Name: Sajal

Roll no: 210450

Year: 2nd year, 4th sem
Course: BA (history hons)
Paper: psychology (GE)

Topic: reviewing the article-

conflict: Hindus and
Muslims by Sudhir Kakkar
The year 1924, writing on the causes of Hindu-Muslim conflict, Mahatma Gandhi observed, I
see no way of achieving anything in this afflicted country without a lasting heart unity
between Hindus and Musselman’s. Other political scientists, emphasizing more local than
international relations, show that riots between Hindus and Muslims in India generally occur
in towns and cities where formal professional and trade associations which include members
of both communities are weak or non. For many Hindus, the Muslim is powerful not only
because he is united, but also because he is armed, favoured by the state in India, and in times
of conflict supported and even armed by Pakistan. The eating of beef and thus the killing of
cows by Muslims has perhaps historically been the most important source of Hindu
bitterness. The Muslim eating of beef and the Hindu abomination creates perhaps the most
effective barrier against 'lasting heart unity' between the two communities that was Gandhi's
ardent wish for India. For a long time, both during British rule and in an independent India
with an overwhelming Hindu majority, the Andalus syndrome was a significant part of the
psyche of the Muslim upper class. As with an individual, where the 'fault lines' of personality
are most clearly visible in a state of its breakdown, the psychological dimensions of Hindu-
Muslim conflict become transparent when a dormant conflict breaks out in large-scale
violence.
In the period of tension, individuals increasingly think of themselves as Hindus or Muslims
and see members of the other community as stereotypes. At the one extreme there are always
some Hindus and Muslims whose personal identity is not overwhelmed by their communal
identity even in the worst phases of a violent conflict. If the Hindu eats with the right hand,
the Muslim with the left. Ahmedabad has a tradition of Hindu-Muslim violence going back
more than thirty years. not a single Muslim will survive now'-these are only three such
rumours favoured by Hindu women. Acting demonstratively in terms of this identity as a
Hindu or Muslim, though, threatens members of the rival community who too mobilize their
religious identity as a defence. The awareness of belonging to either one religious community
or the other-being Hindu or Muslim-has increased manifold in recent years.
Positive aspects:
Communalism has never been inherent in India. First, if there is communalism in
contemporary India that is an instrument to acquire more political power. In fact, in the
language of Indian politics, the word " secularism " means the willingness of Hindus to
accept the rights of Muslims to maintain their personal community law and to preserve
Islamic institutions. Both Hindu and Muslim political leaders are in agreement that there is no
harm being at times communal but danger exists when being communal absorbs all of one's
strength. Second, even Muslim revivalists in India have made efforts toward participating
more fully in the political life of the country and sharing responsibilities for its socio -
economic development. Last, it would be erroneous to see the Hindu revivalist variety of "
nationalism " as the binary opposite of secular nationalism. The promise of " Hindutva "
(Hindu culture and traditions) to shore up power at the centre is illusory. The fear of a Hindu
state at the cost of Muslim minority seems to be ill founded. In sum, there has been a
realization that majority communalism inevitably leads to fascism, while minority
communalism leads to separatism. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the Hindu
Muslim communal discord has not created any permanent division in the minds of the two
communities, despite local, regional, and communal grievances and riots.
Gaps and inconsistencies:
It may seem ironic that Hindu nationalists perceive Muslims as simultaneously worthy of
emulation and exclusion. Positive stereotypes about Muslims, such as the fertility of the
women and the attractiveness and courage of the men are entwined with negative
stereotypes of the barbaric, violent, non-vegetarian Muslim. But this paradox of
admiration and contempt is quite typical of popular perceptions of racial superiority.
Muslims also see Hindus as a cruel and cowardly people.
Hindus are cowards who can fight only when they are in a large group. Muslims are not
afraid even if they are few and unarmed and their opponents have swords. Allah gives them
courage and they know if they die the death will not be in vain but a martyrdom which Allah
will reward in paradise. The loss of a collective self-idealization, or self-esteem, is also
evident in the case of the elite among the Indian Muslims. Now, the situation seems to be
changing, in so far as the younger generation is better prepared to face the old challenges and
seize the opportunities provided by modernization rather than remain in a state of perpetual
mourning.
For many Hindus, the Muslim is powerful not only because he is united, but also because he
is armed, favoured by the state in India, and in times of conflict supported and even armed by
Pakistan. 'Muslims have a constant supply of weapons coming from Pakistan, or maybe they
are locally made. They are always well-stocked. Even the poorest Muslim house will have at
least a Burcher’s knife because they all eat meat. 11indus are not so well-equipped. If the
government continues to please the Muslims and makes laws against the Hindu majority,
these riots will continue forever. If processions are to be banned, both Ganesh and Muharram
processions should be banned. Why is only the Ganesh procession banned? It is like blessings
and protecting only one community and behaving like a stepmother towards other.

According to the MASAKI YUKIAND KOSUKE TAKEMURA people in different

societies differentially relate to, that is, see, think about, and behave in, their groups. We will
particularly focus on the differences in group processes between the cultures of individualism
and collectivism, as we saw in the article of Sudhir Kakkar Hindu and Muslim both have
different perspective about each other. For example: Muslims see Hindus as a cruel and
cowardly people and the Hindu conviction that a Muslim is 'naturally' aggressive and prone
to violence. people in different societies diff er in their level of group centeredness, as
contrasted with individual centeredness. individuals are fundamentally embedded in social
groups and societies where individuals are free from constraints by groups. This shows that,
“trust neighbours, but not outsiders” (Macy & Skvoretz, 1998) or trusting ingroup while distrusting
outgroup others. In contrast to the popular view that collectivists should be more trustful than
individualists to the ingroup, however, evidence suggests that people from individualist cultures and
individuals with individualistic orientations often show greater ingroup bias in trust than people from
collectivistic cultures and collectivistic individuals (e.g., Buchan, Croson, & Dawes, 2002; Buchan,
Johnson, & Croson, 2006; Yamagishi et al., 2005).
At the end let’s summarize it with an example of the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992
played into the long-standing fear of Indian Muslims of being swamped by a preponderant and
numerous Hindu host, a chain of associations leading from the razing of an unused mosque to the
disappearance of Islam in India. The 1969 riot in Ahmedabad was preceded by a period of tension
when the RSS, the spearhead of Hindu nationalism, began a campaign demanding the 'Indianization'
of Muslims and thus initiating a similar chain of mental associations.

the Gujarat riots of 2002. On 27 February 2002, the Sabarmati Express was attacked, allegedly by a
Muslim mob, at the railway station of Godhra, a small town near Ahmedabad in the state of Gujarat.
28 The train was carrying activists of the VHP, the religious arm of a resurgent Hindu nationalism, on
their way back from Ajodhya, the legendary birthplace of Lord Rama, where the VHP was planning to
construct a highly contentious temple-at the very site where the Babri mosque stood before it was
demolished by a mob of Hindu nationalists. In the attack on the train, around sixty Hindus, mostly
men but also some women and children, were burnt alive when their coach was set on fire, it is
commonly believed, by the mob (the cause of the fire has not been conclusively established). Two
days after the gory incident, riots broke out in many parts of Gujarat, especially in the central districts
of the state where both Godhra and Ahmedabad are located. The violence lasted for over a month
and claimed more than a thousand lives, a vast majority of them Muslim. The city of Ahmedabad,
with a population of more than five million, the commercial, cultural and political capital of Gujarat
(Gandhinagar, the actual state capital, is more or less a suburb of Ahmedabad), was the worst
affected by the riots. Ahmedabad has a tradition of Hindu-Muslim violence going back more than
thirty years. Indeed, isolated incidents of violence continued to be reported more than six months
after the high tide of murder, arson and looting had subsided. These are the best examples to
describe intergroup relationships. These examples explain about the cross cultures of two different
societies.

References:
 Kakar, S., & Kakar, K. (2009). The Indians: Portrait of a People. Penguin Books

India.

 Yuki, M., & Brewer, M. (2013). Culture and Group Processes. Oxford University Press.