From this discussion on fundamentalism and communalism[1], I wish to draw attention to three specific points.
First, we clearly observe that whenever fundamentalism aligns with nationalism, it takes on a more violent form and intensifies conflict with people of different communities and religions. By its very nature, Islamic fundamentalism cherishes a latent pan-Islamic nationalism aimed at establishing the Islamic Ummah[2] and Khilafat. For this reason, the outburst of violence in Islamic fundamentalism and communalism is more extreme. Usually, it moves toward the formation of a separate state. Otherwise if a majority exists in the given state, it turns to more radical Islam. In a previous blog on characterizing the nature of a religion, I attributed the role of the religious mandate in the expansion of Islamic empires during ancient and medieval times.[3] In the modern world, as the concept of the nation-state evolved with the spread of capitalism, religion became an integral part of a nation’s cultural identity. In such ethnic or nationalist movements where an Islamic majority exists, one observes a tendency toward the formation of an Islamic state and the gradual erasure of other religions and cultures. Our Indian subcontinent is a prime example of this. When the Muslim League put forward its demand for Pakistan, the party achieved significant success in the Muslim-majority regions of British India and was able to further intensify its communal movement, ultimately succeeding in forming a separate state for Muslims.
However, due to these uncompromising characteristics of Islamic fundamentalism, the coexistence of internal sects within Islam also becomes impossible. Ethnic conflicts often become entangled with this. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1992, when the Communist government in Afghanistan was defeated by the coalition of Islamic Mujahedeen[4], the various groups and sects of the Mujahedeen engaged in a bloody civil war among themselves. This conflict was temporarily resolved in 1996, when the Taliban defeated all warring factions and captured Kabul. Yet, the Taliban merely enforced Sharia rule according to their own Islamic interpretation and imposed it upon other minority Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
Because of this type of intolerance in Islamic fundamentalism, Pakistan eventually fractured. When West Pakistan attempted to forcibly impose its language and culture on the Bengalis of East Pakistan—regardless of whether they were Hindus or Muslims — the Bengalis took a stand against it. Inspired by secular Bengali nationalism, they were victorious in a glorious liberation struggle, separating from West Pakistan to give birth to a secular state named Bangladesh. It is also noteworthy that during that liberation struggle, the Bengali Islamic fundamentalists of the time sided with Pakistan army. However, as Bangladesh is also a Muslim-majority country, it has suffered from a conflict between secularism and the goal of forming an Islamic state since its inception. There, too, Islamic fundamentalists have persistently attempted to expel or convert non-Muslim populations, much like what did happen during the Pakistani era.[5] Riding the wave of public protests against the autocratic rule of the Awami League in July 2024, these forces have once again grown stronger. It remains to be seen how Bangladesh face the challenges thrown by the Islamists to preserve its secular character and spirit of the liberation war of 1971.
Nationalism acts as the same catalyst in other forms of religious communalism as well. However, since nationalism is not inherent in fundamental principles of those religions, it must be constructed through various historical events. This process is not as simple as it is in Islam. This is why it took a long period of strategy and planning by Hindutva proponents to build a popular base in India. Nevertheless, the ideology of a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu State) is so contrary to the concept of the multi-ethnic diversity in unity, an Indian brand of nationalism constructed by great personalities such as Rabindranath Tagore, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Jawaharlal Nehru and others during the struggle against the colonial rule, that even if Hindu nationalists succeed in future, it would certainly prove suicidal. Similarly, we observe the eagerness of Sikh extremists in championing Sikh nationalism. Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism is another such example. Historically, we can see that this kind nationalism, when blended with religious communalism, results in widespread and long-term divisive violence. Several such examples have emerged in our discussion before. Genocide, mass displacement, nation-wide terrorist destruction, and warfare are fall outs of such communal explosions.
The second point that I would like to make, is that fundamentalism rejects the traditional pluralism of that religion. This pluralist philosophy, rituals, and practices develop among followers over hundreds of years of religious practice in coexistence and harmony with people of different religions or different branches of the same religion. In the history of Islam, we have found various examples of such communal violence during the revival of fundamentalism. A repetition of these events is currently being seen in Bangladesh.[6] The rise of Sikh fundamentalism also refutes this type of pluralism. There, a process has been undertaken to convert sects influenced by Udasi, Sahajdhari, and Sanatan traditions—as well as Hindu-Sikh families—into the Khalsa panth. Similarly, current Hindutva proponents in India are attempting to destroy the traditional pluralism of Hindu rituals, beliefs, and ceremonies replacing with their singular brand of Hinduism.
The third and last point that I would like to make, is on the importance and role of religious institutions in the religious practice of followers of a religion, which affects the intensity and readiness of communal activities and reactions. It is easier for highly institutionalized religions to incite mass gatherings and riots, along with public support for communal issues. By highly institutionalized religions, I mean those religions whose followers’ social lives are intensely centered around places of worship such as Synagogue, Church, Mosque, Temple, Gurudwara, etc. Abrahamic religions are examples of this. It is also partially true for Buddhism and Sikhism. However, in that sense, traditional Hinduism cannot be called highly institutionalized. This is why "mob violence" or the participation of the common people in communal riots is much easier for these highly institutionalized religions than it is for others.
(Translated from a Bengali article written by the author with the help of Google Gemini.)
10/4/26
[1] See my previous blogs on ‘Communalism and Fundamentalism’ as parts of the broader theme on ‘Religion and Modernity’.
[2] An Arabic word, meaning community or nation or people.
[4] The plural term for the Arabic word ‘Mujahid’ meaning ‘a struggler or a striver’, that broadly refers to people who engage in Islamic Jihad or war against non-Muslims.
[5] According to the 1951 census, the Hindu population in the then Muslim-majority East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was approximately 22%. Due to social and state persecution of other religions in a Muslim-majority state, many Hindus were forced to leave the country for India. This trend continued even after Bangladesh emerged as an independent state. According to the 1991 census, Hindus were 15% of the population, but by the 2011 census, this figure dropped to 8.5%. Recently (2022 census), it has decreased further to 7.95%. - https://minorityrights.org/communities/hindus/
[6] Following the July 2024 movement, several incidents of attacks on the shrines (Mazars) of Sufi dervishes by agitated Sunni Muslim mobs have been occurring in Bangladesh. Similarly, the same classes of people are attacking various events demanding the closure of folk music (Baul) performances and fairs, as Sunni fundamentalists generally object to music.
