In this discussion we shall address the question of the origins of communal politics in India in

the latter half of the 19th century in Indian history communal politics is usually studied in terms
of the Hindu Muslim divide that took the path of Muslim separatism at the turn of the 19th
century eventually climaxing in the emergence of Pakistan in 1947 with the unfortunate division
of India which accompanied freedom from British rule there is always a temptation for historians
to strace the lineage of Pakistan in the latter half of the 19th century when the Muslim elites
started demanding certain special privileges from the colonial state but such arguments often
miss out on the point that men like selamat can to cite just one example were trying to defend
the privileges of an entrenched North Indian Muslim elite and were not actually looking for a
separate state separatism certainly emerged at the turn of the 19th century in an entirely
different context and as you go into this context of why this kind of communitarianism that a man
like Saddam had can't represented eventually looked for the creation of Pakistan how did it
happen because even when you look at separatism separate isms were of many kinds I mean
you had Tamil separatism at one stage you had different kinds of separatism emerging their
heads at different historical conjunctures but we usually do not see them as the success story of
separatist Rendon sees in Indian politics we look at Muslim separatism just because it's
succeeded in creating the modern state of Pakistan so as we return to this question of this
transition from communitarianism to in overtly communal politics that eventually defined its
character by claiming a separate state nationalist historiography naturally calls attention to the
divide and rule strategy the kind of divisive strategies that the colonial state had adopted since
the latter half of the 19th century by playing the Muslims against the Hindus or by playing the
Hindus against the Muslims by tinkering with religious controversies by manipulating their
linguistic identities the ordinary controversy cetera by using the senses in order to define the
basic characteristics of Indian population in religious terms and the moment the state
recognition - this kind of super ordinate identity determined by religion it created a certain kind of
homogeneous conception of Muslim community and the result was that some of the Muslim
leaders also be could easily fall back upon this kind of an imagining of the community by the
state itself in homogeneous terms certainly we shall turn to this question later but at this point it
is relevant because the main foundations of nationalist historiography would call attention to the
different kinds of strategies that the colonial state adopted in placing the Muslims against the
Hindus and Muslims understood in homogeneous terms the same kind of approach one finds in
one of the classic partly official statement about Muslim communal feelings in the later half of
the 19th century in a famous work by w w hunter hunter as you know was involved in the great
compilation called the statistical account of being all a kind of a scholar official who was
interested in its knowledge ii was interested in statistical service and he wrote that famous book
all indian muscle bands in the early part of the eighteen seventies in which he tried to argue that
much of their communal sentiments arise from their feeling of exclusion from the ruling order in
the new dispensation of british rule the muslims were the ruling classes in large parts of india in
pre-colonial times and once they were excluded from such positions of authority under colonial
rule with the newly ad english educated elite stepping into the vacuum becoming more
important as district officials as bureaucrats in the british indian administration the sentiments of
these high-class elites among the muslim aristocracy in northern india were injured by this kind
of feeling of exclusion and for certain reasons they were also resistant to the idea of taking to
english education partly because of that kind of injured self-esteem so hunters argument was
that the backwardness measured in terms of their failure to become english educated they our
failure to retain their positions of authority in the government all these created a kind of feeling
of alienation which ultimately led to their claims for special privileges their gain claims for special
treatment they are articulation of their feeling of alienation from mainstream political life
represented by the Congress excuse me sir can hunters argument about the Muslim
backwardness be accepted as the basis for separatist politics yeah that's a very important
question because that is where in fact the problem lies because the hunter is as much guilty of a
kind of homogeneous Asian as some of the other contemporaries were or the Imperial policy in
fact was the victim of the same kind of vision Muslims were not a very homogeneous group
contrary to what hunter wished us to believe they were linguistically divided originally divided
there was no commonality between the large majority of Muslim peasants and Eastern Bengal
and the shareef Muslims of United Provinces or North India who were leading in the separatist
movement in the early part of the 20th century and since the United Provinces was the origin of
the early separatist ends in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it is important to see the
working of what we may call the politics for privilege I mean here you have a group of people
who were very different from the large majority of the peasants in Bengal for example the
Muslim peasants residents of rural areas they spoke Bengali they were not rude to speaking
unlike the leads of the urban areas among the Muslims the North Indian Muslims had despite
the fact that they were only a 14% of the total population in the province control substantial
chunks of landed property controlled a fairly high percentage of government jobs in the
subordinate bureaucracy in the judicial services so it was not as if that the kind of
communitarianism that we come across among the Muslims in the late 19th century was the
work of a backward community I mean the leading figures like Saddam had come for example
and his followers in a league or school who are demanding such special treatment for the
Muslims did not actually come from a backward community if you go to Punjab you will come
across huge estate owners among the Muslims so the theory of backwardness actually breaks
down at this point when we see and this had been suggested by Francis Robinson in a very
important pieces on this subject years ago during the 1970s separatism among the Indian
Muslims focusing on the politics for privilege practiced by these North Indian Muslim elite
suggesting that you see the origin of separatism in a context where you don't come across the
kind of backward bets that you see among the peasants of Bengal so it was basically a politics
for privilege that these men were practicing and selamat khan was a very important example of
how a muslim nobleman who had been drafted into the judicial bureaucracy in british rule who
was willing to study english and who like english education to be accepted by his co-religionists
he was a modernist he wished the Muslims his co-religionists to become a part of the new
imperial system so this man when he was viciously attacking the Congress he was hitting the
nail on the head because salamat Khan's main contention at a time when communitarianism
had not yet set the stage for the rise of an overtly communal politics at a time when
communitarianism was very anxious to protect some of the privileges of an established elite of
north india sir hamid khan attacked the congress on the ground that the congress was actually
espousing the principles of a competitive society a society we should allow a low bond man to
compete for even higher status in society through competitive examinations something which
these aristocrats of northern india didn't wish to tolerate if this was a feeling among the muslim
elite did it necessarily imply a statement in favor of a separates it no no no certainly not that is
the point that I am actually trying to strike at that Saddam at Khan was an operand of the
Congress and if you say Congress represented the mainstream nationalism so our eighth car
looked upon the Congress as a civil war arguing that the Congress was a camouflage for the
pursuit of self-interest or the class interest of the English educated elites predominantly Bengalis
in fact from the early part of the 19th century the Bengali English educated elites who happened
to be the first collaborators of the British became appointed in the lower services and
accompanied the British in their onward journey towards northern India with the result that by
the middle of the 19th century the Bengali immigrants had become firmly entrenched in the
professional life and in the services all over northern India and the cross that selamat khan
represented the declining mobile aristocracy found the presence of the Bengal is irksome
because they had taken over local power that the Muslim aristocracy had enjoyed in the past as
representatives of the Mughal orders so selamat Kant thought that the Congress and the
Congress demand for a competitive examination was a sort of a camouflage for these
professional classes firmly entrenched in Bengal but at the same time fanning out to other parts
of India their self-interest by the idea of a competitive society by the idea of a competitive
examination so this was one dimension this was one aspect of Sodom at Khan's thinking in
terms of which he saw the Congress as a threat but there was another dimension as well the
Congress very constantly spoke in favor of representative government the principle of
representation to be operative from the lower levels of the government to the higher legislators
now this whole principle of representation was also a point of threat to the Muslim elites they
could realize how the hindu-majority the trading and the professional classes could easily
mobilized support from within the Hindu communities and would actually impose the rule by the
majority on a minority which had in the past enjoyed a fairly privileged position which had
enjoyed positions of authority in the past so there was an instinctive opposition and finally denial
of this principle of competition that the Congress represented competitive examination for
recruitment in the services competition for votes competition for electoral support in order to be
able to assume positions of authority in the representative bodies when Saddam had cancer his
principles espoused by the Congress he thought that Congress represented a very major threat
to the power and position of the Muslim aristocracy in northern India so once again you see how
the politics for privilege was at work a threatened Muslim elite saw the Congress as a threat
because the Congress was espousing certain principles which were unacceptable to the elites
so was this kind of politics of privilege limited to not in the only no not really but not India was
the main scene because by then you have those institutions emerging in North India the Oliver
college is the most prominent example but in North India you have the main seat of the ostrov's
the sharif muslims who had been members of the mughal bureaucracy in earlier times but also
in bengal you see similar examples of communitarianism in the activities of men like abdul latif
the founder of maharaja literary society or sodomy rally the central national association which
came up with similar kinds of ideas demanding special treatment and you have the dhamma
Vertica as another sharif muslim who can be easily clubbed together with Amir Ali but on nabob
of dhaka has you know played a very critical role when the Muslim League was set up early in
the 20th century so it is not really confined to United Provinces alone but when you look at the
activities of the Sherif loose limbs in Calcutta or in Bengal you see also how the Sharif Muslims
remained somewhat distant from the rank-and-file of the Muslim community predominantly
peasants and when you look at this peasant society you see how the peasant society for many
years carried the imprint of a syncretic culture in India which emerged out of the fusion between
Hindu devotional ism and Islamic devotion like Sufism and they were not culturally inclined
towards the kind of separatist identity that the Sharif Muslims would naturally lap up as a self
strengthening measure as a measure to proclaim their distinct identity in order to acquire
privileges so in Punjab also if you look at the present society in synthe you see the imprint of
this kind of syncretism a time came when the syncretic culture began to be eroded by
something which we call the politics of identity so what exactly does politics of identity mean yes
the politics of identity is concerned with an acute sense of one's Islamic identity or an acute
sense of one's caste identity or Hindu identity or whatever may be the form of the identity that
you were talking about or you are writing on so this politics of identity concerns a certain cultural
movement taking place all over India which wish to establish the distinct Islamic identity of the
Muslims departing radically from a syncretic tradition which became a part of the life of the rural
peasants think of octo-pete or the peer ISM as a system it was looked upon as an example of
idolatry by the more devout Islamic preachers fundamentalist Islamic preachers who would like
the Muslims to follow a truly Islamic way of life and not participate in the kind of idolatrous
practices that these Muslim peasants in Istanbul Gul practiced along with their Hindu neighbors
Hindus and Muslims together would offer instances and sweets to the appeal or the to dargahs
they were worshippers of peer ISM the shocked appear is an example of this synthetic culture in
rural Bengal what is important is that you see in the latter half of the nineteenth century a very
definitive challenge against this kind of a syncretic culture which eventually merged into what we
call the politics of identity you have many examples from northern India where the Orthodox
ulamas considered India to be polluted land because of the presence of a foreign ruler and in
that kind of a crisis of identity when the Muslims were excluded from positions of authority they
insisted on a complete uncritical allegiance to an Islamic way of life you have many institutions
which actually propagated these ideas you had many societies even the journals and the
periodicals that began to be published by these societies the vernacular press at that the Urdu
press they also insisted on the evidence to a truly Islamic way of life in Bengal you see the
impact of these changes eroding the basis of a syncretic culture to which many of the Muslim
peasants actually subscribed you have very important work by a my Bangladeshi scholar of
your denominator who wrote a book called Muslims in Bengal a quest for identity in which
refuted shows how the eternal and Molli ways were actually traveling all around distant bang
goal and holding debates in the countryside in which these men actually called upon the
Muslims to adhere to a strict Islamic code of conduct maintaining an Islamic way of life cheering
dyed red dress practices performing the Muslim religious rituals very faithfully very scrupulously
and this was also the time when you see the emergence in Bengal of a certain kind of Bengali
which came to be known as Islamic Bengali the Bengali that was spoken by the ordinary people
was normal the kind of language that the ordinary people would speak but then you will come
across certain kinds of literature nasi at Mama's in which this kind of Islamic way of life was
propagated in which a distinct kind of Bengali began to be deployed by the authors of these
texts where you see the greater intrusion of use of Arabic and Persian words so it is in this
manner as a few thin suggests that a distinct Islamic identity began to crystallize and
consolidate its world but this doesn't mean separatist politics this doesn't mean that this would
necessarily create a certain demand for separate treatment that is where the politics were
privileged comes in and / when there is a certain kind of merger convergence of politics of
identity and politics for privilege you see the emergence of the kind of demands that selamat
khan had put up before the british the claim for privileged treatment a certain kind of
communitarianism but had this community realism had the potentiality to become the foundation
for a more overtly communal and perhaps separatist tendencies among the Muslim elites and
this was what was precisely happening during the 1890s as you know the Hindu communalism
that had become stronger during the decade of the 1890s had a very significant role to play in
this case you have already come to know about the artisanal activities the extremist political
imagery the idioms that the militant nationalists who are using since the early 1890s nationalism
came to be invaded by a good deal of Hindu imagery Hindu history created a certain kind of
consciousness by which Muslim rule was looked upon as tyrannical the concept of Muslim
tyranny became a reference point in this kind of historical consciousness the artists amasuite
had in the early stage remain confined to educational activities began to become a proselytizing
organisation they had started the sudha movement with the intention of bringing those who had
broken away from Hinduism back into the fold again and the Sudha movement was connected
with with richer you have the sunnat' honest who had defended the Orthodox Hinduism
throughout the period when artists Ahmad was looking for reform in Hinduism the sunnat'
honest and the archers actually resolved their differences and created a massive combination
that started establishing the distinct Hindu identity as well and you are familiar with some of
those movements the goraksha movements the language controversy and it is in this context
that you see a very important change taking place and salaam it's politics if we look at the 1880s
saveth khan was up in arms against the Congress but the organization that he floated with the
support of Theodore Beck the principle of a legal college was the United India patriotic
Association this was in 1888 a few years after the foundation of the Congress but the united
India patriotic Association had in its roles who do speaking Hindu elites as well it was not really
a distinctly Muslim or communal organization the Muslim aristocracy was willing to bring in the
Hindu elites as well who many of whom were actually would do speakers in their households
and 1888 was also the time the year in which Badruddin Taiji a Borah Muslim from western India
was made Congress president so the Congress was actually making an attempt to cultivate
support among the Muslim elites educated elites and Siddharth can't become frightened by the
prospect of Congress actually rooting the basis of his power in northern India and in an
attempted third the Congress attempts to cultivate relationships with the Muslim elites he set up
this united India patriotic Association by cultivating support from the would do speaking in the
relates with the precise objective of protecting the interest of the aristocracy it was not a
communitarian body so to say even the Saddam at Khan was demanding special privileges or
treatment from the government it was not a overtly communal body totally different would be his
approach in the 1890s 1892 was a year of cow production riots and as you know cow
protectionism came as a kind of a cultural threat many of the eateries in northern India one by
the Muslims had to be warmed up under the directives of the municipalities which came to be
dominated by elected Hindu members they were forbidden to sell beef there was a major
controversy about beef heating even though many of their Muslims were not beefeaters they
found this kind of policies as a threat to their cultural identity and who do not recon traversée at
the same impact the protagonist of in the movement succeeded in persuading the yupi
government towards the close of the 1890s to allow the use of Nagar II and the moment that
was done selamat Khan actually by then was no more but his followers set up the autodefense
Association so although defense association towards the close of the decade and Marvin and
Anne Lorient and defense Association which Saddam had set up in 1893 these were the two
important steps that the elites of northern India had taken towards the creation of an overtly
communal body in the form of the Muslim League so one has to make a distinction between
communitarianism which was an attempt to defend the interest of the community and communal
politics which was clearly linked up with the exclusion of other communities from the political
sphere of the community something which would happen at the turn of the century which would
reach a point of climax in the foundation of Muslim League and from then on you see a certain
history of gradual unfolding of the tragic drama that eventually led to the truncation of India but
that's a different story divide and rule succeeded because in the course of the 1890s conditions
emerged in which the politics of identity and the conflicts that this employed had created a
condition in which the British could easily play with their divisive strategy to those questions we
shall turn later [Music] [Music]