The Hindu, 18 Dec 2007
People must understand conflict is not in their interest, says Raychaudhuri
‘Till the 19th century, people’s primary identity was of caste, and to a certain extent religion’
‘It is the British, who in their need to control India, imposed religious and communal categories’
Bangalore: Despite the growing tendency of bolstering a “visceral hatred of minorities” in India, our society can be de-communalised as its primary political character is not communal, said Tapan Raychaudhuri, a noted economic historian and former Chair in Indian History and Civilisation, Oxford University. He is currently Emeritus Fellow, St. Anthony’s College, at Oxford. Giving a talk on “Hindu Muslim Relations — a historical Perspective”, organised by the Ramakrishna Hegde Chair in Decentralisation and Governance at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Prof. Raychaudhuri said that communalism “can be reversed if people can be made to understand that conflict is not in their self-interest, and that for a better status in life there must be sustained peace”. The principle of secularism, he said, was absent within government and in the lives of most Indians. To be secular was to be non-theistic, which most Indians are not. “The Indian state has followed a policy of non-majoritarianism, of trying to be impartial to all. Under the circumstances, it would appear that there is no alternative to this approach of multi-ethnicism,” he said.
Providing a historical background to the evolution of communal conflict in India, he said that the perception of Hindus and Muslims as distinct communities was a 19th century development. To describe medieval Indian dynasties in religious terms makes no sense at all, Prof. Raychaudhuri said, as in each of these dynasties power vested in several layers of authority, most-often shared by Hindus and Muslims. The Rajput ruler, Rana Pratap, is often misread today as a hero of Hinduism for defending his kingdom against Akbar. Malik Ambar held out against Akbar even longer, but he is not called a hero of Islam.
Till the 19th century, people’s primary identity was that of caste and to a certain extent religion too, he said. It was the British, who in their need to understand and control India, imposed religious and communal categories on Indians.
There were two views on the relationship between Hindus and Muslims. The proponents of the Two-Nation theory argued that India absorbed all other cultures except Islam.
The nationalistic view emphasised the syncretic traditions that bound the two communities, a unity broken by the British policy of divide and rule. “The reality was much more complicated,” said Prof. Roychaudhuri. “The British were looking desperately for allies. Their understanding of Indian society was defective. They needed a social map of this vast territory and their idea of distinct religious communities was influenced by the crusades,” he said. This quest for allies produced results by the middle of the 19th century as middle-class Indians, both Hindus and Muslims, in their own self-interest had to appeal to their own communities.
Despite this legacy, it is wrong to assume that the historical memory of communal violence or injustice influences peoples actions unless such memories are played up for other reasons, said Prof. Raychaudhuri.
|
