Where Are We Going? Perspective on Hindu–Muslim Relations in India

Abstract

The twin issues of making peace and building it over time, which are very much at the forefront of social concerns in contemporary India, remain a major source of worry and require a thoughtful understanding. The lack of effort that has been dedicated towards the development of a systematic understanding of the psychological dynamics underpinning intergroup hostility and violence between Hindus and Muslims in India is disappointing to say the least. While elaborate analyses and accounts of these intergroup dynamics have emerged from academic disciplines such as sociology, political science, economics and history (e.g. Basu, Datta, Sarkar, Sarkar, & Sen, 1993;Brass, 2003;Engineer, 1995;Lal, 2003b; Ludden, 2005;Pandey, 1991;Varshney, 2002;Wilkinson, 2004), psychological theory and research with some predictive validity have been slow to emerge (Ghosh & Kumar, 1991;Hutnik, 2004;Kakar, 1996;Nandy, 1990;Singh, 1989). This brings to the forefront a couple of basic queries: (a) how can the discipline of psychology contribute towards the current understanding of intergroup dynamics in India and (b) can psychological theory and research translate into knowledge and action to promote peaceful coexistence in applied contexts?The objective of this chapter is to address these two questions which comprise the core of our account. We will begin this endeavour by briefly reviewing theoretical and empirical paradigms that have been explored previously. These will then be juxtaposed against the historical, social and political contexts of Hindu-Muslim relations in India to elucidate those issues that have been adequately investigated, but most importantly, those issues that need further elaboration and inquiry. Before embarking upon this assessment, we will provide a brief outline of the historical, political and social contexts of Hindu-Muslim relations in India. We maintain that for analysing socially meaningful phenomena it is necessary to depart from the habitually close confines of psychology's argumentation and to include historical, cultural, social and political perspectives in analysis and theorising (Valsiner, 2001). Consequently, this chapter aims to gather insights from other disciplines and integrate them with psychological understanding in order to help augment the psychology of peace and conflict resolution. 43 C

Intersectional Consciousness in Collective Victim Beliefs: Perceived Intragroup Differences Among Disadvantaged Groups

“…From the perspective of collective victimhood research (for reviews, see Noor et al, ; Vollhardt, ) that has taken a single‐identity approach and assessed relations between groups (e.g., ethnic, religious, or national), our intersectional approach revealed that these beliefs were also relevant at a within‐group level. This is noteworthy because ongoing threat and victimization can make group members focus more on ingroup unity, and the political discourse in postindependence India has pitted one community against the other and homogenized single‐group social identities (Khan & Sen, ). Moreover, our findings suggest that comparisons between communities may not be the only or most meaningful focus of analysis—especially when intragroup differences are leveraged to polarize different intersections within a community.…”

“…Notably, it is not inevitable that people express intersectional consciousness about their group's collective experiences of victimization. Indian political discourse since independence has led to homogenization along caste and religious lines, for example, by reinforcing existing stereotypes (Khan & Sen, ). Further, conflict and external threat (e.g., by Hindu fundamentalists) can enhance social cohesion and perceived intragroup similarities that mobilize group members to participate in actions defending or strengthening the ingroup (Bar‐Tal, ; Wohl et al, ).…”

“…Ongoing violence may encourage greater ingroup cohesion, and political discourse in India has homogenized caste and religious identities, for example, by pitting groups (e.g., Hindu vs. Muslims) against each other (Khan & Sen, ). Nevertheless, our analysis revealed that participants did, indeed, express awareness of within‐group differences in collective victimization experiences, stemming from intersecting class and/or gender identities.…”

Interactional Justice-related Bias and Its Impact on Appraiser’s Decision-making Process: An Experimental Approach

“…Their share in the population varies considerably across states, ranging from close to zero to more than 60 percent in the only Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. Conflict between these two groups related to social, political, economic and religious issues are well documented in literature (Ghosh, Kumar, & Tripathi, 1992;Kakar, 1996Kakar, , 2000Kausar, 2006;Khan & Sen, 2009;Mishra, Akoijam, & Mishra, 2009;Mitra & Ray, 2014;Platow et al, 2013).…”

Lessons from the past for the future: The definition and mobilisation of Hindu nationhood by the Hindu nationalist movement of India

“…This lacuna is paralleled with a general lack of social and political psychological research addressing pertinent societal issues in India. For example, research into the culture-specific context and nature of ideology along the political spectrum in India does not exist, and with the exception of only very few studies, research into intergroup relations tends to be decontextualised (for an overview, see Khan & Sen, 2009). This signals significant scope for social and political psychology to make There are multiple avenues that lend themselves to social and political psychological research -the greater point being made here is that the discipline(s) is theoretically and methodologically equipped to make important contributions towards better understanding political, identity, and intergroup dynamics in India, insofar as it takes into account the context of these dynamics in calibrating its research questions.…”