Rakesh Batabyal. Communalism in Bengal: From Famine to Noakhali, 1943-1947. London: Thousand Oaks, 2005. 428 pp. $97.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-7619-3335-9.
Reviewed by Anirudh Deshpande
Published on H-Asia (July, 2007)
For readers unfamiliar with the terms in such as the one witnessed in Gujarat in 2002, are which modern Indian history is usually written, integral to communalism in India. Readers who communalism should be described before the re‐ have not read much of Indian history but are well view of the book is presented. The word commu‐ versed in European and American history can nalism obviously comes from community and easily understand "Indian communalism" with communal which may mean entirely diferent reference to similar developments in the context things to people in the West. The closest parallels of many European and American countries. Al‐ of communalism in India are racism and anti- though there is another form in which communal‐ Semitism, etc. in the West; while in India commu‐ ism manifests itself in India, called "casteism," nalism makes a person prefer a certain communal communalism in general refers to religious com‐ identity over other secular identities. In many munalism. India, like most other countries, has a parts of the West a position of racial superiority is history of religious confict going back to the an‐ assumed by many individuals and social groups cient period, but communalism refers to a mod‐ over people of non-European extraction. In both ern consolidation of religious groups and identi‐ instances religious or race identities are internal‐ ties and the politicization of religious organiza‐ ized and displayed by individuals who believe in tion and confict which began during the colonial myths, which constitute an ideology. The modern period, especially in the nineteenth century. systematic articulation of such myths is called While Indians contend with communalism in communal ideology in the Indian sub-continent. their everyday lives, it must be remembered that Selective history, carefully constructed memories the development of the "two nation theory" lead‐ of injustices, a variety of myths, the role of the ing to the creation of Pakistan on the basis of a state, and violence in multiple forms are the foun‐ mythical and monolithic Muslim nation in 1947 dations of communalism. Social exclusion and and the growth of Hindutva in the 1980s and communal violence ranging from carefully orga‐ 1990s were the most important achievements of nized riots by political formations to pogroms, communalism in twentieth-century India. The H-Net Reviews book under review should be read in this context Noakhali riots, the author defects the reader's at‐ of communalism in modern and contemporay In‐ tention to Gandhi's highly personalized and great‐ dia. ly publicized struggle against communal violence. This book narrates the rise of communalism Towards the end of the volume, in chapter 8, in Bengal in the short term and tries to defne Gandhi's only too well-known sojourn in Noakhali communalism as an ideology. Throughout the vol‐ is highlighted in an attempt to capture the Mahat‐ ume both Muslim and Hindu communalism is the‐ ma's rather touching fnest hour. This is done to orized in opposition to a secular Indian national‐ ofer an alternative to the communalization of ism of which the Indian National Congress (in popular psyche in India. However, as the facts Rakesh Batabyal's view) appears as the greatest marshaled by Batabyal inadvertently tell us, by exponent. Politics in Bengal during the 1940s 1946 Gandhi was a spent force in Indian politics. came to be infuenced by the Muslim League, Hin‐ Although his moral message would live on in a du Mahasabha, and the Communists at the ex‐ tiny section of inspired Indians, the somewhat pense of an inefective Congress which, mainly bafing and ill-conceived Quit India movement of due to the rise of Subhas Bose, had split into the 1942 and his recognition of Jinnah as the most im‐ pro- and anti-Bose factions. While communalism portant representative of Indian Muslims in 1944 is defned as an ideology, nationalism in the colo‐ most certainly helped the rise of communalism in nial period cannot be defned easily as its oppo‐ India in the 1940s. These are the important facts site. The author has conceived the entire project informing the rise of Jinnah and the demand for on the basis of drawing a neat line of demarcation Pakistan which readers can easily glean from between communalism and nationalism. The Batabyal's meticulous research. But the problem book gives us a good idea of what communalism of dealing with Gandhi's approach to the commu‐ meant in Bengal during the 1940s, which was nal question remains unaddressed. According to dominated by the Great Famine of 1943 and con‐ this reviewer the distinction between Gandhi as a ditions arising from the Second World War. But it person and Gandhi as the unquestioned moral does not say much about nationalism as an ideol‐ leader of the Congress is more important to the ogy. Since the volume eschews a long-term per‐ historian. It is nobody's argument that Gandhi did spective on nationalism and its complex relation‐ not oppose communalism as best as he could ship with communalism, it fails to answer some within the limits of his world view. Unfortunately important questions. For instance, was Indian na‐ for the people of Bengal and many other parts of tionalism something much more than a striving India, which sufered the consequences of parti‐ for national unity against imperialism? What tion this kind of moral opposition, in the absence were its long-term weaknesses which created the of an organized cadre based fght against commu‐ space for the growth of communal ideologies and nalism, simply was not enough to save them from the two nation theory in India? Why did commu‐ the horrors of communal hatred and violence. Af‐ nalism replace nationalism as the stronger force ter the die was cast and partition became a of the two in people's lives during the 1940s? This ground reality, Gandhi emerged as a symbol of volume is not designed to answer these questions, peace. His removal of himself from the ideological important as they are in the context of rising com‐ site of partition could do little to address the caus‐ munalism in India during the last quarter of the es of communalism in India. Indeed his moral nineteenth and frst half of the twentieth cen‐ leadership of the Congress nationalist movement turies. Instead, after repeatedly underlining Con‐ had also undoubtedly contributed to it. Ultimately gress's helplessness in the face of growing com‐ he could neither arrest the decline of secular na‐ munal frenzy in Bengal in a chapter on the
2 H-Net Reviews tionalism nor take the majority of the Congress not tell us why the Congress was not a force to with him. reckon with among the masses of Bengal in the Ironically, in his fnest hour Gandhi had al‐ 1940s. Why was the peasantry of Bengal alienated ready become irrelevant to the vast majority of from the Congress that had organized mass anti- Indians (and Pakistanis, it may always be added imperialist movements across the country in as an afterthought) in 1946-47. Quit India in 1942 1905, 1921-22 and 1930-32? Unless the story of this and the sterile belated talks with Jinnah in 1944 mass alienation from the Congress in Bengal is re‐ were Gandhi's individual decisions. Was there any counted, it is impossible to fully comprehend how point in virtually conceding Pakistan and denying the Muslim League emerged as the most impor‐ the two nation theory at the same time? The Quit tant party of the Bengali Muslims in the space of a India resolution, it is well known, did not have the few years. If peasant unrest was ultimately articu‐ support of all Congressmen and ended up remov‐ lated in communal ideology, as the author con‐ ing the Congress from the center stage of Indian cedes in a short conclusion (p. 383), why did the politics during the war, while the talks with the Congress fail to address and utilize this unrest in "sole spokesman" ended up enhancing Jinnah's the 1930s and 1940s ? The election results of 1946 stature and legitimizing his communal claims in Bengal (p.218) only expressed the communal even amongst several Muslims who could still be polarization of the Bengalis which took place dur‐ called Congress supporters in 1944. Both instances ing the Second World War--the Congress polled demonstrated serious faws in a movement over only 0.5 percent of Muslim votes in comparison which a single and often momentarily ill-in‐ with the League which got 89.6 percent of Muslim formed patriarch had so much infuence. In the votes. Pakistan had been created. Obviously, given ultimate analysis Gandhi's moral authority could the developments during the war years, by 1946 neither substitute nor overcome the collective all "memories of class and communal solidarity failure of the Congress leadership in dealing with against the colonial power were forgotten" in Ben‐ the communal question. gal (p. 383). The fact that communalism grew and secular nationalism declined in Indian politics in‐ Coming to Bengal it is not difcult to observe creasingly since the 1920s is not given due impor‐ that Gandhi was instrumental in getting Bose tance in this volume because of the author's Left- ousted from the Congress and thereby mortally Nationalist paradigm. wounding it. A Congress in disarray, or whatever remained of it after the important leaders had The book comprises nine chapters including been jailed in 1942, was hardly in a position to the short conclusion. The long and comprehensive combat the kind of communalism which began to introduction, which is kept outside the chapteriza‐ sweep the Bengal social landscape from 1943 on‐ tion scheme, is called "Communalism and Histori‐ wards. The book presents an excellent survey of ography." It comprises the most problematic part how the absence of viable alternatives helped of the book raising important theoretical ques‐ communalism grow in Bengal during the 1940s. tions regarding the various historical approaches The colonial state, Muslim League, and Hindu Ma‐ to communalism. The Colonial-Cambridge, Marx‐ hasabha are rightly implicated in the growth of ist, and Post-Modernist perspectives on commu‐ the communal project. At this time the interests of nalism in India have been commented upon in Moscow guided the Communists and even they the introduction. However, upon carefully read‐ upheld the claims of the Muslim League. ing the introduction, this reviewer was left won‐ dering whether Indian communalism is a product Important as these fndings are, the volume of modernity or an outcome of insufcient mod‐ fails to address some important questions. It does ernization. A pre-history of communalism going
3 H-Net Reviews back to the early nineteenth century certainly ex‐ remain open in this otherwise well researched ists but there was no communalism, as we know it thesis. from the colonial times onwards, in pre-colonial Chapters 1, 2, and 3 survey politics in Bengal India. What explains the absence of communal ri‐ in the context of the famine of 1943 and the Sec‐ ots in Mughal India despite the other conficts ond World War. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of which raged in the seventeenth and eighteenth political trends in 1945-46 and examines the build centuries? Obviously communities, provided they up to the communal frenzy which swept Bengal in existed as we perceive them today, pursued poli‐ the latter half of 1946. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 zoom tics diferently in pre-colonial India. Both accom‐ in on the well documented Calcutta killings and modation and exclusion of regional elites was Noakhali-Tippera Riots. Then comes the alterna‐ practiced at the imperial Mughal court in Agra, tive to communalism in a chapter on Gandhi's but the frictions and politics of the Mughal era did battle against communal hatred in Noakhali fol‐ not create communalism. lowed by the conclusion. The book makes for easy At the same time communalism has thrived reading and parts of it dealing with the famine even as India has modernized decade after and riots are quite interesting. However the ad‐ decade since 1947. No matter how you perceive it mirable eforts of the author are somewhat one thing seems to be clear--economic moderniza‐ marred by his taking potshots at other Indian his‐ tion and modernity (or westernization) does not torians who also have laudable contributions to spell the end of communalism. Indeed, as Nazi their credit. For instance chapter 5 on the Calcutta Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and Gujarat in Riots begins with an unnecessary attack on Rana‐ our times demonstrate, modernization does not jit Guha, the well-known founder of the Subaltern preclude communalism. It often comes hand in School of Indian historiography (pp. 237-238). glove with myths which are normally associated While it is true that subaltern historians have fo‐ with a pre-modern societies. A critical study of In‐ cused their energies on popular movements dia's anti-colonial freedom struggle shows that which often took a violent turn in colonial India communalism and nationalism grew together in they do not seem to have justifed communal vio‐ the frst half of the twentieth century. Both de‐ lence which occurred between various subaltern rived legitimacy from the process of modernity groups. It is indeed difcult to agree with ushered into India by the various structures of Batabyal when, with reference to Guha's position, British colonialism. The question is why and how he writes the following: "Violence of such magni‐ were these two supposedly diferent political phe‐ tude cannot be simply reduced to the manifesta‐ nomena related? Despite favoring a line which ar‐ tion of an assumption of emancipation of the op‐ tifcially separates nationalism and communalism pressed" (p. 238). Is all violence reduced to eman‐ in India, the author concedes that nationalism cipatory violence in the subaltern scheme of failed to accommodate communalism in modern things? This reviewer does not think so. Mass par‐ India (pp. 58-59). Did this happen because the ticipation in the communal project and the vio‐ epistemological link between nationalism and lence integral to it occurs because of the internal‐ communalism was strong enough to overcome ization of elite communal ideology by the masses. the compulsions of national unity against the for‐ This is diferent from a subaltern consciousness eigner? Or, did the Congress brand of nationalism which develops against elite domination and fail because it did not satisfy the socio-economic hegemony. aspirations of the majority of Indians who were Guha is not the only one at the receiving end. marginalized, poor and illiterate? These questions Another example is Sudhir Kakar, the famous In‐
4 H-Net Reviews dian psychoanalyst, who is criticized for not dis‐ gress leadership for uttering irresponsible state‐ playing "much intellectual force" is his under‐ ments or being eager to arrive at a compromise standing of communal confict. This act of sniping, with the colonial authorities, leads one to the fal‐ apparently caused by an unpardonable failure of lacy of ignoring the culpability of the commu‐ Kakar to describe religious confict as communal nalised masses of people, who alone could commit confict, is followed by a quote from his Colours of acts of such communal depredations" (emphasis Violence (1996) which makes perfect sense to me: in original, p. 259). "Together with religious selfhood, the 'I-ness' of Alone? Can the communalised masses act religious identity, we have a second track of 'We- alone ? Is communal mass violence autonomous? ness' which is the experience of being part of a Readers more aware of the concept of hegemony community of believers" (p. 51). That is precisely than this reviewer can answer these questions on how individual consciousness grows into collec‐ their own. As far as the book is concerned, the tive and ultimately communal consciousness. brilliant descriptions of violence it contains clear‐ French historians would call this the process of ly mention the role of local leadership (not to mentality formation. I fnd nothing wrong in speak of the Muslim League's Direct Action Day Kakar's assertion, especially since no ideology is call and a colonial state unable and unwilling to free of psychological aspects. Is religion itself not preserve peace) in the spread of violence. a product of human psychological desires? Why a social being attracted to an ideology is often a psy‐ chological question which may be informed by other reasons like economics as well. You do not have to be an expert to perceive that deep seated fears of the "other" and various pathological feel‐ ings underline the appeal and popularity of com‐ munalism. But to attempt a defnition of commu‐ nalism foremost as an ideology, as Batabyal is try‐ ing to do, by excluding psychoanalysis from the explanatory framework appears to be an act of deliberate shortsightedness. Such belittling of well-informed and sociologically enriching per‐ spectives can have unfortunate theoretical conse‐ quences. Scoring needless points does lead to a lopsided understanding of the "hegemonic hold" which the communalists developed over the peo‐ ple of Bengal (p. 260). Since the psychological con‐ nection between "hegemonic hold" and individu‐ als subscribing to the communal ideology is pre‐ cluded from the book's paradigm, holding the masses largely responsible for the communal vio‐ lence of 1946 is a short step away. Hence the chap‐ ter on the Calcutta Riots contains the following re‐ vealing sentences: "At the same time, however, to repose the burden on Suhrawardy and the League, and on the other hand to blame the Con‐
5 H-Net Reviews
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-asia
Citation: Anirudh Deshpande. Review of Batabyal, Rakesh. Communalism in Bengal: From Famine to Noakhali, 1943-1947. H-Asia, H-Net Reviews. July, 2007.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=13458
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
6