07-06-2009, 04:51 PM
Another one from Pioneer, 6 july 2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AGENDA | Sunday, July 5, 2009 | Email | Print |
<b>Politics of religion</b>
<b>This book posits, through facts and arguments, a historical trajectory of different stages of Indian society particularly with a focus on colonial and post-colonial developments,</b> writes Ajay Kumar
This is a pioneering work and a must read book for undergraduate and post-graduate students by Himanshu Roy who teaches political science in the University of Delhi. It is equally a work of importance for those who are interested in research and debates on communalism and secularism in India as it posits, through facts and arguments, a historical trajectory of different stages of Indian society particularly with a focus on colonial and post-colonial developments. <b>More, it analyses the transformation of dharma and relegere under colonialism/ capitalism with a comparison of Western Europe.</b>
Royâs main thesis which he rightly points out, is that âIndian states in history, unlike Europe, have rarely been theocratic. Neither were they ideologically premised on the religious majority-minority divide.â <b>The vast number of independent small peasantry existing on a natural subsistence economy enjoying a large degree of freedom which itself is required for agricultural decision-making, acted as a bulwark against theocracy or against such kind of rule. </b>âIn Europe, the more the states became theocratic in nature more the ruling classes restricted/ denied landholdings to the peasants ...â Here, Roy seems to present, to use Sudipta Kavirajâs phrase, a âflattering picture of the pre-colonial pastâ.
<b>In his second thesis he argues that it was the colonial state that âintroduced the religious divisive paradigm in 1909 in connivance with the Muslim elite which was stiffly opposed by the Moderate Congress.â </b>Later on, in 1916, the extremist Congress compromised with this divisive paradigm. <b>This communal compromise of religious segregation was internalised as Indian secularism. Fortunately, many elements of this compromise were debunked by the Constituent Assembly after Partition. âThe leftover, which could not be debunked, were perpetuated as secular features of polity.â </b>Here, Roy brings in another interesting argument. He states that a segment of traditional Muslim elite has always been hostile to the Congress.â But âopposite of it, a substantive percentage of Muslim masses under the jajmani system have been an integral part of her support base till the 1980s. Once the jajmani system withered away, the Muslim masses, too, drifted away from the Congress.â
Roy looks at the relationship between religion and political processes in India through the form of classical Marxian paradigm of which one of the main arguments is that Indian communalism is largely (rightly so) the result of colonial modernity. But it is hard to accept the argument that it was also largely due to the dialectical trends of capitalist development to integrate the world with âuniversal attributesâ of âmodern citizenshipâ. Here, Roy discusses ambiguously the relationship between capitalism and social identities in India, where he always finds capitalismâs positive role in determining modern identities, notwithstanding the fact that capitalism has had its retrogressive role too in determining caste and communal identities in modern India. Roy criticises vaguely how scholars are fancied by metaphors and jargons and how particularly the âLeftâ (of the CPM variety) âpits the community/ collective (the Left conveniently deletes the traditionality of the community) against the âbourgeoisâ citizenship without transcending the traditionality/ religiosity of the communityâ(all original quotes).
Roy sees the religious intervention by the colonial state and the enumeration in terms of âmajority-minorityâ often giving rise to fundamentalism. The term is used interchangeably with communalism in Indian political debates and Roy sees this as a retreat from bourgeois modernity into a more comprehensible doctrine of âtraditionalityâ. However, this argument does fit well for communal politics in India, which is essentially and clearly a strategy to seek more secure gains within the arrangements of modern electoral politics. Modern communal politics in India has its basis in the existence of parliamentary electoral arrangements. It is mainly based on the numerical biases of the modern state. Western or capitalist secularism, which Roy takes as the reference point, is based on the simplistic, dualistic picture of the historical processes of depletion of religious beliefs often implying that rationalisation led the growth of the secular, atheistic world view. Such an interpretation actually does not fit even for Western secularisation as it denies the complexities and interruptions of the rationalisation process.
Finally, he concludes that secularism is inbuilt in capitalism despite the existence of oppositional elements in it. And in combination with judicial pronouncements and democratic processes, it has played, overall, a positive role in the secularisation of society. As the market economy breaks down, the primordialities of society there emerges, and after decades of communal jigsaw, a better trend that reflects recognition to secularism and inclusive developments. Unfortunately, this aspect is not recognised by the Left academics who argue that minority ethnic rights are a part of secularism. As a result, they failed to transcend the Indian bourgeois paradigm premised on the communal compromise of 1916.
It is refreshing to read Royâs book at this juncture when Marx and Marxism are generally forgotten. He brings in lots of insights on the subject from a Marxian perspective.
The reviewer teaches in JNU
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->AGENDA | Sunday, July 5, 2009 | Email | Print |
<b>Politics of religion</b>
<b>This book posits, through facts and arguments, a historical trajectory of different stages of Indian society particularly with a focus on colonial and post-colonial developments,</b> writes Ajay Kumar
This is a pioneering work and a must read book for undergraduate and post-graduate students by Himanshu Roy who teaches political science in the University of Delhi. It is equally a work of importance for those who are interested in research and debates on communalism and secularism in India as it posits, through facts and arguments, a historical trajectory of different stages of Indian society particularly with a focus on colonial and post-colonial developments. <b>More, it analyses the transformation of dharma and relegere under colonialism/ capitalism with a comparison of Western Europe.</b>
Royâs main thesis which he rightly points out, is that âIndian states in history, unlike Europe, have rarely been theocratic. Neither were they ideologically premised on the religious majority-minority divide.â <b>The vast number of independent small peasantry existing on a natural subsistence economy enjoying a large degree of freedom which itself is required for agricultural decision-making, acted as a bulwark against theocracy or against such kind of rule. </b>âIn Europe, the more the states became theocratic in nature more the ruling classes restricted/ denied landholdings to the peasants ...â Here, Roy seems to present, to use Sudipta Kavirajâs phrase, a âflattering picture of the pre-colonial pastâ.
<b>In his second thesis he argues that it was the colonial state that âintroduced the religious divisive paradigm in 1909 in connivance with the Muslim elite which was stiffly opposed by the Moderate Congress.â </b>Later on, in 1916, the extremist Congress compromised with this divisive paradigm. <b>This communal compromise of religious segregation was internalised as Indian secularism. Fortunately, many elements of this compromise were debunked by the Constituent Assembly after Partition. âThe leftover, which could not be debunked, were perpetuated as secular features of polity.â </b>Here, Roy brings in another interesting argument. He states that a segment of traditional Muslim elite has always been hostile to the Congress.â But âopposite of it, a substantive percentage of Muslim masses under the jajmani system have been an integral part of her support base till the 1980s. Once the jajmani system withered away, the Muslim masses, too, drifted away from the Congress.â
Roy looks at the relationship between religion and political processes in India through the form of classical Marxian paradigm of which one of the main arguments is that Indian communalism is largely (rightly so) the result of colonial modernity. But it is hard to accept the argument that it was also largely due to the dialectical trends of capitalist development to integrate the world with âuniversal attributesâ of âmodern citizenshipâ. Here, Roy discusses ambiguously the relationship between capitalism and social identities in India, where he always finds capitalismâs positive role in determining modern identities, notwithstanding the fact that capitalism has had its retrogressive role too in determining caste and communal identities in modern India. Roy criticises vaguely how scholars are fancied by metaphors and jargons and how particularly the âLeftâ (of the CPM variety) âpits the community/ collective (the Left conveniently deletes the traditionality of the community) against the âbourgeoisâ citizenship without transcending the traditionality/ religiosity of the communityâ(all original quotes).
Roy sees the religious intervention by the colonial state and the enumeration in terms of âmajority-minorityâ often giving rise to fundamentalism. The term is used interchangeably with communalism in Indian political debates and Roy sees this as a retreat from bourgeois modernity into a more comprehensible doctrine of âtraditionalityâ. However, this argument does fit well for communal politics in India, which is essentially and clearly a strategy to seek more secure gains within the arrangements of modern electoral politics. Modern communal politics in India has its basis in the existence of parliamentary electoral arrangements. It is mainly based on the numerical biases of the modern state. Western or capitalist secularism, which Roy takes as the reference point, is based on the simplistic, dualistic picture of the historical processes of depletion of religious beliefs often implying that rationalisation led the growth of the secular, atheistic world view. Such an interpretation actually does not fit even for Western secularisation as it denies the complexities and interruptions of the rationalisation process.
Finally, he concludes that secularism is inbuilt in capitalism despite the existence of oppositional elements in it. And in combination with judicial pronouncements and democratic processes, it has played, overall, a positive role in the secularisation of society. As the market economy breaks down, the primordialities of society there emerges, and after decades of communal jigsaw, a better trend that reflects recognition to secularism and inclusive developments. Unfortunately, this aspect is not recognised by the Left academics who argue that minority ethnic rights are a part of secularism. As a result, they failed to transcend the Indian bourgeois paradigm premised on the communal compromise of 1916.
It is refreshing to read Royâs book at this juncture when Marx and Marxism are generally forgotten. He brings in lots of insights on the subject from a Marxian perspective.
The reviewer teaches in JNU
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->