A Historical and Theoretical Investigation into 'Communalism'

386 Pages·1.08 MB·English

by  Sufiya Pathan

A Historical and Theoretical
Investigation into ‘Communalism’

Ph.D. thesis submitted to

MANIPAL UNIVERSITY

by
Sufiya Pathan

CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF CULTURE & SOCIETY
(Affiliated to Manipal University)
BANGALORE—560061
March 2009
Bangalore
15 March 2009

Declaration

I, Sufiya Pathan, do hereby declare that this thesis entitled A Historical and
Theoretical investigation into ‘Communalism’ contains original research work
done by me in fulfilment of the requirements for my Ph.D. degree in Cultural Studies
from the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society and that this report has not
previously formed the basis for the award of any degree or diploma in this or any
other institution. This work has not been sent anywhere for publication or
presentation purpose.

Sufiya Pathan

ii
Bangalore
15 March 2009

Centre for the Study of Culture and Society
(Affiliated to Manipal University)
29th Main, Poornaprajna HBCS Layout, Uttarahalli
Bangalore 560061

Certificate

Certified that this thesis entitled A Historical and Theoretical investigation into
‘Communalism’ is a record of bonafide study and research carried out by Ms. Sufiya
Pathan under my supervision and guidance. The report has not been submitted by her
for any award of degree or diploma in this or in any other university.

Dr. Vivek Dhareshwar
(Supervisor)

Dr. Mrinalini Sebastian
(Member, Ph.D. Committee)

Dr. Sitharamam Kakarala
(Director)
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When one writes a PhD for almost seven years, one accumulates an
embarrassing number of debts and so the inordinate length of the
acknowledgements must be forgiven. This project was conceived in the
classes held by Dr. Vivek Dhareshwar in his course ‘Normativity and
Experience’ at CSCS in the year 2002. The course was truly inspiring,
transforming my view of what academic endeavour involved. It is thanks to
Dr. Dhareshwar that I can look back at the process of writing this thesis and
not regret a moment of it. While it has been sometimes frustrating and often
extremely difficult, it has also been a lot of genuine excitement and fun! He is
the source of many of the foundational questions that this project asks and
many of the directions where I seek answers. Perhaps even more importantly,
he is responsible for always holding me to the task of asking questions that
mattered even if they were extremely daunting and constantly challenging me
to either come up with answers or with honest reflections on the short-
comings of my approach. His guidance and rigorous training have been
invaluable and I thank him for always doing much more than he was required
to do as a supervisor.

I thank other Junior and Senior Fellows at CSCS and all the several batches
of students who have participated in presentations and asked questions that
have helped this project along. I especially thank my second reader, Dr.
Mrinalini Sebastian who always took the greatest pains to make detailed
iv
comments and suggestions on any submitted material. She has always been
encouraging and helpful and has directed me towards strengthening my
arguments with greater evidence and more clarity. She also read through the
entire PhD draft at very short notice cheerfully, without complaint, and once
again took the trouble to make insightful comments that have definitely helped
improve the final draft. I also owe Dr. Tejaswini Niranjana, Dr. S.V. Srinivas,
Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Dr. Sitaramam Kakarala special thanks for all their
inputs through the various years.

I was truly privileged to also be taught by Dr. Narahari Rao over one semester
at CSCS. His workshop on Education was instrumental in introducing me to
the thought of Sir Syed which helped me understand (as he had predicted it
would!) several crucial matters I was grappling with later in my PhD research.
But much more importantly I thank him for demonstrating through his seminar
course how to think through a problem productively. This thesis also owes a
great deal to the work of Dr. Balagangadhara. Although I did not have the
privilege to be taught by him, his work remains the corner stone that made my
thesis possible.

I take special pleasure in thanking all my classmates and friends at CSCS.
But more especially I would like to thank Dr. Meera Ashar without whose early
help I would not have been able to grapple with the questions raised in
Dr.Dhareshwar’s course and whose later encouragement has so often
sustained me in difficult times; Vishnu Vardhan for his ability to ask the
v
simplest and yet most challenging questions; and Polly Hazarika for being my
‘partner in crime’ at historical discovery and understanding. The great joy and
passion we have been able to share every time we learnt something new has
been truly precious. Their contributions are much greater than will find
suitable acknowledgment here.

I owe thanks to several others who read through drafts either early on or later
and helped me along the way. Dr. Arvind Ganachari kindly spoke to me at the
Mumbai University about some interesting aspects of Maratha history which
helped enrich my understanding of the 18th century. Jerry Pinto read an early
draft of the first chapter and his comments definitely shaped some of the
directions I explore in chapter two. Parvati Sharma has not only helped edit
but also helped develop my ideas by raising important questions at various
times. Dunkin Jalki has unstintingly shared resources and ideas all through
and he has been a tremendous help in putting in order the citations and
bibliography. This thesis would definitely have been much the poorer but for
his attention and care.

I warmly thank the Paul Foundation, Kolkata, for a research grant in 2004
which funded my visit to the British Library, London. It was there that many of
the foundational insights of this thesis first took root. Special thanks are due
to Maheshwari and Pushpa, the librarians and Nagaraj and Sujaya,
administrative staff, at CSCS for all their help and support. Dr. Rochelle Pinto,
Head of the PhD Committee has also been extremely helpful and supportive.
vi
The staff at the Asiatic Library, Mumbai, were responsible for making a lot of
my research much easier and smoother.

My family is owed not simply thanks but some well-deserved relief from
having to deal with me while I dealt with my PhD! My parents have always
been a major source of strength and reassurance. It is to them that this thesis
is dedicated. My siblings in various parts of the world have often borne the
brunt of my frustrations but ensured through their constant encouragement
that the thesis was finally completed. Last but not least, I would like to thank
my colleagues, friends and students at the Mahindra United World College of
India who made the last phase of PhD writing a much more pleasant
experience than it otherwise may have been without their help and support.
vii
Contents

Acknowledgements iv

Introduction 1
A Genealogy of ‘Communalism’

Chapter 1 22
‘Communalism’: Present Compulsions, Past Prisms

Chapter 2 78
Essentialism to Historicism: What does it mean to have
a theory of ‘Communalism’?

Chapter 3 145
A theory of Colonialism

Chapter 4 206
The Liberal Pax Britannica: Historicising Colonial Discourse

Chapter 5 249
The Tower of Babel: Learning the Language of Representation

Conclusion 305
De-colonising the Past

Appendix 334

Classified Bibliography 345

viii
1
INTRODUCTION
A GENEALOGY OF ‘COMMUNALISM’
Is it possible to speak of ‘communalism’ without studying the partition or conflicts
that have come to be called ‘communal riots’ or without reference to hindutva? A
thesis which seeks to do so seems immediately to require some justification.
Studies of ‘communalism’ have purportedly been driven by a search for answers
to these problems. However, rarely do we find a study that addresses these
problems directly. Answers to questions about partition, ‘communal riots’,
hindutva or several other phenomena seem to get diverted through the prism of
an all-encompassing problem, ‘communalism’. So in a strange sense, we do not
study ‘communalism’ in order to understand these phenomena, we seem to study
these phenomena only in so far as we think they will lead us to answers about
‘communalism’. If that is the case, then this study should not be considered
eccentric, for it does address the question of ‘communalism’ directly, even if it
does not address most of the phenomena that one has come to associate with
the term.
When one examines contemporary scholarship on ‘communalism’ one notices a
pattern that has gone largely unacknowledged. Our scholarship on
‘communalism’ has basically been concerned with the lack of acquisition of some
crucial learning goal or other that keeps Indian society or polity ‘communal’.
Thus, our studies of ‘communalism’ have always tried to teach us something.
2
They have implicitly believed that they were participating in a project of reform.
Even where learning goals (such as secularism or nationalism), were not explicit,
these studies have been propelled by a sense of their own pedagogic
importance. This thesis does not attempt to teach something, but rather to
uncover what it is that we have been seeking to learn and whether we can ever
reach those learning goals. Could there ever be a time when we would not be
‘communal’? From where have we derived these learning goals and to what end
do we seek to fulfil them? And what is the nature of these goals such that neither
the process of learning nor the criteria of success can be clearly formulated?
These questions provide the guiding threads of the thesis. In order to seek an
answer to these questions this thesis undertakes a genealogy1 of communalism.
Genealogy vs. history
In essence, studies of ‘communalism’ have always treated it as a self-evident
fact. They have asked the ‘when’ and ‘how’ of ‘communalism’ without answering
the question ‘what’. What is ‘communalism’? This is not simply a definitional
question. It involves an understanding of what discursive and historical conditions
give rise to this concept. We have no account of this kind2. Thus, in some ways
the thesis attempts to trace the birth of ‘communalism’. However, this ‘birth’ is to

1Used crucially in the way that Nietzsche (1989) and Foucault (1977) use the term.
2Gyanendra Pandey partially attempts such an account but remains caught in the earlier patterns of lesson
learning and teaching.See Pandey (1992).