World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 129

alists alienate even moderate Muslims. The split between Hindu nationalists and secular nationalists can be seen in differing views of the Partition as well. Hindu nationalists see the Partition as proof that Muslims are not true Indians. Secular nationalists see the Partition as proof that religion and social order should not be conflated. With all this as background, some observers maintain that the violence that ensued after the destruction of the Ayodhya Mosque in December 1992 was not really about religion. The incident was a political dispute about national identity. Hindu nationalists look on Babur (the first Mughal emperor and builder of the mosque) as an alien conqueror, while Rama (the divine king who was allegedly born at the site) is seen as indigenously "Indian."
Explanations for ethnic conflicts around the world are manifold. I will offer a three-fold typology for categorizing theories only as a temporary convenience. The first type of explanation is often called "essentialism." Theories of this type generally argue that the rivalry between ethnic groups is based on the claim that ethnic groups are separated by essentially different identities that stretch back into time immemorial. As there is an irreducible "Hinduness," so also there is a "Muslimness" that sets Muslims apart from their Hindu neighbors. Some anthropologists speak of the "primordialisms" of race, religion and culture. As primordialisms, "Hindu" and "Muslim" become ancient and unchanging essences. This view of the roots of ethnic violence lends itself readily to the language of "fundamental incompatibility," "intrinsic difference," and "tribal identity." The "irreconcilable blood feud" between Hutus and Tutsis, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Arabs are offered as cases in point. Thus, in India, inter-communal violence arises inevitably between Muslims and Hindus as a result of their primordial differences.
Currently, there is widespread dissatisfaction with essentialism. Essentialism fails to explain why ethnic violence is sporadic and why it is a problem in some parts of the world and not in others. With these problems in mind, other theorists appeal to an instrumentalist argument. Violence is the result of the manipulation of ethnic differences by elites, especially politicians, for political and economic purposes. In this approach, since the differences that distinguish ethnic groups are not innate, the roots of conflict are not innate either. Conflict, therefore, is not inevitable. To be sure, there is much empirical evidence that provides a basis for assigning a causative role to politicians and other elites in the fomenting of riots in India. Questions still remain, however. For example, why are some politicians successful while others are not? Why are some politicians successful at times while, other times, these same politicians are not? Are there social factors that militate against the likelihood of communities being manipulated by elites?
Constructivism offers a third general category of explanations for