Credit: Kanishk Agarwal
Introduction
This article deals with the origin and growth of communalism in India in the 19th and early 20th centuries. To understand this, the paper deals with different shades of meaning of communalism, the context in which communalism originated and gained its growth, and the main personalities and movements behind the origin and growth of communalism.
1. Meaning of Communalism
Communalism has shades of meanings. Generally speaking, in the Indian context, the term communalism denotes the condition of suspicion, fear, and hostility between members of different religious communities; and in academic circles, the term is used to refer to organized political movements based on the interest of a religious community, usually in response to a real or imagined threat from another religious community or communities. From a historical point of view, the term was used by colonialists to refer to conflicts between different religious groups; and nationalists used this term to refer to the problem that arose out of economic and political inequality and conflict between the self-interest of elite groups (colonial or native) and the mass of the people being essentially ‘secular.’[1]
The Oxford Dictionary defines communalism as “the fact of living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities” or “a strong sense of belonging to a particular, especially religious, community, which can lead to extreme behaviour or violence towards others.”[2] W. C. Smith defines communalism as “that ideology which is emphasized as the social, political and economic unit of the group of adherents of each religion; and emphasized the distinction, even the antagonism, between such groups.”[3] Further, Ludden defines communalism as “a collective antagonism organized around religious, linguistic, and/or ethnic identities. Ideas unite the organization, antagonism, collectivities, and identities that constitute communalism….. In India, communalism is based on the fundamental idea that Hindus and Muslims constitute totally separate communities in essential opposition to one another.”[4] Thus, communalism implies the conflict between religious communities on the basis of an ideology that consists of socio-religious, economic, and political self-interest. It includes the misuse of religion and its ideology. It involves antagonism against other religions.
2. Towards Religious Identities and Communal Consciousness
The nineteenth-century Indian context was characterized mainly by four things: consolidation of British power, large-scale missionary activities, the emergence of the process of organizing religions, and the origin of nationalism. The East India Company transformed into a government in the last decade of the 18th century, and British power was consolidated in the early nineteenth century. The East India Company had the policy of patronizing Indian religion, particularly Hinduism, opposing missionary works (however, later they changed this policy), and refusing to appoint native Christians as their employees.[5] Moreover, British power in the 19th century introduced law, education and infrastructural development, human equality, and bureaucracy. Also, they prohibited many inhuman customs such as sati, slavery, and so on during the 19th century. From 1772 onwards, British colonialists had a policy to constitute a system of law within the parameters of indigenous people so that people might be able to perceive proper justice. In this attempt, colonialist and orientalist scholars constructed the thought that Hinduism was a religion based on ancient texts and which had a Golden Age in Indian history, but it was degenerated, and thus, the current legacy of such religion also had a degenerated form; consequently, the Muslim period (so-called Mughal Empire) was considered a Dark Age for Hinduism.[6] Zavos notices that this dual image of Hinduism had an enormous influence in developing attempts to redeem the religion from its degenerated stage to its glorious ancient stage, and this notion became the baseline rationale for Hindu reform.[7] Moreover, the Queen’s Proclamation of 1 November 1858, according to Zavos, made way for religious freedom, and consequently, pressure came on Hinduism to organize.[8] On the other hand, missionary activities were widespread, and they impacted society with conversion (mass movements), education, giving awareness about social evils, and establishing organizations.
The activities of the British government in India, particularly their religious policies and works of missionaries and orientalists, created socio-religious awareness in India. These forces became the cause for the emergence of westernization in India. Moreover, this group, according to Jaffrelot, had an aversion to Hinduism.[9] This might have ignited Hindu religious sentiments and identity consciousness. Moreover, one of the final products of these forces was socio-religious movements, according to Farquhar.[10] Zachariah categorized these movements as follows: Compromising Movements like Brahmo Samaj (they borrowed from Christianity much and also kept Hindu ideas), Orthodox Movements like Arya Samaj, and Hindu Reform Movements like the Ramakrishna Mission (they Indianized western ideas and used them to reform Hinduism).[11] Further, Kenneth W. Jones in his book Socio-Religious Reform Movements in British India describes several movements in British India among Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. He divides these movements into transitional and acculturative movements. “Transitional movements had their origins in the pre-colonial world and arose from indigenous forms of socio-religious dissent, with little or no influence from the colonial milieu…”[12] The aim of transitional movements was a ‘return to past purity.’ Acculturative movements “originated within the colonial milieu and were led by individuals who were products of cultural interaction.”[13] They accommodated British supremacy and the colonial milieu. From the above discussion, one can conclude, firstly, that in the 19th century, particularly the last three decades, religious or communal identities developed out of frustration created in the religious sphere by the above-described forces, and this identity consciousness and religious consciousness led them to develop as organized religious groups and communal in nature. This fact can be supported by the communal conflicts between Hindus and Muslims that arose during 1871–1918 in India. These communal conflicts indicate the mobilization of Hindus and Muslims as different communities and a strong sense of community. Moreover, this communal consciousness is evident in the religious and social movements during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Secondly, as Zachariah and Jones noticed, religious orthodoxy developed from this historical milieu. This orthodoxy further contributed to the development of communalism. Finally, as Jones noticed, the colonial milieu played a definite role in developing communalism in India.
3. Colonialism and its Communal Policies
This paper has already noted some aspects of how oriental and colonial powers became a cause for the origin and growth of communalism. Furthermore, the British government used communal categories to identify potential support and opposition. As part of the decentralization of political power and devolution of government, the British government granted separate electorates to Muslims in 1909 and 1919.[14] Hardy comments about the reforms that “Communal antagonism between classes of Hindus and Muslims in those provinces where the reform of 1919 had been introduced growled incessantly throughout the 1920s.”[15] Further, the taxonomy of the census commission of the government for defining Hinduism created communal consciousness among Hindus. The number of Hindus reduced in the census report. Hindu communal consciousness based on this idea of demographic decline of the Hindus is evident in U.N. Mukherji’s pamphlet called Hindus—A Dying Race. Moreover, the colonial government replaced Urdu as the court language with Hindi. They treated Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs as separate communities. They used a divide and rule policy to handle the increasing threat to the government and consequently promoted communal feelings and separatism.
4. Religious Orthodoxy: From Religious Consciousness to Communal Conflicts
4.1 Towards Organizing Hinduism: Hindu Movements
Hindu orthodoxy is understood in terms of regional or local frameworks and with reference to caste and sampradaya[16] configurations. Orthodoxy is symbolized by sanatana dharma[17], but the idea carried by orthodoxy is different from sanatana dharma and it basically seeks to project a monolithic establishment: orthodoxy in a pan-Hindu context or pan-Hindu constituency.[18] Hindu orthodoxy spread in the 19th century mainly through Arya Samaj[19], Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, and other transitional movements. The primary concern of these organizations was to give an organized structure to the disorganized Hinduism and restore Hinduism to its old glory.
Bharat Dharma Mahamandal was established by Pandit Din Dayalu Sharma in 1887 to bring together all the orthodox Hindu leaders. This organization spread across the country and united several Hindu organizations, and thus it could provide a strong organizational setting for Hinduism and became a Hindu voice in the colonial public space. They engaged extensively in religious activities and upheld orthodox Hinduism.
Arya Samaj was established by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1877. His teachings and ideology were published in his book Satyarth Prakash in 1875 and a revised edition in 1883.[20] He canonized the Vedas as the supreme texts of the Hindu religion. His main vision was purified Hinduism. By evaluating his book, Jordens comments, “the utter superiority of the Vedic religion and of the Vedic Golden Age over all other religions and civilizations has now become the central idea of his total concept of reform and revival.”[21] Dayanand’s concept of the Vedic Golden Age is further elucidated as follows: the Aryans in the Vedic era lived in the land of Aryavarta where wisdom, prosperity, and science had spread and the mother tongue was Sanskrit, but this Golden Age disintegrated in the context of the great war of the sons of Bharat, which caused the wiping out of all good kings and Brahmins (the very core of society). This disintegration further intensified with Jains and Muslims, thus leading to the deterioration of the Vedic Golden Age and the neglect of the Vedas, the key to knowledge. His further criticism of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity portrays Aryavarta as full of darkness.[22] His concept of the Vedic Golden Age illustrates ethnic identity in connection with land, language, society, and religion. Further, it also implies the superiority of the Vedic religion and condemnation of other religions and the Aryanization of Hinduism. Dayanand assessed Islam in the 14th chapter of his book in which he explains that the God of Islam was not worthy of worship, Islam is cruel and licentious, Muhammad is portrayed negatively, and Islam is without a valid foundation. He dismissed Islam and presented the Vedic faith as free from error.[23] He also promoted educational institutions and Hindi as a national language as part of developing a new culture. These educational institutions and later Banaras Hindu University produced a generation devoted to the Hindu cause. His ideology and activities were communal in nature, connected to ethnicity, land, language, culture, society, antagonism, and organized Hinduism. This became a foundational influence for many Hindus to become communal and often caused communal conflicts. His efforts ended up contributing to an organized Hinduism on a communal basis.
Arya Samaj grew with an organizational structure. Among their members, a militant party gradually developed and it ended with the formal division of the Samaj by 1893 with the founding of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. The militant group gave priority to Ved prachar (proselytism and preaching). The militant party later also became known as the Gurukul wing and they stressed the religious nature, whereas the moderates stressed education and reformation. The Gurukul School gave priority to physical training. The militant wing extensively engaged in missionary activities, publishing tracts and newspapers. Their preaching and publications created many religious controversies. They were involved in the shuddhi movement.[24] Thursby noted that the militant wing put their energy into programs that brought them into open conflict with Muslims.[25] The leader of the militant group, Pandit Lekh Ram, was assassinated by Muslims on the grounds of a controversy he created with Muslims. One of his successors, Lala Munshi Ram (later he became a sanyasi and accepted the name Swami Shraddhanand), started a monthly journal which was instrumental in continuing religious controversies. Pandit Bhoj Datt, another disciple of Pandit Lekh Ram, started a newspaper called Musafir in 1905 in memory of Pandit Lekh Ram, and he also established The Arya Musafir School and Mission in Agra, where he trained Arya missionaries.[26] They maintained Hindu-Muslim controversies during the last two decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Thus, Arya Samaj, particularly its militant wing, caused the development of communalism in India and organized Hinduism based on communal elements. This communalism and organizational character were militant in nature.
Orthodox Hindu movements initiated two movements which had communal character in the 19th and early 20th centuries: the cow protection movements and the shuddhi movement. The practice of cow sacrifice during the festival of Bakr Id by Muslims in North India was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In this context, various orthodox Hindu organizations mobilized the ideology of cow protection, particularly Din Dayalu organized goshalas (homes for cattle) and emphasized the protection of cows. Further, stimulated by the writings of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the cow protection movement found an organizational form called Gaurakshini Sabhas (cow-protection societies) in the early 1880s, first established in Punjab and then spread to other parts of northern and central India.[27] These movements created many conflicts between Hindus and Muslims in several places.[28] Zavos identifies three features of the cow protection movement: the location of cow protection as an issue in the public space; active involvement of elites and their ideology; and the bringing of organic unity to Hindus.[29] The impact of this movement was that Hindu and Muslim community identities gained considerable growth in public, and hostility between these groups increased. Militant religious concepts spread through these movements and religious mobilization considerably gained momentum. Thus, this movement added communal, militant, and organizational character to Hinduism.
The shuddhi movement originated in the 19th century. In its early stage, shuddhi was a ritual process for the re-entry of individuals into a situation where they could perform their dharma and resume normal social relations.[30] Later, in the late 1870s, Arya Samaj began to project shuddhi as a process of conversion where individuals were quietly rehabilitated into their own caste. But this notion changed by the 1890s and it came to be understood as a means to purify and readmit Hindus who had converted to Islam or Christianity. Moreover, Aryas also used shuddhi to purify untouchables and transform them into members of the clean castes.[31] In this phase, shuddhi emphasized mass purification, and Zavos says shuddhi was now projected as not only a conversion strategy but also a kind of pre-emptive strike against the threat of Christian missionary conversions of low-caste groups.[32] Further, the shuddhi movement also spread like the cow protection movements and in 1923, the Bharatiya Hindu Shuddhi Sabha came into existence through the efforts of Swami Shraddhanand with the aim of coordinating the efforts of various individuals and organizations for the shuddhi movement. This movement created communal conflicts and antagonism. Thursby notes that the controversial exchanges between Hindus and Muslims around these movements deteriorated Hindu-Muslim relationships and the movement strengthened the Hindu community.[33] Thus, the shuddhi movement also added communal, militant, and organizational character to Hinduism and united elite Hindus and untouchables. It means that this was an attempt to unite untouchables with Hinduism and strengthen Hindu organization.
Another two causes for the growth of communalism were music before mosques and literature. From the 1890s onwards, in many parts of India, there were events creating issues and conflicts when music was played before Muslim worship places during Hindu public processions passing such places. This model arose out of initiatives by B. G. Tilak in 1894.[34] Further, a considerable amount of religious literature (both Hindu and Muslim) and newspapers were published in the last decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries, many of which had clear communal overtones or communal nature, and literature often became a cause for communal conflicts in many parts of India.
Thus, Arya Samaj and other orthodox Hindu movements, the ideology of Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the concept of the Golden Age of Hinduism, the shuddhi movement, the cow protection movement, literature, and music before Muslim worship places were causes for the development of organized Hinduism, which was more or less communal and militant in nature. This led to communal conflict between Muslims and Hindus during the last decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
4.2 Communal and Social Mobilization: Muslim Movements
Several Muslim movements emerged during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The backdrop to these developments was the relative backwardness of Muslims in the spheres of education, government employment, trade and industry, and political and bureaucratic affairs under colonial rule.[35] Furthermore, there was a growing perception among Muslims in the 19th century that they had deviated from traditional Islamic orthodoxy.[36] Rising Hindu communal consciousness also exerted pressure on Muslims, culminating in the formation of various movements.
Among Bengali Muslims, movements such as the Faraizis, Taaiyunis, Ahl-i-Hadith, and the Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah arose under the leadership of Muslim theologians (ʿulamāʾ), aiming to restore a purified form of Islam, free from error and Hindu accretions. These orthodox Islamic movements had a profound influence on Bengali Muslims. Particularly, the Faraizis frequently linked religious concerns with economic issues, resulting in conflicts with Hindu landlords and the British authorities. Meanwhile, the Tariqah-i-Muhammadiyah and the Deoband movement contributed to Islamic revivalism in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, producing religious literature and participating actively in public debates. Jones argues that these movements fostered social mobilization, communal identity, and a sense of separation from Hindus, while simultaneously promoting social cohesion among Bengali Muslims.
Another significant movement was the Aligarh Movement, initiated by Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817–1898), which promoted modern education among Muslims to create a professional and bureaucratic class capable of cooperating with the British administration. By the 1920s, many Muslims had secured educational advancement and entered government service. Sayyid Ahmad Khan also advocated for special protections and privileges for Muslims within governmental structures.[37] The rise of Hindu revivalism, however, compelled Muslims to compete vigorously for government posts and electoral seats, thereby reinforcing communal solidarity.[38] Sayyid Ahmad Khan opposed militant Hinduism, rejected collaboration with the Indian National Congress, and helped to nurture an emerging Muslim nationalist consciousness.
The Ahmadiyya movement, founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908) among Punjabi Muslims, was militant in its posture and often clashed with Hindus (particularly the Arya Samaj), Sikhs, and Christians.
Thus, orthodox Muslim movements contributed to social mobilization, collective strength, communal identity, separatism, and social integration among Muslims. However, these developments also frequently exacerbated communal tensions and conflict between Muslims and Hindus.
4.3 From Orthodoxy to Communalism
The emergence and growth of orthodox religious movements among Hindus and Muslims unfolded almost simultaneously during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These movements frequently confronted and competed with one another, engaging in literary debates, polemics, and at times violence. Orthodox movements among both communities produced religious and communal militants. It is also important to note that similar developments occurred among the Sikh community. Thus, in the context of colonialism, Westernization, religious revivalism, and Christian missionary activities, religious orthodoxy across various traditions catalyzed the rise of organized communalism.
5. Religion in Politics: Communalism, Nationalism, and Emerging Religious Nationalism
5.1 Muslim Political Mobilization and Communalism
One of the critical developments contributing to communalism was the increasing involvement of religion in politics, especially during the nationalist movement. The nationalist movement’s association with Hindu revivalism often alienated Muslims, reinforcing a separatist political outlook.
The founding of the All-India Muslim League in 1906, which had gained considerable influence among Muslims by 1909, marked a major turning point. In 1908, the League advocated for separate electorates for Muslims, an objective achieved under the Morley-Minto Reforms. The establishment of separate electorates institutionalized a distinct Muslim political identity in India.[39] This, in turn, engendered resentment among Hindus, particularly among radical groups like the Arya Samaj, who experienced a sense of political inferiority.[40]
Another crucial actor was the ʿulamāʾ, Islamic scholars and jurists who played a significant role in preserving Muslim communal identity through sermons and the issuance of fatwas (religious rulings).[41] Their political involvement inspired similar mobilization among Hindus along communal lines.
In response to threats against the Ottoman Caliphate, Indian Muslims launched the Khilafat Movement. Vigorous protests occurred between 1911 and 1915,[43] culminating in the formation of the All-India Khilafat Committee in 1919.[44] The Khilafat Movement served two major purposes: it galvanized Muslim unity and linked Islamic activism with the broader nationalist movement, particularly through its cooperation with the Non-Cooperation Movement.
Thus, Muslim political mobilization during this period fostered a separate communal political identity, contributing to separatist tendencies and the emergence of Muslim nationalism, which increasingly clashed with rising Hindu political consciousness.
5.2 Hindu Political Mobilization, Communalism, and Hindu Nationalism
In the early 20th century, numerous Hindu Sabhas emerged with the aim of fostering Hindu unity and welfare. A pivotal meeting was held in Lahore in 1906, setting organizational goals and expansion strategies. Lala Lal Chand, an influential Sabha activist, published a series of articles titled Self-Abnegation in Politics in The Punjabee, which became foundational texts for the movement, according to Zavos.[45] Another major conference in 1909 laid the groundwork for a politically organized Hindu identity. These efforts culminated in the formation of the All-India Hindu Sabha in 1915, which later evolved into the Hindu Mahasabha during the 1920s.[46]
The Sabha movement gained momentum during the Non-Cooperation Movement. In 1921, at a meeting in Haridwar, the Hindu Mahasabha restructured itself into a nationalist organization.[47] During the 1920s, the Mahasabha played an increasingly active political role, driven by Hindu communal consciousness.
The concept of Sangathan—introduced by Swami Shraddhanand—sought to revive the ancient Aryan civilization and counter Hindu decline, particularly in the context of the Malabar and Multan crises.[48] Shraddhanand’s 1924 pamphlet, Hindu Sangathan: Saviour of the Dying Race, laid out a vision for the organizational revival of Hinduism, advocating the establishment of Hindu Rashtra Mandirs in every city to serve as centers of religious and physical training.[49]
V.D. Savarkar further strengthened Hindu political mobilization through his articulation of Hindutva in his book Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?.[50] Savarkar defined Hindu identity based on geographical, racial, and cultural unity rooted in the Vedic era. His notion of Hindutva encompassed all Indic traditions, including Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism, but excluded Muslims and Christians, whom he regarded as not viewing India as their sacred homeland.[51–52] His vision was thus communal, religious, and overtly anti-Muslim.
Further organizational consolidation occurred with the founding of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925 by K.B. Hedgewar. Influenced by B.S. Moonje and Savarkar, Hedgewar emphasized physical training, discipline, and leadership modeled on the guru-disciple relationship. The RSS aimed to foster Hindu unity and to launch a Hindu nationalist movement. Jaffrelot notes that Hedgewar operationalized Savarkar's Hindutva ideology by providing a social and organizational model for Hindu nationalism.[54]
Thus, Hindu political mobilization began with the Hindu Sabha Movement, which lacked a strong ideological foundation. Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology and the organizational structures provided by the RSS and the Sangathan movement filled this void, leading to the consolidation of Hindu nationalism.
5.3 From Communal Politics to Religious Nationalism
The involvement of orthodox religious movements and their offshoots in political life, within the contexts of colonialism and nationalism, led to the emergence of religious communal politics supported by strong ideologies and organizational frameworks. As a result, religious nationalism developed among both Hindus and Muslims. Communal politics and religious nationalism deepened inter-religious divides, spreading fear, hatred, antagonism, and separatism among different religious communities. By the end of the 1930s, religious communalism had become one of the most serious and pervasive problems in Indian society.
6. Conclusion
Religious-social movements among Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in 19th and 20th century India arose primarily in response to colonial pressures and Christian missionary activities. These movements gave rise to religious orthodoxy and revivalism, unfolding as parallel and simultaneous phenomena across communities. Furthermore, they contributed to the organizational consolidation of religious identities, supported by ideologies characterized by historically biased interpretations, dichotomous images of religious pasts (glorious versus degraded), and socio-religious antagonism. These tendencies are notably evident in the Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and the Aligarh Movement led by Sayyid Ahmad Khan. This historical matrix arguably represents the origins of modern communalism in India. The further entanglement of religious movements with politics led to the growth of communal politics and the rise of religious nationalism among Hindus and Muslims, characterized by strong ideological and organizational infrastructures.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andersen ,Walter K. and Shridhar D. Damle. The Brotherhood in Saffron. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications,1987.
Chandra, Bipin.Modern India. New Delhi: NCERT, 1990.
Farquhar, J. N. Modern Religious Movements in India. Delhi:Munshiram Manoharlal,1967.
Hardy, P. The Muslims of British India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1972.
Jaffrelot, Christopher. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics. Delhi: Penguin Books India,1996.
Jones, Kenneth W. Socio Religious Reform Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Jordens, J.T.F. Dayananda Sarasvati His Life and Ideas. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1978.
Kanungo, Pralay. RSS’s Tryst with Politics From Hedgewar to Sudarshan.Delhi:Manohar, 2002.
Ludden, David. Making India Hindu. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1996.
Pandey, Gyanendra. The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress,1990.
Pandey, G.“Which of us are Hindus?”In Hindus and Others the Question of Identity in India Today.Delhi:Penguin Books India,1993.
Pearsall, Judy ed. The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
Robinson, Francis. Separatism among Indian Muslims. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Sarvarkar, V.D. Hindutva Who is a Hindu?. New Delhi:Bharti Sahitya Sadan,1989.
Thursby, G.R. Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India. Leiden: E.J.Brill,1975.
Webster, John C B. Some Socio-Religious Movements among Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the 19th century(N.p, n.d)
Zachariah, Aleyamma. Modern Religious and Secular Movements in India. Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1992.
- Gyanendra Pandey, The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 6–11.
- Judy Pearsall, ed., The New Oxford Dictionary of English (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 371.
- W.C. Smith, Modern Islam in India (London, 1946), 157, cited by G.R. Thursby, Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), 2.
- David Ludden, Making India Hindu (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 12.
- Aleyamma Zachariah, Modern Religious and Secular Movements in India (Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1992), 14.
- John Zavos, The Emergence of Hindu Nationalism in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 33–34.
- Ibid., 34.
- Ibid., 38.
- Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics (Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1996), 14.
- J.N. Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements in India (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1967), 26.
- Zachariah, op. cit., 12.
- Kenneth W. Jones, Socio-Religious Reform Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3.
- Ibid.
- G.R. Thursby, Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), 176.
- P. Hardy, The Muslims of British India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 202.
- Literally it means ‘what is handed over’. It is a religious tradition founded by a sage or saint, extant in a religious order. It is a classical manifestation of Hinduism.
- It means the eternal dharma. It was sometimes used for Hinduism in the 18th and early 19th centuries to mean orthodoxy.
- Zavos, op. cit., 50.
- Several orthodox Hindu organizations did not consider Arya Samaj an orthodox movement, but in nature and ideology it can be considered as such.
- J.T.F. Jordens, Dayananda Sarasvati: His Life and Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), 99.
- Ibid., 126.
- Ibid., 112–113.
- Thursby, op. cit., 13.
- Jones, op. cit., 100.
- Thursby, op. cit., 14.
- Thursby, op. cit., 16.
- Pandey, op. cit., 164.
- A detailed description of these conflicts can be seen in Thursby's Hindu-Muslim Relations in British India (pp. 76–88) and Pandey's The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India (pp. 164–198).
- Zavos, op. cit., 82–87.
- Ibid., 87.
- Jones, op. cit., 101.
- Zavos, op. cit., 91.
- Thursby, op. cit., 155.
- Ibid., 89.
- Bipin Chandra, Modern India (New Delhi: NCERT, 1990), 203.
- John C.B. Webster, Some Socio-Religious Movements among Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs in the 19th Century (n.p., n.d.), 19–20.
- Chandra, op. cit., 206.
- Francis Robinson, Separatism among Indian Muslims (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 347.
- Ibid., 348.
- Jaffrelot, op. cit., 18.
- Robinson, op. cit., 353.
- Khilafat is the spiritual head of Islam who was the Sultan of Turkey.
- Ibid., 290.
- Hardy, op. cit., 189.
- Zavos, op. cit., 144.
- Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle, The Brotherhood in Saffron (New Delhi: Vistaar Publications, 1987), 28.
- Zavos, op. cit., 169.
- Thursby, op. cit., 164.
- G. Pandey, “Which of us are Hindus?”, in Hindus and Others: The Question of Identity in India Today (Delhi: Penguin Books India, 1993), 242–243.
- Jaffrelot, op. cit., 26.
- V.D. Savarkar, Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? (New Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan, 1989), 89.
- Ibid., 113.
- Pralay Kanungo, RSS’s Tryst with Politics: From Hedgewar to Sudarshan (Delhi: Manohar, 2002), 43–44.
- Jaffrelot, op. cit., 44.