching in the public schools.
Mexico, where Catholics formed 92% of the total population in 2000, has
implemented the most anti-clerical legislation in the West. Here it is
legislated that: 95
Religion and Social Change z Church property belongs to the state;
z Worship services outside the Church was forbidden till some years
ago;
z The government can open any place of worship and determine the
number of clerics permitted in it;
z The clergy cannot vote, participate in politics, wear vestments in
public or criticize public officials; and
z The church cannot own radio and television stations (Storey and Utter
eds 2002: XI-XII)
Capitalist societies can be divided into two main categories according to
the nature of Church-State relations. The first category consists of those
who have a declared State religion and in the 1980s their number was
around four dozen or about a quarter of all countries of the world. In
these countries only the adherents of the State religion could become the
head of the State, member of high state institutions and participate in
the management of State affairs. In the second category fall countries
which have officially declared the separation of the State from any religion
but in practice religion is present in the cultural life of the nations. Agencies
of the State get involved with the religious ceremonies in the interests of
public order, religious education is regulated in the interests of uniform
educational standards and religious institutions are overseen in the interests
of public good. The Indian case falls in this latter category where there is
a formal separation but actual involvement of the State with religious
affairs.

20.6 The Indian experience

Secularism is ‘not an optional extra for a modern democracy,’ it is a
necessity. There are several religious and caste groups whose members
wish to relate with each other on a pluralist but egalitarian basis. Pluralism
existed in India during the medieval times as well but the challenge to
pluralism in our times is different. In medieval times hierarchy, and not
equality, was the norm. Hence, the diverse religions and cultures had to
find their place in the social hierarchy. On the one hand, even a non-
Hindu religious group like the Syrian Christians had to be fitted in the
caste system as one more jati (Bayly 1989 Ch. 7). On the other hand, the
prime source of legitimacy was the force of arms but the conquering
groups (like Mughals, Marathas and Sikhs) also tried to exercise cultural
hegemony. The ruling, dominant groups would tolerate, even subsidize,
different faiths provided the others publicly accepted their power. Bayly
found that, in the 18th and 19th centuries, the dominant cultural groups
of UP (whether the Muslim gentry in small towns or the Hindu merchants
in Benaras) set the limits within which other cultural groups found their
rights (Bayly 1983: 335-8). In modern times, all seek equal rights and no
one would like to exercise them as a courtesy showered on them after
bowing to the power of some dominant cultural group. Hence, there is a
demand that the rights of people be equal and that they be engraved in
law formulated by popular vote.
Colonial Impact
The European marvel of secularism hinged on Renaissance thought and
industrial capitalism. The Indian secular experience is different from the
European marvel due to colonialism. Colonialism, as we know, was not
chosen by Indians but was foisted on India aggressively since the 18th
century. Colonialism had a debilitating impact on both the development of
96
Renaissance-like thought and industrial capitalism in India. Sushobhan Sarkar
said the Renaissance in Bengal, which was the leader of India in the 19th Secularism and
century, was partial and artificial. He noted two vital differences between Secularization
the Indian and European forms of Renaissance. Firstly, the European
Renaissance flourished in free and independent states whereas the Indian
Renaissance struggled to make its appearance in a colonial situation of
foreign conquest and domination. Secondly, the European Renaissance
liberated the mind but this liberation was a part of a magnificent process
in which Europe ‘discovered’ the world. The world witnessed a revolution
in religion, the foundation of modern science, the rise of centralised
states, a beginning of the break up of the old social system in which the
bourgeoisie limited the power of monarchs, and the reorganisation of
trade, industry and agriculture. The Indian Renaissance did not have any
such sweep or vitality (Sarkar 1970: 149-50).
Box 20.2 The Salad Bowl
In India, after the revolt of 1857, the colonial state pulled itself out of
the Utilitarian inspired, William Bentinck-led social reforms. Instead,
by playing one religion and caste against another, the colonial state
tried to practice the policy of ‘divide and rule’ so as to kill the possibility
of a united opposition to it. Hence, the anti-colonial nationalists became
the torch-bearers of secularism, social reform, national unity and much
else. In the context of secularism, these nationalists were inspired by
three distinct ideals. Firstly, they drew inspiration from modern western
thought and especially from the English industrial and French political
revolutions. Secondly, the Indian religious reformation also helped the
nationalists to initially draw people into public activity and to
conceptualise a future better than the ‘oppressive present.’ Thirdly,
India is and was a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual country. The nationalist
strategy of ‘unity in diversity’ served the political ideal of national
unity just as well as it gave a boost to the secular ideal of a society
with tolerance towards differences and of a culture which was a
composite ‘salad bowl’, not a melting pot. In a ‘salad bowl’ each item
retains its uniqueness but is also a part of whole. Similarly, the different
socio-cultural groups retain their respective identities but also form a
part of a bigger politico-economic entity called the Indian nation.
Secularism and Religion

In the context of secularisation, there has been a considerable debate

about the suitability of the concept and practice of secularism in India
and the differences between Gandhi and Nehru on this issue. T.N. Madan
in his ‘Secularism in its Place’ makes a guarded attack on modernization.
He says that secularism and Indian culture are mismatched due to two
reasons. He said the mainstream Enlightenment view was that religion is
irrational. If secularism wants to remove religion from Indian public life
and culture, this will not happen. Secondly, Madan says that no religion
would go away on eviction. In fact there will be a strong cultural resistance
if religion is forcibly evicted. Nehru did not adopt the forcible eviction
model of Turkey but Nehruvian ideologues tried to use state institutions
for attaining secular objectives. They failed and some of the responsibility
for the eruption of religious bigotry and communal violence must be laid
at their door, said Madan (Madan 1991: 398).

To counter bigotry and intolerance, Madan offers two incompatible

proposals. First, he wants that nobody should demand the removal of
religion from public life. He wants the resources of every religion to be
used for spreading tolerance and fighting fanaticism. Second, Madan wants
the available versions of secularism to be rejected and, in their place, he
97
Religion and Social Change would like to have ‘a modern secularism appropriate to the cultural context
of India’ (Bhargava 1998: 524).
Ashis Nandy has made a flamboyant and sweeping attack on Modernization.
He distinguishes religion as faith from religion as ideology. Religion as
faith is ‘a way of life, a tradition which is definitionally non-monolithic
and operationally plural.’ Religion as ideology, on the other hand, is a
‘subnational, national or cross-national identifier of populations contesting
for or protecting non-religious, usually political or socio-economic, interests’
(Nandy 1991: 398). Modernization produces religion as ideology and then
generates secularism to meet its challenge. Nandy says modern scientific
nationalist secularism is in crisis. He says that in places where religion has
immense importance it is not possible to make religion a matter of private
preference. Religion inevitably enters public life through the back door
and this leads to communalization of politics. On the other hand, Nandy
observed, secularism has turned into an intolerant ideology with
modernization, development, scientific growth and nation-building as its
allies or constituents. This secularism alienates believers and breeds both
old and new kinds of violence. Such secularism breeds old violence in the
form of backlash of marginalized believers which in turn reinvigorates
bigotry and fanaticism. Secondly, this secularism generates new violence
between nation-state and religious communities.
Notions of Secularism
Like Madan, Nandy also wants the rejection of secularism and inclusion of
notions of tolerance existing in different faiths of India. Nandy says that
there exist two notions of secularism. One is the standard Western one
which keeps religion out of politics. The second alternative, non-Western
secularism must have space for continuous dialogue among religious
traditions and among the religious and the secular. This Nandy felt might
lead each of the major faiths in the region to include within it an in-house
version of other faiths which in turn will encourage internal criticisms and
remind one of the diversity in the theories of transcendence (Bhargava
1998: 524-5). Nandy has two versions of secularism but only one version
of modernity and that too negative. Hence, while Nandy rejects modernity
and the modern notion of secularism, he is left with tolerance of traditional
religions to defend his secularism with.
Madan and Nandy make an effective critique of hysterical anti-religiosity
and the hyper-substantive secularism which excludes religion from public
life. They would not like to privatize religion and rationalize politics. They
criticize secularism for being invalid in circumstances where religion is of
immense importance to people. The fact is that modern secularism arose
because tolerance of traditional religion was exhausted and religious beliefs
had become a reason for conflict. When these religions are faltering
again, we cannot return to religion whose resources have proven inadequate
in the past.
Modern culture is a mixed bag and its outright rejection may not be the
best way to have secularism. On the one hand, modern culture has some
frightening flaws like a drive to control; a purely instrumental and
destructive stance towards nature and human life, towards poor,
marginalized sections and victims of the savage side of capitalism;
disorientation and a felt lack of meaning; a trivialization of freedom in
consumer choice; and a confused hedonism. On the other hand, modern
culture also promises great goods like freedom, human rights, democracy,
the right to be different, and great movements for peace and human
welfare on a global scale (such as Amnesty International and Medicins Sans
98 Frontieres) (Taylor 2006 p 7).
Secularism and
Box 20.3 Tradition and Secularism Secularization

This brings us to the question as to what differences did Gandhi and

Nehru have on the question of modernity, tradition and secularism.
Nehru is seen as the modern monster and Gandhi is portrayed as a
blind propagator of tradition. Both were deeply involved with changing
Indian society and none of them was unmindful of its vast cultural
treasures. They were not satisfied with any textbook definition of
secularism. Gandhi’s definition of secularism included respect for all
religions but neutrality towards all forms of spiritual beliefs, including
atheism. He changed the proposition ‘God is Truth’ to ‘Truth is God’
and performed the marriage of the daughter of an atheist disciple,
Prof. Gora, in the name of Truth. When objections were raised, Gandhi
had the invocation to God dropped from the Congress pledge in 1925
(Chandra 2004:3-23). Nehru not only led the struggle for Indian
Independence but also had to venture into nation-building. His
conception of secularism included religious pluralism, full civil liberties
and equal opportunities. Not just tolerance, Nehru emphasised equality
and suggested that his task was to build a modern state within the
framework of India’s culture (Gopal 1996: 209).
It is thought that Gandhi would have wanted the sacred to pervade the
secular sphere and Nehru would have nothing to do with it. Facts are very
different from this impression. Gandhi was a deeply religious man but he
did not want Hinduism to interfere with secular political matters, especially
those of State policy. In his My Experiments with Truth he wrote, ‘My
devotion to Truth has drawn me into the field of politics… those who say
that religion has nothing to do with politics, do not know what religion
means.’ (Gandhi, 1929: 591). Gandhi even called his Non-Cooperation
Movement, in 1920-21, ‘a religious, purifying movement’ and as a ‘religious
effort’ (Young India, 1929: 14). He believed that politics cannot be divorced
from politics because he wanted religion to pervade every action of human
beings. But, in 1940, Gandhi declared, ‘…Here religion does not mean
sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the
universe…This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity
etc.’(Harijan, 1940: 177-8). But, with the experience of cantankerous
debates and horrific violence in the name of religion, since the 1940s, the
same Gandhi demanded that religion be kept out of politics. At the time
of the Quit India Movement, in August 1942, Gandhi said, ‘Religion is a
personal matter and should have no place in politics’ (Harijan 1942:402).
In September 1946, Gandhi told a missionary, ‘If I were a dictator, religion
and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I will die for it. But it
is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do with it’ (Harijan 1946).
Less than three weeks before his assassination by a Hindu communalist,
Gandhi told people at a prayer meeting on 11 January 1948 that ‘he
wanted all nationalists not to mix religion with politics. They were Indians
first and last in all secular matters. Religion was a personal affair of the
individual concerned’ (Tendulkar 1969: 240).

20.7 Conclusion
Much is made of the agnosticism and anti-religiosity of Nehru. But it is
often not understood that ‘Nehru was without religious faith but not
without religious feeling.’ He praised sages and savants and agreed with
Vinoba Bhave that the days of politics and religion had been replaced by
the days of science and spirituality (Gopal 1996: 208-209). He appreciated
the value of religious epics in the life and culture of India. In his foreword
to N. Chandrasekhara Aiyer’s Valmiki Ramayana, Nehru acknowledged
that the epic ‘must have peculiar virtue in it’ because it had a ‘powerful 99
Religion and Social Change influence on millions of people, during some millennia of our changing
history.’ Nehru underlined the importance of seeing the whole of India
(and not just a part) to have a full picture of her and of appreciating the
deep roots of her past (and not just see the present) to understand her.
He said an intellectual understanding of history is necessary but ‘we must
have even more an emotional awareness of our past and the present.’
Nehru added that to understand India and her people fully it is necessary
to have a ‘knowledge of the two magnificent epics that are India’s pride
and treasure’ (Nehru 1954). Barely two days before his death, Nehru
asserted that India should increase production by modern industrial
processes ‘but in doing so we must not forget that the essential objective
to be aimed at is the quality of the individual and the concept of dharma
underlying it’ (Gopal 1996: 209).

20.8 Further Reading

Peter L Berger 1973 The Social Reality of Religion, London. Allen Lane.
Rajeev Bhargava (ed) 1998 Secularism and its Critics, New Delhi, Oxford
Press

References
C.A. Bayly (1983), Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society
in the Age of British Expansion, 1770-1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), pp. 335-8 and 354-7. Under the ‘neutral’ British regime,
claimed Bayly, these relationships of submission/ super-ordination between
different social groups were renegotiated. This re-negotiation sparked
jostling for status between the groups which lay in the background of
communal formations. Ibid.
Anwar Alam (2002), “Secularism in India: A Critique of the Current
Discourse,” in Paul R. Brass and Achin Vanaik (eds), Competing Nationalisms
in South Asia: Essays for Asghar Ali Engineer (Orient Longman:
Hyderabad), p. 106.
Ashis Nandy, ‘The Politics of Secularism and the Recovery of Religious
Tolerance,’ in Veena Das (ed), Mirrors of Violence (New Delhi, OUP, 1991),
p. 398.
Bipan Chandra (2004), “Gandhiji, Secularism and Communalism,” Social
Scientist, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, (Jan-Feb, 2004), pp. 3-29.
Bryan R. Wilson (1987), “Secularization,” in Mircea Eliade (ed), The
Encyclopaedia of Religion Vol. 13 (New York/ London: Macmillan Publishing
Co.), pp. 159-60.
Charles Taylor, ‘Benedict XVI,’ in Public Culture, Vol. 18, No. 1, Winter
2006, p. 7.
F. Engels and Karl Marx (1976), On Religion (Moscow, Progress Publishers),
p. 206.
For a detailed examination of this India-specific definition of secularism
as anti-communalism, see Bipan Chandra (2004), “Gandhiji, Secularism
and Communalism,” Social Scientist Vol. 32, No.(s) 1-2, January-February
2004, pp. 3-29.
Hans J. Hillerbrand (1987), “Reformation,” in Mircea Eliade (ed), The
Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 12 (New York/ London: Macmillan Publishing
Co.), p. 253.

100
Harijan, 10.2.1940, in CWMG, Vol. 71, pp. 177-8.
Harijan, 22.9.1946, in CWMG, Vol. 85, p. 328. Secularism and
Secularization
Harijan, 9.8.1942, in CWMG, Vol. 76, p. 402.
Harvey Cox (1966), The Secular City ( ), pp. 2-3, 60-1.
Jawaharlal Nehru (1954), ‘Foreword,’ in N. Chandrasekhara Aiyer, Valmiki
Ramayana (Bombay, Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan).
John W. Storey and Glenn H. Utter (eds) (2002), Religion and Politics: A
Reference Handbook (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio), p.34.
John W. Storey and Glenn H. Utter (eds) (2002), Religion and Politics: A
Reference Handbook (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio), pp. xi-xii.
M.K. Gandhi (1929), The Story of My Experiments with Truth
(Ahemdabad), p. 591 as quoted in Bipan Chandra (2004), “Gandhiji,
Secularism and Communalism,” Social Scientist, Vol. 32, No. 1-2, (Jan-
Feb, 2004), p. 8. All quotes from Gandhi hereafter, in this unit, are from
the aforementioned article by Bipan Chandra.
Marc Gallanter, “Secularism: East and West,” in Rajeev Bhargava (ed),
Secularism and its Critics (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), p. .
O. Havrilyuk (1984), Freedom of Conscience in a Socialist Society (Kiev:
Politvidav Ukraini Publishers).
Owen Chadwick (1985), Secularization of the European Mind in the
Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p. 103.
Paul Kurtz (n.d.), A Secular Humanist Declaration (Indian Secularist Society
Pamphlet), p. 12.
Peter L. Berger (1973), The Social Reality of Religion (London: Allen
Lane), p. 113.
Quoted before Introductory Chapter in David N. Lorenzen (ed) (1995),
Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action
(Albany: State University of New York Press).
Rajeev Bhargava, “What is Secularism for?”, in Rajeev Bhargava (ed)
(1998), Secularism and its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press), p.
524.
Rajeev Bhargava, “What is Secularism for?”, in Rajeev Bhargava (ed)
(1998), Secularism and its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press), pp.
524-5.
Reported by D.G. Tendulkar (1969 reprint), Mahatma - Life of Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi (New Delhi), note 11, Vol. 8, p. 240.
Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and Development
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) as quoted by Charles Taylor,
“Modes of Secularism,” in Rajeev Bhargava (ed) (1998), Secularism and
its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press), pp. 33-4.
S. Gopal (1996), “Nehru, Religion and Secularism,” in R. Champakalakshmi
and S. Gopal (eds.), Tradition, Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of
Romila Thapar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), p. 209.
S. Gopal (1996), “Nehru, Religion and Secularism,” in R. Champakalakshmi
and S. Gopal (eds.), Tradition, Dissent and Ideology: Essays in Honour of
Romila Thapar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), pp. 208-09.
Saral Jhingran (1995), Secularism in India: A Reappraisal (New Delhi:
Har-Anand Publications), pp. 46-9.

101
Religion and Social Change See Chris Rohmann, A World of Ideas: A Dictionary of Important Theories,
Concepts, Beliefs, and Thinkers (New York: Ballantine Boks, 1999), pp.
89-90.
Susan Bayly (1989), Saints, Goddesses and Kings: Muslims and Christians
in South Indian Society, 1700-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press), especially Chapter 7.
Sushobhan Sarkar (1970), Bengal’s Renaissance and Other Essays (New
Delhi: People’s Publishing House), pp. 149-50.
T.N. Madan, ‘Secularism in its Place,’ in T.N. Madan (ed) (1991), Religion
in India (OUP: New Delhi), p. 398.
T.N. Madan, “Secularism in Its Place,” in Rajeev Bhargava (ed) (1998),
Secularism and Its Critics (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), pp. 298-
9.
Young India, 9.2.1921 in The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi
(CWMG), Vol. 19, p. 312; and Young India, 20.4.1921 in CWMG, Vol. 20,
p. 14.

102
Unit 21
Communalism and Fundamentalism
Contents
21.1 Introduction
21.2 Definition of Fundamentalism
21.3 Politics, Religion and Education
21.4 Fundamentalism and Equality of Religions
21.5 Definition of Communalism
21.6 Fundamentalism and Communalism
21.7 Targets of Fundamentalism and Communalism
21.8 Conclusion
21.9 Further Reading
Learning Objectives
After you have studied this unit you should be able to:
z define fundamentalism;
z define communalism;
z outline the nexus between fundamentalism and communalism; and
z locate the targets of fundamentalism and communalism.

21.1 Introduction
There is a recent tendency, quite wrong though, to equate religious
fundamentalism with communalism or to treat one as the synonym of the
other. In fact, the two are quite distinct and different though they can
become correlated and have many ideological and political elements in
common.

21.2 Definition of Fundamentalism

Let us first take up the definition and basic tenets of fundamentalism. I
am indebted to Sadik J. Al Azim’s brilliant articles in South Asia Bulletin
for my understanding as also delineation of fundamentalism. [ the Bulletin,
Vol. XIII, Nos. 1-2, 1993, and Vol. XIV, No. 1, 19941. Though fundamentalism
is not monolithic, it has enough common elements for us to try to define
it. It is also not confined to the followers of any one religion and is to be
found among Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, though its
strength among followers of different religions varies for historical reasons
in terms of time and space and the formation and structure of different
religions.
First of all, the fundamentalists argue for return to the fundamental
tenets of a religion, for return to the original formulations and meanings
given to a religion at the time of its foundation in its first texts. These
texts have, moreover, to be literally understood, applied or implemented.
There is to be no interpretation of or debate about their meanings.
Consequently, all later developments, exegeses, interpretations, etc., are
106 to be rejected and wiped out. Since the texts are seen as God’s own
actual words, their meaning is bound to be clear and unambiguous as also Communalism and
changeless. How can then they be interpreted? And, of course, the question Fundamentalism
of later generations thinking originally does not arise. Thus for Christian
fundamentalists, God’s words are permanently given in the Old and New
Testaments and for the Muslim fundamentalists in the Koran and the
Sunnah (The Prophet’s sayings). Some Hindus regard the Vedas as God’s
immutable words. Similarly, many Sikhs so regard the Gurbani. In fact the
fundamentalists regard all efforts to interpret, not to speak to amend,
the original texts in the light of modern social conditions and state of
human knowledge as blasphemous, as acts of enemies within. And, of
course, any effort to read them as mytho-realities or allegories is damned
as worse than heresy.
Second, fundamentalists assert that all aspects and areas of life are to be
governed by the true, revealed religion as embodied in the original texts.
God’s words and law are to be the basis of society, economy, polity,
culture, and law and the entire domestic and personal life of the believer.
Some Examples
As Gary North, one of the American fundamentalists, has put it, the Bible
contains answers to all problems a person faces today including “the
concrete, day-to-day problems of economics, family relationships, politics,
law, medicine, and all other areas of life”. Similarly, Judge Abdul-Jawed
Yasin rejects the modern secular notion that religion pertains only to one
area of a person’s life, that is, his personal spiritual life. It is wrong to
hold, he says, that “just as there are economic affairs, social affairs,
political affairs, foreign affairs, family affairs, legal affairs, administrative
affairs.. .there are religious affairs too... confined to rituals and piety.”
This, he says, reduces religion to “a mere aspect among life’s many
aspects” and to “a mere specific need among man’s many other needs”.
“Religion,” he argues, “is not a side affair among life’s many affairs, but
the divine ‘way’ according to which man runs his individual and collective
affairs of life. It is the method drawn by God for the community: for its
economic affairs, social affairs, political affairs, legislative affairs,
psychological affairs, internal affairs, external affairs and any other affairs
that it may have.” A Muslim fundamentalist has put this view as follows:
“God’s final religion contains all the legislations required
Essays ‘on Contemporary India by any society, any place, any time and in
all spheres of life”. The fundamentalists consequently totally reject the
pluralist principle of “many Gods, many moralities, many laws”

21.3 Politics Religion and Education

More specifically, the fundamentalists attack the separation of religion
from politics and state, and therefore the,idea of the secular state. If
God is supreme over all, then the political rule is also His domain, and how
can then the state be outside the religious realm? The state, in fact, has
to be a theocracy.
Similarly, the fundamentalists insist on religious control over education so
that not only is true religion taught in schools and colleges but nothing
contrary to it is taught. The famous encyclical. The Syllabus of Modern
Errors, issued by Pope Rius IX in 1864, and one of the first modern
statements of religious fundamentalism, after damning the view “that
from civil law descend and depend all the rights of parents over their
children, and above all, the right of instructing and educating them”,
condemns those “most false teachers” who “endeavour to eliminate the
salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church from the instruction 107
Religion and Social Change and education of youth, and miserably to infect and deprave by every
pernicious error and vice the tender and pliant minds of youth”. The
fundamentalists, therefore, advocate boycott of modern state-run or
state-supported schools and their replacement by schools where the
traditional religious system of teaching is followed. Some even argue that
only that much education is needed as is sufficient to read and follow
religious texts or to meet “a practical and real need” in terms of worldly
affairs.
In particular, all laws have to be derived from the earliest or founding
texts. The Muslim fundamentalists, in particular, demand that all laws
must be derived from the Koran and the Sunnah. Even here, the
fundamentalists tend to emphasize primarily the harsh ancient penal codes,
such as amputation of hands and feet, stoning of the guilty, public flogging,
and death punishment for a large number of crimes, some quite petty.
For example, some of the American fundamentalists advocate death
penalty for the following crimes, among other crimes, on the basis of
Mosaic, i.e., God’s Laws in the Old Testament: “murder, adultery,
unchastity, sodomy, bestiality, homosexuality, rape, incest, fornication,
incorrigibility in children, Sabbath breaking, kidnapping, apostasy, idolatory,
blasphemy, sacrificing to false Gods, propagating false doctrines, false
pretension to prophecy, witchcraft and sorcery”.

21.4 Fundamentalism and Equality of Religions

The fundamentalists do not believe in the equality of all religions or even
the grant of liberty to all religions to exist, for how can false religions be
treated as equal to the true religion or be given the liberty to preach and
practise falsehood? The same logic leads the fundamentalists to oppose
the concept of the unity of all religions. In fact, most of them urge the
prohibition and suppression of religions other than their own in countries
where 6 followers of their religion constitute the majority. One slightly
different but in fact the same aspect of this is the demand of the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad that all Islamic religious or cultural influences should be
removed from the country. Of course, missing the irony or the absurdity
of the situation, the fundamentalists demand the liberty to preach and
practise their own religion where they happen to be in a minority They
also, in that case, often demand separation of the state from religion,
i.e. ,the religion of the majority.
We may also take note of a few other features of fundamentalism. It is
opposed to reason and rationalism, humanism and secularism. It is anti-
science and denies the validity of all human knowledge which is outside
the religious realm. As Prof. SadikJ.Al-Azim has pointed out: “Both
(Christian and Muslim fundamentalists) invest efforts in what they call the
re-Christianization andlor re-Islamization of human knowledge. As a
consequence, both find themselves compelled to elaborate theories about
and concoct recipes of Biblico-Christian andlor Koranico-Muslim foundations
and principles of natural science, economics, history, law, government,
politics, sociology, psychology, and so on.” In India, the Hindu
fundamentalists have been, in the last few years, making claims for Hindu
mathematics and so on.
Sovereignty and Religion
The fundamentalists are also opposed to the idea of popular sovereignty
and the resulting practice of democracy and
constitutional government. This is, in a way, inevitable, fcr if sovereignty
108 belongs to God and all laws and policies should be based on God’s words as
revealed in the holy texts, then where is the scope for constitutions and Communalism and
Fundamentalism
for the people to determine
Box 21.1 The True Believers
There can also not exist more than one party—the party of God or the
true believers. In general the fundamentalists attack the basic ideas
and values of the Enlightenment, especially modern science, reason
and the idea of progress, often for being western, and, in the case of
Christian fundamentalists, for being pagan in origin and for their claim
to be independent of faith.
Before I take up the question of communalism I would like to enter a few
caveats, though without elaboration. Even though sharing some common
features, fundamentalism is different from devout belief, or religiosity or
religious orthodoxy, or belief in the fundamental beliefs and values of
one’s religion. For the religiously orthodox are not intolerant of others’
religious beliefs. Take, for example, both the firmness of religious belief
and the high degree of catholicity towards others’ beliefs among the Sufis
and Vaishnavites in our own country. In fact, both would be declared to be
‘practitioners of error’ by the fundamentalists of their own religions.

21.5 Definition of Communalism

Let us now define communalism. This is best done historically, that is by a
study of its development in modern India. Communalism in India developed
through three stages, each stage providing its own definition of
communalism and merging into the next stage.
Communalism developed during the last quarter of the 19th century when
the view was put forward that followers of a religion in the whole of India
have in common not only their religion and religious interests but also
some political, economic, social and cultural interests. This view led to
the notion that in India, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians form distinct
communities and that India or the Indian nation is formed by these distinct
communities. These communities have their own leaders, for example,
Hindu leaders and Muslim leaders, who defend and fight for the interests
of their communities. Unfortunately many nationalists accepted and began
to use the terminology of religion- based communities even when they did
not accept its basic communal content. Thus they talked and wrote about
Hindu community, Muslim community, etc. Communalism entered a second
stage in the beginning of the 20th century, when communalism proper
made an appearance.
Action and Reflection 21.1
Differentiate between fundamentalisms and communalism on the basis
of newspaper and media reports. Put down your findings in a notebook.
The communalists now argued that followers of a religion have, as a
community, some interests separate from those of the followers of other
religions; that is, many of the economic and political interests of the
followers of different religions diverge and are sometimes opposite because
of their following different religions. At the same time, the communalists
agreed that Indians, belonging to different religions, also have many
common economic and political interests, in particular vis-à-vis the colonial
rulers. Thus, these communalists, who may be described as liberal
communalists, accepted that Hindus and Muslims have common interests;
but, they argued that, as communities, they have additional and separate
interests of their own. They usually held that Indians can and should fight
together for political freedom and economic development, once their 109
Religion and Social Change separate communal interests are recognized and adjusted or settled through
mutual compromise and give and take.
Two Nation Theory
Communalists of the third stage argued that the secular interests of the
followers of different religions were not only different, but mutually totally
antagonistic. What was good for Hindus was bad for Muslims, what was
good for Muslims was bad for Hindus and so on. Hindus and Muslims could
never form one nation or live together as equals and fellow-citizens—
there was nothing in life to unite them. Thus was born the two-nation
theory in its two communal versions. According to the Muslim League and
Mohammed Au Jinnah, Hindus and Muslims in India formed two different
nations because they followed two different• religions—and the two must
separate and form two separate nation-states because their interests
clashed totally.

21.6 Fundamentalism and Communalism

As pointed out in the beginning, fundamentalism and communalism have
certain ideological elements in common. On the other hand, they also
differ from each other. Both attack the concept of separation of religion
from politics and the state. Both oppose the concept of equal truth in all
religions or the unity of different religions. Both advocate control over
education by the followers of the dominant religion. Both believe in
restoration of the past values and ‘greatness’ rather than in progress
towards the unknown so that ‘greatness’ and progress lie in the future.
Both share the notion that their societies had achieved near-human
perfection in the very early centuries when their religions were founded
and were practised in their pristine purity and then declined and ‘fell’.
Both oppose secularism and believe that it corrupts society. Both oppose
secular nationalism and the anti-imperialist and nationalist view of his
But these common features do not make the two the same. To take a
very different example, it is clear that indigenousism and post-modernism
have many ideological positions in common with fundamentalism, especially
opposition to science, reason, progress, secularism and nationalism, but
they are basically poles apart.
Differences of Perception
The communalist and the fundamentalist differ in many ways, though in
a multi-religious society a fundamentalist tends to be communal while
communalists are quite often not fundamentalists. For example, in India,
the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Muslim
League, and the Akali Dal were and are communal parties but they were
not and are not fundamentalist. Similarly, Pakistan and to a certain extent
Bangladesh are communal states but they are no fundamentalist states. If
we look at the programmatic, policy or ideological statements and
propaganda of the communal parties, the difference becomes clear, for
not many of the fundamentalist tenets would be found in them.

110
Box 21.2 The Manusmriti Communalism and
Fundamentalism
Let me take up a few examples, Modern science is quite compatible
with communalism, though the fundamentalists see it as an enemy.
The fundamentalists oppose any notion of reform or further development
of religious beliefs and tenets or social structure, practices and
institutions based on them. The communalists can and often do favour
reform of inherited religions. and social structures. This is, in particular,
true of Hindu communalists. The basic, fundamental tenet of Hinduism
is the caste system and the basic social text is Manusmriti. There is
little in the Vedas or Upanishads or Geeta on which a fundamentalist
can build a full structure. Manusmriti is perhaps the oniy such text.
Yet hardly any Hindu communalist is committed to it or to the caste
system in a fundamentalist manner. In fact, except for a handful of
die-hard priests, hardly any Hindu communalist today defends the
caste system and its basic inequitous features or claims to live by the
diktats of the Manusmriti.
The fundamentalists seriously urge the actual revival of the pristine past
and its religious, social, cultural, legal and political practices. This is not
the case with the communalists who may appeal to the past as ideology or
nostalgia but whose gaze is clearly fixed on the modern world.
The relationship of the fundamentalists and the communalists to religion
is also only superficially similar. The former are deeply religious, their
entire ideology relates to religion and they want to base the state, society,
and daily life of the individual on religion. The communalists, on the other
hand, have hardly much to do with religion, except that they base their
politics on religious identity and thus use religion for the purposes of
struggle for political power. The communal state is thus not necessarily a
theocratic state. For example, even when declared to be Islamic states,
Pakistan and Bangladesh are communal states and not theocratic states.
Interestingly, only a minority of the communalists in Pakistan or Bangladesh
demand the literal application of the ancient laws (according to the Shariah),
and hardly any Hindu or Muslim communalist does so in India.
Action and Reflection 21.2
Talk to some knowledgeable people about fundamentalism and
communalism with reference to religion. Note down your findings and
then compare with 21.6 above.
Similarly, the fundamentalists want to Christianize or Islamize or Hinduize
the whole world. Not so the communalists; they only want to communalize
and can only communalize their own society.
It is, therefore, not accidental that in our country the communalists have
often not only not been fundamentalists but have not been even religious.
Thus M.A. Jinnah or Liaqat All Khan or Feroze Khan Noon were not very
religious; In pre-independent India oniy the followers of Maulana
Maudoodi among the Muslim communalists were fundamentalists, and,
interestingly, they were opposed to the demand for the partition of India.

21.7 Targets of Fundamentalism and

Communalism
The targets of fundamentalism and communalism are also very different.
The fundamentalists basically target fellow believers who do not agree
with them, while the targets of the communalists most often are the
other religious communities.
111
Religion and Social Change There is a major critical reason why the communalists are seldom
fundamentalists and can even oppose the latter. They make every attempt
to communalize and unite the members of their religious community.
That alone can bring them into political power, especially in a democratic
polity. But it is in the very nature of fundamentalism to divide and constantly
fragment the followers of a religion. This is for two reasons. First, not
many can adopt fundamentalism in practice or even in belief. Second, by
rigid definitions, they tend to exclude rather than include. Anyone who
does not agree with their definition of true religion becomes a nonbeliever
and, therefore, sooner or later an enemy. When i? they talk of annihilating
the infidels, they are often referring to
their own co-religionists. In fact, such is their extreme religious fanaticism
that they constantly divide among themselves to split and fragment.

21.8 Conclusion

21.9 Further Reading

Engineer Asghar Ali and Moin Shakir (Ed) 1985 Communalism in India.
New Delhi. Ajanta Publications.
Pandey Gyanendra 1990. The Construction of Communalism in Colonial
North India. Delhi. OUP
Thapar Romilla 1989 “The Politics of Religious Communities: Seminar,
No. 365.

112