Communalism

COMMUNALISM Communalism is the belief that people who follow the same religion have common s ecular interests, that is, common political, economic, social, and cultural inte rests. Religion forms their basic social identity and basis for their social rel ationships. Thus, such religion-based socio-political communities are seen as th e fundamental units of Indian society. These different communities are alleged t o have their own leaders and such interests can be preserved and promoted by and through these distinct communities only. Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were all bel ieved to be members of this homogenous community and derived benefits and protec tion by the virtue of being members of such a community. It is also understood that the secular interests of one religious community are dissimilar and divergent from that of other communities. In the ultimate stage o f communal ideology, the interests of different communities are seen to be mutua lly incompatible, antagonistic and hostile. This according to them was simply du e to the fact that they followed different religions. In fact, it is believed th at mutual hatred and hostilities between communities is the normal and perpetual element of Indian tradition and any sense of mutual co-existence or cooperation was only a temporary phase. Finally, it was believed that whatever troubles or problems that confronted a community or its members was due to the activities or actions of the other community. Thus, it was only through antagonism, oppositio n and suppression of the other community could the interests of one community be promoted. Gyanendra Pandey argues that communalism, in the academic investigation, refers to organized political movements based on the proclaimed interests of a religiou s community, usually in response to a real or imagined threat from another relig ious community. It denotes a movement that makes sectional demands on state poli cy for a given share in jobs, education and legislative problems. The nationalis ts have viewed communalism as being anti-national in nature, which emerged at th e same time as the national movement and was as big a threat to the movement as was the colonial rule. For the colonial historians, on the other hand, communali sm was an inherent part of the Indian society that was known for its irrationali ty and religious bigotry. Moreover, it was an ideology that influenced more or l ess the whole population. Thus, for them communalism stemmed from the nature of the people. Many scholars, in particular the colonial historians, tried to prove that commun alism was legacy of India s past. They pointed to the existence of several religio ns in India and the failure of any state, government or society in general from creating an environment, wherein, they could co-exist peacefully with one anothe r. Thus, it is not uniquely Indian; it was not an inevitable or inherent product of Indias peculiar historical and social development. According to Bipan Chandra , communalism is a modern phenomenon that emerged as a consequence of the emerge nce of modern politics, which marked a sharp break with the politics of the past and due to the result of the British colonial impact and the response of variou s social groups, classes and strata to it. Thus, there was no inherent or inevit able historical reason why communalism must arise and flourish in a place just b ecause of multiplicity of religions. Chandra argued that religiosity was not com munalism but it opened a person to the appeal of communalism in the name of reli gion. Communalism was not inspired by religion, nor was religion the object of c ommunal politics- it was only its vehicle, which was used to mobilize the masses . Finally, he stated that communalism was not based on a real conflict like nati onalism or anti-imperialism. It was instead based on a distorted or fabricated c onflict; there was no such thing as Hindu or Muslim interest as these communities we re not homogenous in nature and within each such community there was a great dea l of differentiation and antagonism as well. For instance, he pointed towards th e caste system in Hinduism and the Shia-Sunni conflict in Islam among other such demarcations. Thus, identity formation around religion was a false consciousnes s that had emerged in Modern India and its exploitation by certain factors or pe ople for their own vested interests is what had led to its perpetuation and cont inuity in India. In the Marxist perspective, represented by Bipan Chandra and others, communalism

was one of the by-products of the colonial character of the Indian economy, of colonial underdevelopment. The economic stagnation under colonial rule led to wi despread unemployment. As a result there was uneven economic development and int ense competition for jobs, especially in the field of government employment. In a situation like this, middle class individuals freely used all means at their d isposal like educational qualifications, personal merit along with bribery, nepo tism etc in order to secure such economic opportunities. However, in order to gi ve their struggle a broader base, they often resorted to using other group ident ities like religion, caste, region and province in order to enhance the individu als capacity to compete through a group. This fed communalism in many ways. To p romote their personal interests, the individuals began to promote groups or comm unists that they were part of and at most times at the cost of other communities as their promotion could only be through the removal of the other group. It was believed that if one communities share in the government jobs was increased the n any person belonging to that community would have a better chance of acquiring a job, while, members of the other community naturally felt differently. Thus, in this way, the two could be made to feel to be each other s rivals, who were kee n to take away jobs from each other. In this way the competition between individ ual for jobs was given the tag of a struggle between communities for jobs. Stagnan t agriculture restricted opportunities in the countryside, and rural youth too c ompeted for jobs. This widened the social base of communalism to cover the rural upper strata of peasants and landlords. Also, it should be noted that most of t hese struggles took place over government jobs, in the absence of a lucrative al ternative. This too fuelled communal politics as the government was able to exte nd patronage to certain communities to suit their own interest, further the noti on of communal differences and to keep the Indians divided. Moreover, as the peo ple were in dire need of such jobs and services they had to conform or believe i n such communal tendencies. Thus, Bipan Chandra has argued that it was the middl e class, which provided the main social base and appeal for communalism as commu nalism was deeply rooted in and was an expression of the interests and aspiratio ns of the middle classes in a situation, where economic opportunities were extre mely limited. It has often been argued that at the popular level of the masses and the lower c lasses, social tension and class conflict between exploiters and exploited that usually arose as a result of economic and non-communal factors also began to fin d expression in communal tension. CG Shah argued that it because of this communa l propaganda or pressure that people involved in this struggle were unable to lo cate the real source of their tension or conflict. What made it possible to view such struggles as communal was a special feature of Indian social development a s in several parts of the country, the religious distinction coincided with soci al and class distinctions. Thus, most often the exploiting section- landlords, m erchants and moneylenders- belonged to one religion usually upper caste Hindus, while, the poor and exploited to a different religion mostly Muslims. In such a situation it had become possible for Muslim communalists to propagate the view t hat Hindus were exploiting the Muslims and for Hindu communalists to propagate t he view that Muslims were threatening Hindu property or economic interests. Poli tical mobilization of both exploiters and exploited could thereby take place on communal lines. Most of the struggles that took place between the oppressors an d the oppressed were on class lines but in the absence of modern class or politi cal consciousness, they were given a communal turn. The social oppression was th en not seen as that of one class of another but of Muslims by Hindus or vice-ver sa. This notion of economic exploitation of the Muslims by Hindus was a tactic t hat was adopted by the Muslim League in the 1930s. Thus, it can be said that com munalism represented a struggle between two upper classes or strata for power, p rivileges and economic gains. Belonging to different religions, these classes us ed communalism to mobilize the popular support of their co-religionists in their mutual struggles. A major consequence of such a development was that communalism was able to acqui re a popular or mass base. Moreover, unlike the middle class communalism, this f orm of communalism was more violent and saw its expression in the form of commun

al riots. Also, as scholars have argued, that this was one of the main reasons a s to why Muslim communalism was able to acquire a mass following as compared to Hindu communalism, which on the whole remained weak as they could not arouse suf ficient anti-Muslim sentiments among the Hindus. This was due to the fact that H indus were seldom in the oppressed class position vis-à-vis Muslim exploiters. Eve n in areas where Hindu communalism was strong, its main base of support came fro m the elite or well-to-do sections and never from the peasantry. It was the weak economic base and the movements towards thwarting the interests and status of people that had given rise to fear psychosis among the people. It was this fear psychosis that the communal leaders exploited for their own benefi t. They turned these vague anxieties and fears against the followers of other re ligions and propagated the moral that members of a particular community must organ ize and act as a unity. The theme of Hindu dominance over the Muslims and the ef forts of the Hindus to completely subvert the culture of the Muslims had become a dominant in the programmes and ideologies of the Muslim League. It is for this reason that the INC was denounced as a Hindu party and the Muslims were urged t o refrain from joining the national movement as it was meant to serve only the H indu interests. Similarly, the Hindu communalists tried to feed a sense of fear among the Hindus. It was sought to be performed by declaring that Hindus were a milder, weaker and unorganized and disunited people. VD Savarkar in fact promote d a rumour that the Muslims were conspiring with Muslims from other countries li ke Iran and Afghanistan to conquer India and establish British rule. A number of historical developments had led to the cultural underdevelopment of the Muslims. There was deep seated resentment against modern, secular education and for indulging in trade or commercial activities. Thus, with the onset of the British rule, the Muslims suffered much more as compared to the Hindus. They lo st out on employment opportunities in the lower rung of the government services as the Hindus having adapted to the new Education system were better qualified. Moreover, the spread of modern ideas had led to a renaissance among the Hindus, which had given rise to a progressive intelligentsia among the Hindus. It is for this reason that it had become difficult for the Hindu communalists to find a s trong popular support base for their cause. The Muslims on the other hand contin ued to be dominated by the landed elites and the bureaucracy, who were conservat ive by nature and thus, opposed to modernization. Thus, this perpetuated the bac kwardness among the Muslims and a very small middle class could emerge among the Muslims as a result of all this. It is no surprise then that it was this middle class that was susceptible to religiosity and reactionary socio-political ideas and could be so easily manipulated by the British or the communal leaders. It w as because of this vulnerability that any conflict could be easily given a commu nal tinge. Another important factor that led to the growth of Communalism was its use as a form of political, economic and social reaction to a number of changes and force s that had emerged in India. It was essentially a backward looking conservative force. Communalism was also used to counter the rise radicalism of the Congress, the national movement and movements that were against the propertied classes. T he communal leaders, thus, found allies in the jagirdari classes, merchants, mon eylenders and the petty bourgeoisie and even the colonial state to thwart these forces. Due to the rise of the National movement, there was growing opposition to the pr estige and influence of the landed classes. The INC had in fact launched a numbe r of movements that were anti-zamindar in nature. It was in a situation like thi s that the jagirdari elements required an ideology that would enable them to acq uire a wider social base and a social and political appeal in order to defend th eir declining social and economic power and position. Communalism was one such i deology and the zamindars were organized into communities on the basis of their religion. For instance, Syed Ahmad Khan set out to organize the jagirdari elemen ts among Muslims as Muslims so that their class interests as landlords and burea ucrats could be defended and promoted in the name of religion and community. Mus lim communalism is thus said to have developed as the politics of the jagirdari and bureaucratic social classes and strata. The formation of the Muslim League w

as considered one further step in this direction. The opposition organized by th e League enabled it to find support among the Muslim middle classes and governme nt servants, many of whom had a share in smaller or larger zamindaris. Similarly , a large number of Hindu landlords also joined the Hindu mahasabha and other su ch Hindu communal parties due to their staunch opposition to the left-wing movem ent within the Congress. Such trends were found almost all over the country- Pun jab, UP, Bengal, Maharashtra. Thus, in this way by opposing anti-capitalist, ant i-landlord and anti-moneylender legislations on communal grounds, these communal organizations were able to divert their support away from the nationalist movem ent and create a strong base for themselves. It should be noted, however, that a section of the Hindu zamindars supported the INC banking upon its right wing to defend its interests. Thus, the Hindu communal groups were relatively weaker po litically as compared to the Muslim communalists. The communalist organizations and leaders also used the emergence of democracy t o further promote communal politics. Their essential argument against communalis m was that it would lead to majority rule, which would in effect mean the majori ty community s domination over the minority. This was an argument that was essenti ally promoted by Muslim communalists to prevent Hindus from exercising effective power and permanent domination over the Muslims. Such views were based on the a ssumption that Hindu and Muslim interests were neither similar nor compatible wi th each other and at the same time that Hindus would serve the interests of only the Hindus. Thus, in fact was to become the cornerstone of the separatist commu nal ideology and propaganda of the Muslim League from the 1930s. Jinnah had argu ed that democracy means the expression of the national will but in India, there were two nations- major and minor- which have nothing in common with each other. Thus, democracy according to them had nothing in common and the only solution w as partition and a separate state for the Muslims. Similarly, the Hindu communal organizations repeated similar fears for provinces and areas where Muslims were in a majority. Maintaining a Muslim majority would lead to perpetual domination and inferior status of the Hindus. The only reason why they may have supported democracy for the nation as a whole was because the y believed that it would permanently establish Hindu domination. One should also analyse the role that the communalist parties played in the nati onal struggle as that too acted as a major contributory factor towards the growt h of communalism. By acting as an obstacle in the national movement the communal ists were able to prevent the nationalists from uniting the country and perpetua ted the British rule, which further exploited this communal ideology. The commun alists, in particular the Muslim communalist, had adopted a pro-colonial and loy alist position and developed a relationship of mutual dependence vis-à-vis the col onial authorities. Communalism had in fact become a vehicle through which petty bourgeoisie politics was placed at the command of colonialism. The communalists made no critique or analysis of colonialism. They put forth no demands that coul d undermine colonial domination nor did they organize any agitation or struggle against colonialism. When they did organize a mass movement it was directed not against the British but against the national movement itself or the followers of other religions. For instance, the first mass action organized by the Muslim Le ague in the form of the Day of Deliverance  in December 1939 was directed against t he Congress. The main mass action of the communalists took the form of communal riots. Similarly, the Muslim League had refused to join the Quit India Movement as they believed that it was not directed against the British but against the Mu slims as it sidetracked the demand for Pakistan. Moreover, many times the commun al organizations provided direct support to the British government. For instance , the Muslim League had been started as a loyalist party, whose aim was to preve nt the rising intelligentsia among the Muslims and Muslim students from joining the Congress and the national movement. Apart from not fighting against colonialism, they often opposed the actual anticolonial movement and its leading organ, the INC. This was particularly so durin g the 1930s and the 1940s, when they spread hatred and dislike against the Congr ess and made it the main target of their attack. They condemned it as pro-Hindu or pro-Muslim, whose political objective was to subjugate the Muslims or sacrifi

ce the Hindus. For instance, the Punjab Hindu Sabha attacked the INC for being a ppeasing the Muslims and not protecting the Hindu interests out of the fear that it would annoy the Muslims and prevent the creation of a united nation. Similar ly, Savarkar also accused the Congress of being anti-Hindu and claimed that the Congressman betrayed Hindu interests at every opportunity. He in fact urged the Hindus to boycott the INC and to not join any of its programmes or movements. Th is attack upon Congress and the consequent weakening of anti-British sentiments, especially among the youth, led to their diversion into communal organizations. According to some scholars, this was the greatest service that the communalists could have provided for the British. Finally, the communalist sought to retain the British in India. Their main suppo rt base, the middle class or the jagirdari elements, were benefitting tremendous ly on account of the patronage they were receiving from the colonial government. Moreover, the colonial ideology had led them to believe that their interests we re being thwarted not by the colonial powers but by the other community. Thus, t hey wanted the British to stay on in India to maintain a balance of power betwee n the various communities. In light of the support that the British gave to the Muslim communalists, the Hindu communalists propagated their own view. They beli eved that they should not waste their energy on fighting the British, and should leave the INC to do that, and instead should conserve their strength for the ev entual and final fight against the Muslims. This in fact had become the slogan o f the RSS during the 1940s, when the national movement was at its height. Finall y, it should also be kept in mind that the communalists opposed the national mov ement as they believed that such a movement would unite the people into a common bond, thereby, undermining their own ideology. Another important contributory factor was the pronounced Hindu tinge in much of the nationalist thought and propaganda in the beginning of the 20th century. Man y of the Extremists introduced a string Hindu religious element in nationalist t hought and propaganda. They tended to emphasise ancient Indian culture to the ex clusion of medieval Indian culture. They tried to provide a Hindu ideological un derpinning to Indian nationalism. Thus, Tilak used the Ganesh Puja and the Shiva ji festival to propagate nationalism; many writers often referred to Muslims as foreigners in their plays, poems, novels and stories and tended to identify nati onalism only with the Hindus. Such negative portrayals of Muslims tended to alie nate a large number of Muslims. Moreover, it gave an opportunity for the governm ent and Muslim communalists to use this tinge to keep large sections of the Musl ims away from the nationalist movement and to instill among them the feeling tha t the success of the movement would mean Hindu supremacy in the country. Finally, it had also given rise to a Muslim tinge among the Muslim nationalists, which wa s further exploited by the Hindu communalists. With respect to the revivalist movement, one should also look at certain politic al trends in the late 19th century that contributed towards the growth of Commun alism. Syed Ahmad Khan was a dominant figure in this respect. He had initially p reached harmony between Hindus and Muslims. However, his position seems to have changed with the formation of the INC in 1885. He now came to propagate the view s that a nation was a federation of communities having entitlement to different kinds of political rights depending upon their ancestry and political importance and the Muslims being an ex-ruling class had a special place within the framewo rk of the new cosmopolitan British Empire. His main opposition to the INC focus ed on their anti-colonial outlook. He believed that the British alone could brin g about the progress of the country in general and the Muslims in particular. Mo reover, he believed that the INC was a Hindu party that would dominate the country and hence, suppress Muslim interests once the British left the country. Thus, t he basic tenets of Muslim communalism could be traced back to his ideology: oppo sition to nationalist movements and democratic representative institutions and t he loyalty to British rule. Another failure of the Nationalist movement was to create a coherent programme t hat could promote the nationalist fervor among the masses compelling them to thi nk beyond the interests of their community. They had no programme or mechanism t o convince people that a nationalist outlook alone reflected their true social i

nterests and not a communal one. As a result, communism grew in those areas and among those people where this national consciousness had failed to develop. For instance the failure to promote modern education among the Muslims tended to kee p them backward vis-a-vis the Hindus, thereby, making them more susceptible to t he communal ideology. Moreover, it was the lapses and failures of the national m ovement that gave the communal leaders an opportunity to exploit the situation a s well. Even the present leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha decided to operate as a separate pressure group within the Congress, trying to constantly marginalize the secula rists and destroy any possibility of an understanding with the Muslims. Thus, ap art from the concept of nationality prevalent among the Congress, which emphasiz ed on nation above the community, a new strand had emerged, which spoke of the i dea of racial domination of the Hindus, more particularly, of the subordination of the Muslims. According to Shekhar Bandyopadhyay, the protagonists of the form er often gave way or made compromises with the latter giving ample reasons to th e Muslims to be suspicious of the real intent of the INC. As a result, many of t he Muslim communalists began to look upon the INC as an adjunct of the Hindu Mah asabha. Muslim alienation from the Congress politics is boldly inscribed in thei r large-scale abstention from the Civil Disobedience and the Quit India Movement . Moreover, any effort made by the Congress leaders to reach out to the Muslim m asses was thwarted by the volunteers of the Hindu Mahasabha working within the C ongress. Finally, one should view the growing hegemony of the INC as being a con tributory factor towards the alienation of the Muslims. The 1937 elections had b rought about a resounding victory for the INC and according to Ayesh Jalal, it w as this growing hegemony of the INC and the arrogance that it bred,(Nehru claime d that the Raj and the INC were the only two relevant political institutions in the country) which brought all the divergent groups together under the banner of a revived and revitalized Muslim League under the leadership of Jinnah. Achin V anaik has argued the Congress led National Movement cannot escape most of the res ponsibility for the emergence of a separate Muslim identity. A communal and distorted view of Indian history, especially, of its ancient and medieval periods, was a major instrument for the spread of communal consciousnes s. The teaching of Indian history in schools and colleges basically from a commu nal point of view made a major contribution to the rise and growth of communalis m. A beginning in this respect was made by James Mill, who described the ancient period of Indian history as the Hindu period and the medieval period as the Mus lim period. This trend was subsequently picked up by other historians as well. T he medieval period was described as one of tyranny and oppression in which all t he rulers were Muslim and the Hindus were the ruled and oppressed. This was pick ed up and consequently promoted by the Hindu communalists. The Hindu communal vi ew on history relied on the myth that the Indian civilization had reached great heights during the ancient period, which was depicted as the Golden Age in Indian history from which they fell into permanent and continuous decay during the medi eval period because of Muslim rule and domination. The Muslims on the other hand looked towards the Golden Age of Islamic Achievement  in West Asia and appealed to its heroes, myths and cultural traditions. Farzana Shaikh argues that the evolution of Muslim politics  and ultimately the dem and for Pakistan were driven by a long history of ideas that saw the Muslims as an exclusive political entity separate from others. She underlines the significa nce of the ideological dichotomies between Islam and western liberalism that pro vide radically different images of society. According to Shaikh, an awareness of the ideal of Muslim brotherhood, a belief in the superiority of Muslim culture, and recognition of the belief that Muslims ought to live under Muslim governmen ts provided the ideological basis for Muslim separatism . Gyanendra Pandey has stated that the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha came to play an imp ortant role in the period post-1930. The 1920s had witnessed a large number of c ommunal riots and it was in a situation like this that these organizations came to adopt highly extreme stands. Savarkar had been the first person to expound th e notion of a Hindu Rashtra in his book Hindutva. The formation of the RSS in 19 25 showed the widespread approval for such ideas. Hedgewar, the founder of RSS,

claimed that if the English, Germans and French can have their own nation then w hy should the same privilege not be extended to the Hindus as well to have a sta te. He believed that the Hindus had been living in the country since time immemo rial and the entire responsibility of the country rested with them. Thus, there arose the notion of Hindu Raj, which would keep the Muslims in their place. This n otion in due course of time came to be matched by the notion of a Muslim Raj which would protect the place of the Muslims. The nationalist approach to the growth of communalism in India has seen the Brit ish policies as being the most important factor for the promotion of this ideolo gy. The British had followed a policy of actively promoting communalism as one a spect of their policy of divide and rule . This was considered necessary to check t he growing politicization among of the Indian people, to curb their consolidatio n and unification and to disrupt the process of the Indian nation-in-the making. In order to safeguard the British rule in India it was believed imperative for the British to foster and further intensify the differences that already existed in the Indian society. This was done through a number of means and methods. They gave official recognition and asserted the notion that religion was the mos t fundamental and meaningful division among the Indians. India, according to the m, did not represent individuals but interests and communities. They insisted on approaching all questions of politics, administration, education etc on a commu nal basis and encouraged others to do the same. They consistently treated Hindus , Muslims and Sikhs as belonging to distinct, mutually exclusive and antagonisti c religious-based communities. A number of scholars have attributed the British with the responsibility of having created distinct religious identities among th e people, especially, the Muslims. Once such identities had been created the com munalists played a major role in sustaining such identities. The British had given direct encouragement and support to communal individuals, groups and parties in general but their most favoured entity was the Muslim Leag ue, which they used as an instrument against the INC. They were encouraged to se e themselves as being distinct from the Hindus and were urged to fight for their own rights. The communal demands were readily accepted, thereby, strengthening communalism and communal organizations and their hold over the people. One of th e greatest of such demands was the creation of separate electorates as it was be lieved that joint electorates did not lead to the election of Muslims, who were representative of their community. Such demands were accepted as soon as they we re presented to the viceroy. This was in stark contrast to the policy followed t owards the INC, which had been demanding reforms and changes for years. Moreover , it was a far more popular and politically representative body as compared to a ny of the communalist organizations, which had no proof of showing that they act ually represented their community. Similarly, in 1932 the Communal Award accepte d all the communal demands of the time. It guaranteed through reservations Musli m majority in Bengal and Punjab; it assured muslims 33 and 1/3rd percent of the seats in the central legislature; it separated Sind from Bombay and introduced reforms in the NWFP. In fact, by the time the Constitutional Act of 1935 had bee n passed all the communal demands had been accepted. Finally, the Muslim League was given a complete veto on any political advance. This made it virtually impos sible for negotiations to take place between the League and the INC in earnest. The Muslim League continued to use this veto for every congress proposal until a nd unless it accepted its demand of transforming itself into a Hindu organization. Thus, the Congress now had no option but to concede Pakistan or wage a battle w ith both the British and the Muslim League. Such acceptance of demands had two significant consequences. Firstly, it made al l negotiations between the communalists and the nationalists possible. If the IN C ever tried to reach a settlement with the Muslim League, for instance, the Bri tish would offer them a better deal, thereby, removing any incentive to the Musl im communalists to compromise. Moreover, by giving them timely concessions they were able to dig their political roots among the common masses even deeper. Seco ndly, once all their demands for special privileges and reservations, they had p ushed the Muslim League towards the demand for a separate state as separatism wa s the only part of the communal ideological programme left unfulfilled. Thus, in

1942, the Cripps Mission accepted the idea of partition when it declared that n o province or provinces that did not want to join the projected Indian union aft er the war could opt out of it, frame their own constitution and establish an in dependent relationship with Britain. The British readily accepted communal organizations and leaders as the real spok esperson for their communities. For instance, the Muslim League was recognized a s the sole representative party of the Muslims and encouraged more and more musl ims to join this party. At the same time, the nationalists were ignored and disc ouraged even though they had a much larger following. According to Bipan Chandra , this official recognition was one of the main reasons, which helped the Muslim League to grow in the 1930s and the early 1940s. In fact, it was such official recognition and the easy acceptance of all its demands that there was increasing demoralization among the Muslim nationalist forces and enabled the League to ce ment itself in places, where it had earlier faced a number of obstacles. The system of separate electorates was an important device that also promoted co mmunalism. It was first introduced by the Constitutional Act of 1909 and extende d further till 1935. According to this system, only the Muslims could vote for M uslims, and only Hindus for Hindus. This had helped in turning the elections and the legislative councils into an arena for communal conflict. As the candidates did not have to get votes from people of other religions, they could be blatant with their communal appeals. The effect of this system was further heightened b y the restricted nature of the franchise, which was limited by property and educ ational qualifications because of which voting rights were restricted to the mid dle classes- the main social base for communalism. This system along with that of the reservations promoted communalism not only am ong the Muslims but among the Hindus as well. The Hindus believed that the minor ity groups were denying them the right to be the majority in their own country. Thus, they helped in directing the anger of the Hindu people, mostly against the Colonial system, towards the minority. As already seen above, the government also encouraged communal patronage in the sphere of employment and education. The British had in fact played an instrument al role in giving a communal colouring to the competition among the middle class es for employment. Once in operation, the Muslims asked for more and more reserv ations, while, the Hindus, bemoaned the loss of opportunity. Moreover, the Briti sh also gave encouragement to certain educational institutions, which they belie ved could best serve the role of promoting communal beliefs. Thus, the Aligarh M uslim University and the Benares Hindu University were given special treatment. Finally, one other way through which the British promoted communalism was throug h a policy 0f non-action against it, which too was done through several ways. Fi rstly, the propagation of virulent communal ideas and communal hatred through pr ess, pamphlets, leaflets, literature, public platform and rumours was not checke d nor was it discouraged. This was in sharp contrast to the suppression of the n ationalist press, literature etc. Finally, the British were also accused of foll owing a policy of relative inactivity and irresponsibility in dealing with commu nal riots. In fact, there were accusations that the British many a times had eng ineered these riots themselves. However, a number of criticisms have been forwarded against this theory that the British alone were responsible for the spread of communalism in India. It has b een argued that while the British policy definitely contributed towards the grow th of communalism, there had to be something in the internal social, economic, c ultural and political conditions that favoured the success of this policy. Thus, the British not only followed this policy so as to further their own interests but also because it met the social needs of some sections of society. Thus, to conclude, one can see that the sneers of a number of colonial and moder n day scholars to the views that the British alone were responsible for the grow th of Communalism are justified to a large extent. The British in order to safeg uard their own interests in India had taken recourse to a number of measures to keep India and the Indians divided. Communalism was just one of these measures. Similarly, it can not be Jinnah or the Hindu revivalist movement alone that can be blamed for the rise of communalism in India. It was a number of factors that

together propagated the notion of communal differences between the Hindus and Mu slims, which ultimately led to the partition of the country.