In colonial India, religious identities first began to emerge within political groups and the challenges faced by Hindus and Muslims began to heighten. Religious conflict was the biggest challenge India faced at the time, and this was emphasised through the constant rivalry that developed between the two primary, authoritative political actors at the time: the Indian Congress Party (INC) and the All-India Muslim League (Muslim League). These parties were each confronted with the other's opposing ideology, which ultimately resulted in British India being divided into two independent states—India and Pakistan.

The divergence between Hindus and Muslims became an ongoing problem in India as still highlighted in current affairs. The extent of the persistent violence was revealed in part by the 2020 New Delhi riots. Tension surfaced as the Indian government introduced a controversial Indian citizenship law; those in support of the law were predominantly Hindu. Protests took over the streets as critics decried the Citizenship Amendment Act as anti-Muslim. Violence spread across northeast India where Mosques were vandalised and Muslims were being burnt alive in their homes. India’s independence, and the emergence of Pakistan in 1947, has unquestionably impacted Hindu-Muslim relations, as underlined by the ongoing religious anxiety and increase in community riots. 

THE TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION

The British Crown rule in India was established in the mid-nineteenth century. The academic community has extensively explored the impacts of colonialism on the Hindu-Muslim relationship from pre-independence and post-independence. The traditional interpretation argues that India’s colonial past was instrumental in recognising Muslim identities, which resulted in the partition of British India in 1947. This was a fundamental manifestation of the strong religious narratives being expressed through political groups.

According to scholar Francis Robinson's research, India’s colonial structure instigated the hostility between Hindus and Muslims. This was no doubt caused by Muslims being the minority in British-India, which drove this demographic to form a separate political identity away from British and Hindu influence. However, the fragmentation within the state was exacerbated by the partition and intensified over the years. Understanding India’s colonial background is crucial to understanding how the growth of Muslim consciousness gradually strengthened.

According to research, a main feature of colonial India was the way in which imperial social change and policy created the initial tension between Hindus and Muslims. For example, the British imperial policy of “divide et impera” (divide and rule) directly led to the establishment of a Muslim political identity. Thus, British rule introduced religious and political divides, and the accompanying animosity, into communities leading up to the partition of India in 1947. Imperial policies such as divide and rule popularised resentment between the two groups, which stressed the division caused by the colonisers to a greater extent.

IMPACTS OF THE PARTITION

Whilst tension under the British Raj was beginning to surface, the political and social domination of colonial rule was coming to an end, as evident through the rise of political groups such as the INC and the Muslim League. According to Professor of History Kaushik Roy, there have been numerous debates amongst Indian nationalists and historians of Pakistan on what they believe caused the shift into partition.

There was a consensus between Pakistani historians that an "unholy" British-Hindu alliance threatened the lives of Muslims in India. This hostility embodies a view that the Muslim minority in India felt ignored. This increased tensions between the two political groups and, as expressed by Roy, the heroes of India became villains of Pakistani history and vice versa.

The dynamic between Hindus and Muslims has been widely researched by scholars and historians. Their relationship was overburdened by the Muslim League's countless demands for the creation of Pakistan. Its leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was an iconic figure for religious freedom and equality. He redefined the term “Muslim minority” and stated that Muslims were in fact “a nation by any definition”.

Jinnah took advantage of the social and political conditions in 1946 and refused to acknowledge constitutional methods. He attempted to convey that he would under no circumstance back down from wanting to achieve the creation of Pakistan. In the same year, violence had broken out on Direct Action Day, when brutality spiralled out of control amongst Hindus and Muslims. The callousness resulted in 10,000 lives being lost in an “action-reaction cycle,” meaning that violence from both sides spurred further violence. Both Hindus and Muslims were greatly affected by the decisions made in India, and the history between the two groups shows how the partition was birthed from mass violence.

The INC was convinced that a united India was unattainable. This resulted in the agreement for partition from the INC and the British—meant to avoid further mass violence and migration. The transfer of power was settled in August 1947. In the aftermath of Indian independence, the world saw Calcutta become central to further mass violence nonetheless between the two groups. The relationship between Hindus and Muslims worsened after the violent parting, because it symbolised so clearly their cultural and religious differences.

Several studies have concluded that the partition initiated widespread violence in India. The geographical shift—or the “geography of trauma”—represents how the partition had severe consequences on Hindu-Muslim relations as well as on South Asian identity more broadly. In her research, scholar Jennifer Yusin too recognised the violent discourse of the partition of British India and the impact it had on Hindu-Muslim relations. Breaking down the literal term of “partition” is foundational in understanding how the partition justified the Hindu-Muslim differences and fuelled mass violence. Yusin maintains the argument that the partition was parallel to communal violence amongst Hindu and Muslim communities.

Vinod Jairath, a researcher in Muslim communities, supports the argument that the Hindu-Muslim conflict was a result of the intervention of British power through its imperial policies. He suggests that it is categorisation and classification that drove anxiety and hostility between the two groups, which then resulted in the constructivist idea that violence was “deliberately engineered”. The Hindu-Muslim problem was brutal and, as a result of years of animosity, the outcome of intense violence was inevitable.

PRESENT-DAY DIVISIONS

Hindu nationalist discourse is a significant element of South Asian politics, and specifically of Hindu-Muslim relationships. Peggy Froerer, a scholar who specialises in the element of the “other” in researching Hindu nationalism, stresses that organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) encouraged the Hindu-Muslim divide in society by isolating the Muslim minority. Froerer also raises several concerns about the impact of Hindu nationalism and the lack of “ethnographic attention” paid to other groups in the Indian community, primarily Muslim groups.

To better comprehend the contemporary Hindu-Muslim relationship, it is important to consider the rise of India’s current ruling body, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Understanding the discourse of Hindu nationalism is complex and central to unpacking themes of identity and culture. According to Froerer’s findings, “Hindutva” equates to “Hindu-ness,” which is a concept of religious and national identity that defines a Hindu. In acknowledging India’s diverse ethnic and religious dynamic, it is evident that this would cause friction between Muslim groups in society.

With regard to the New Delhi riots of 2020, Indians have accused President Narenda Modi and the BJP of spreading Islamophobia. The brutality was interpreted as the “worst religious riot in decades”. The New Delhi riots demonstrated a pattern of police complicity in violent mobs in an attempt to “violently subdue” BJP opposition. What made their relationship so weak was the colonial legacy as reflected through the BJP.

The extent of violence in the recent anti-Muslim riots demonstrates the long-term consequences of the partition, Hindu nationalism, and ultimately how India’s government has dealt with this situation. It is crucial to emphasise that Muslims have faced discrimination under Hindu communalism since the end of the Moghul Empire. It has never been as destructive as it has been today, as the religious differences are becoming more apparent and directly challenged.

The constant force of violence now prevalent in India showcases how problematic this divide is. Communal violence in India is arguably a consequence of numerous factors that all trace back to the same major source: colonialism. The divide was then strengthened and reinforced by the partition of 1947.

Sadia is a postgraduate student at UCL studying Human Rights with a Bachelors degree in Politics. She is working with a student led organisation as a research lead, focusing on advocating for oppressed and persecuted communities around the world. Her interests are in Middle Eastern politics, mass atrocities and conflict resolution.

Linkedin