Summary

Communalism is an alarming situation within the secular space in India today. Interventions

from across the disciplines are needed seriously not only for understanding it but also solving the

problem. Social sciences have core responsibility to interrogate some of the fundamental aspects

of the issues like (a) what is communalism? (b) why and how did it emerged in Indian situation,

(c) what are the remedial aspects? (d) who are the prime custodians of “power” and “politics”

woven around the issue of communalism etc. Literary expressions on communal strife, specially

fiction, allows a contemplative space to take into account not only the immediate material

aspects of violence but also the subtle frames (political, historical, socio-psychological etc )

which cannot be described in reports and other documentary literature.

Indian fiction on communal violence gives us profound understanding of the issue through which

we realize that communal violence is the result of our failure of restoring peace and respect for

the other community at heart; tracing its roots and route to history or political matrix are solely

necessary exercises of describing and analyzing the problem. Solving the problem requires

healthy dialogue and conviction on the part of all forms of authorities. Cultural ideals of India do

not stand for the cultural realities of the present epoch. In order to attain a „nation‟-homogeneity,

we have sacrificed the very essence of India-heterogeneity. History of communal violence in

India documented the radical shifts from “spontaneous outbursts of riots” to “well-planned and

targeted pogroms”, from “religious” motivations to “communal” provocations, from „locating

space of communal violence within a socio-historical context‟ to „creating a space for communal

violence in the same‟ and from „blaming the colonial enemy‟ to „being the enemy‟. The concepts

like „religion‟ and „community‟ still stand very significantly in our day to day life, respectively
as maker of our spiritual being of the self and as structure of our society. Communalism is, that is

why, threat to the „self‟ and the „society‟.

„Communalism‟, in India context, is such a dynamic issue that scholars from various disciplines

have studied it from their respective disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives. There are

four pillars of communalism: (a) not accepting religious difference, (b) one/two nation theory,

(c) politics of majority-minority and (d) history and its manipulations. We have reasons to

believe that communalism started as disease or a problem but gradually it has become an

ideology. Communalism as an ideology distinguishes itself from „religious fanaticism‟ or

„religious violence‟, because in the former case one believes in exclusive existence of one‟s

community and in the latter one claims supremacy and absolutism of one‟s religion only.

Fanatics always act zealously whereas communalists act subtly as well as violently. In this

context, there are three potential attributes to communal ideology which causes riots: (1)

communal consciousness, (2) assertion of communal identity and (3) latent communal

atmosphere.

In our pursuits of understanding „communalism‟, we could see that the concept of secularism

play historic role in the making the communal tension in Indian. It is largely because the concept

of „secularism‟ is western and we have adopted it in order to encourage communal harmony. We

have directly applied a non-Indian theory without presuming its repercussions on the Indian

reality. The notion of secularism is „obscure‟ and „empty‟ because it is based on an arbitrary

distinction between what is religious and what is non-religious.

The first introductory chapter is entitled as Making Sense of Communalism in Indian Context

in which we have critiqued conceptual background to „nature of communalism‟ and „problems of

secularism‟, „polemics of communal identity‟, „communal consciousness‟ by studying various

historical and political nuances of the terms. etc. by giving examples from Indian history.

Besides, we have discussed the nature of „violence‟ and „communal violence‟ by juxtaposition of

„religious violence‟, „fanaticism‟, „riot‟, „pogrom‟ etc. The chapter also briefly introduces the

character of post 1970 Indian novels along with summarizing the five select novels: Tamas

(1972) by Bhishm Sahani, Curfew in the City (1988) by Vibhuti Narayan Rai, Lajja (1993) by

Taslima Nasreen, Riot (2001) by Shashi Tharoor and Partitions (2004) by Kamleshwar.

Second chapter with the title Communal Violence and Indian Novels: A Historical Survey

chapter is divided into three sub-sections: I) Communal violence and Literature: The Colonial

Character, II) Communal Violence and Indian Novel: Partition Colour and III) Communal

Violence and Indian Novels: Post 1970 Change. Reason for such segmentation is to trace and

examine how the nature of the relationship between communal violence and Indian novels

emerged, developed and changed historically. The chapter has focused on the change that has

taken place in the representation of communal violence.

Theorizing Space is the third chapter that delineates the theoretical aspects of the idea of space

in the various domains of knowledge. We have discussed Philosophical History of „Space‟,

Taxonomy of „Space‟, Representation and „Space‟, Fredrick Otto‟s Man and Space, Henri

Lefebvre‟s „Social Space‟, Communal Space, Fictional Space, „Space‟ as Category v/s „Space‟

as Perspective, Space and Literary Narratives etc. The chapter argues in detail how „space‟ as a

philosophical category can be a perspective in understanding the complexities of communalism,

fiction and their relation at the same time. More importantly, the chapter makes a very humble

attempt in suggesting relevance of Spatial Perspective to understand Communalism.

Fourth chapter named as Spatial Perspectives on Post 1970 Indian Novels on Communal Riots

reading of the select novels from a spatial perspective discussed in the previous chapter. We have

analyzed the select novels from spatial perspective/approach by keeping in mind the relationship

between social realism and fiction, between communalism and history, between communal

violence and its representation in fictional narratives. The spatial perspectives that we have

focused are: „Narrative Space‟, „Sacred Space‟, „Historical Spaces‟, „Heterotopia‟, „Political

Spaces‟, „Socio-Psychological Spaces‟ and „Curfew‟ as a „Controlling Space‟.

Finally, in the concluding chapter five, we have discussed the importance of spatial criticism of

literary narratives and how spatial framework is more comprehensive than other approaches. We

have also indicated future scope in the same field.