Understanding Communalism in Modern India

India is home to one of the world’s most diverse religious landscapes – Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, and others have coexisted on this land for millennia. Yet, the question of how religious identity intersects with politics has never been simple here. Communalism – the ideology that people sharing a religion also share common political, social, and economic interests, distinct from and often opposed to those of other religious groups – has been one of the most consequential forces in shaping modern India. Understanding what it is, how it evolved, and how it differs from related concepts like fundamentalism is essential to making sense of Indian politics and society today.

What does communalism actually mean?
The three stages of communalism in India
Stage 1: Communal consciousness (mild communalism)
Stage 2: Liberal communalism (moderate stage)
Stage 3: Extreme communalism
How did communalism take root? The role of colonial policy
Communalism vs. fundamentalism: an important distinction
Communalism in post-independence India
Why the definition of communalism matters

What does communalism actually mean?

In everyday English, “communal” simply means something shared by a community. But in the Indian context, the word carries a sharper, more political edge. Communalism is the belief that because people follow the same religion, they must also share a common set of social, political, and economic interests – and that these interests are different from, or even opposed to, those of followers of other religions. It is not merely religious sentiment or piety. As the historian Bipan Chandra notes, communalism is fundamentally an ideology – a political and social framework that reorganizes society along religious lines for secular (non-religious) purposes like gaining power, jobs, or political representation.

A key feature of communalist thinking, as scholars have pointed out, is that it overrides other identities. It denies that a Hindu and a Muslim from Kerala, for instance, may have far more in common with each other than with co-religionists from Kashmir or Gujarat. It also dismisses the idea that a landless agricultural labourer’s class interests might unite them across religious lines. Religion, in communalist logic, becomes the singular, overriding identity – trumping region, class, language, and everything else.

The three stages of communalism in India

Communalism did not arrive in India fully formed. It evolved through three discernible stages, each more divisive than the last. This framework, widely attributed to Bipan Chandra’s analysis in India’s Struggle for Independence, remains the standard lens for understanding how the ideology developed.

Stage 1: Communal consciousness (mild communalism)

In this first stage, the core belief was that people of the same religion share common secular interests – political, social, and cultural – regardless of their economic backgrounds. This was not inherently hostile. It was simply the assertion that Hindus had shared interests as Hindus, and Muslims had shared interests as Muslims. Religious identity was being consolidated as a political identity, but the emphasis was on solidarity within a group, not antagonism toward another. Leaders began identifying their constituencies in religious terms – as “Nationalist Hindus” or “Nationalist Muslims” – but the two communities were not yet portrayed as being fundamentally at odds. This early phase was significantly shaped by British colonial policies that classified the Indian population using religious categories, reinforcing the idea that Hindus and Muslims were distinct and separate communities.

Stage 2: Liberal communalism (moderate stage)

The second stage introduced a more divisive premise: that the secular interests of different religious communities were not merely distinct but divergent. Proponents of this stage believed that the diverse interests of India’s people could still be harmonized, and that integration of the nation was possible – but the starting assumption was now that Hindus and Muslims operated from different political and economic vantage points. The founding of the Muslim League in 1906 is often cited as a concrete expression of this thinking – the organization emerged from the belief that Muslim political interests required separate representation. This phase broadly characterized Indian communal politics until the mid-1930s.

Stage 3: Extreme communalism

The third and most dangerous stage recast the relationship between religious communities as one of fundamental, irreconcilable antagonism. The interests of different religious communities were now seen as mutually incompatible and hostile – not just different, but permanently in conflict. Bipan Chandra believes that after 1937, communal organisations felt the necessity to garner mass support by arousing irrational fears, for which aggressive politics, extremist demands, and a fascist outlook were consciously adopted. This stage gave rise to the two-nation theory – the claim that Hindus and Muslims were not merely two communities within one nation, but two entirely separate nations. The theory was adopted and promoted by the All-India Muslim League and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, asserting that Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus were two separate nations, each with their own customs, traditions, literature, and ways of life. Hindu communalists, particularly through the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS, mirrored this logic, arguing that the cultural and civilizational differences were too deep to share a common political future. The tragic culmination of this stage was the Partition of 1947, which led to mass displacement and violence, with millions migrating and widespread killings.

How did communalism take root? The role of colonial policy

Communalism in modern India was not a natural extension of religious diversity. It was a product of colonial policies and socio-political transformations, not an inherent outgrowth of India’s religious plurality. The British policy of “divide and rule” was central to its emergence. After the Revolt of 1857, the British consciously deepened divisions between religious communities. Institutional measures reinforced these divisions: the Partition of Bengal in 1905, drawn on religious lines, the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 which introduced separate electorates for Muslims, and the Communal Award of 1932, which extended separate representation to multiple communities, all embedded religious identity into the formal political structure. As historian Bipan Chandra argues, these reforms gave primacy to religious representation over nationalism, making communal identity increasingly central to political life.

Economic factors also played a role. Poverty, unemployment, and lopsided development aggravated a sense of relative deprivation within communities, which political entrepreneurs exploited along communal lines. According to Bipan Chandra, communal politics until 1937 was organized primarily around government jobs, educational concessions, and political positions – the material stakes were real, but religion was the mobilizing tool.

Communalism vs. fundamentalism: an important distinction

The two terms are often used interchangeably, but they describe different phenomena. Fundamentalism is rooted in religion itself – it involves a strict, literal adherence to religious texts and doctrines, and a desire to organize all of social and political life according to those principles. Fundamentalists exploit sectarianism rigidly for the political mobilization of a community, aiming to enforce narrow sectarian practices and strengthen religious orthodoxy. Communalism, by contrast, uses religion as a tool for political and social ends, without necessarily being rooted in deep religious practice. A key distinction is that fundamentalists actively seek to restore past religious, social, and cultural practices, while communalists tend to focus on the modern world, using the past as ideology or nostalgia.

The targets of the two ideologies also differ: fundamentalists primarily target individuals within their own religious group who do not share their beliefs, while communalists usually target other religious communities. Significantly, many prominent communalist leaders in Indian history were not personally religious. Leaders like M.A. Jinnah, V.D. Savarkar, and L.K. Advani cannot be considered fundamentalists – their political mobilization was communal in character, not driven by theological conviction. As sociologists note, in a multi-religious society, a fundamentalist tends to be communal, while communalists are quite often not fundamentalists.

In the Indian context, communal parties such as the Hindu Mahasabha, RSS, Bharatiya Janata Party, Muslim League, and Akali Dal are not necessarily fundamentalist, and similarly, Pakistan and Bangladesh are considered communal states but not fundamentalist states. Conflating the two concepts leads to analytical confusion and, politically, allows communalists to evade accountability by hiding behind claims of religious identity.

Communalism in post-independence India

Partition did not end communalism – it transformed it. Independent India’s Constitution enshrined secularism and equal rights for all citizens, but the communal fault lines persisted. Major communal flashpoints continued to erupt across decades: the Jabalpur riots of 1961, the Ahmedabad riots of 1969, the anti-Sikh violence of 1984 following Indira Gandhi’s assassination, and the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992, which triggered some of the worst post-independence communal violence across Mumbai, Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, and Delhi. Each episode illustrated how religious identity could be activated for political purposes during moments of stress or electoral competition.

The political dimension has only deepened over time. Politically, communalism leads to polarization and the exploitation of religious sentiments for electoral gains. It causes economic damage through communal riots, weakens social capital and mutual trust, and has drawn international attention – including India’s designation by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as a “Country of Particular Concern”. These consequences make clear that communalism is not merely a historical or theoretical subject – it continues to shape the lived realities of millions of Indians.

Why the definition of communalism matters

Defining communalism precisely is not an academic exercise. As scholar Asghar Ali Engineer argues, communalism is a modern phenomenon whose fundamental causes are secular – competition for political power or government jobs – with religion serving as an instrumental rather than fundamental cause, because of its powerful mobilizing capacity. This insight is critical: it means that communalism can be challenged through structural and political interventions, not just through appeals to religious tolerance. Recognizing communalism as an ideology – a deliberate construction rather than a natural expression of religious difference – opens up the possibility of dismantling it. India’s response has included institutions like the National Integration Council and the National Foundation for Communal Harmony, though the challenge of translating constitutional secularism into social reality remains ongoing.

What do you think? If communalism is driven more by political and economic competition than by genuine religious differences, does that change how we should respond to it? And given that communalism and fundamentalism are distinct ideologies, should India’s policies to counter religious extremism treat them differently?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What does communalism actually mean? 🔗

The three stages of communalism in India 🔗

Stage 1: Communal consciousness (mild communalism) 🔗

Stage 2: Liberal communalism (moderate stage) 🔗

Stage 3: Extreme communalism 🔗

How did communalism take root? The role of colonial policy 🔗

Communalism vs. fundamentalism: an important distinction 🔗

Communalism in post-independence India 🔗

Why the definition of communalism matters 🔗