The Indian nation was imagined as a plural society in which diverse ethnic, linguistic and religious communities would coexist within a secular democratic framework. Yet the persistence of ethnic conflict, communal violence and religious revivalism has repeatedly tested this vision. These phenomena are not survivals of a pre-modern past; sociologists increasingly argue that they are products of modernity itself, generated by competition over resources, recognition and power in a rapidly changing society.
Understanding ethnicity and ethnic conflict
Ethnicity refers to a sense of shared identity based on presumed common descent, language, territory or culture. Two broad theories contend over its nature. Primordialism, associated with Clifford Geertz, treats ethnic bonds as deep and given, rooted in the ties of blood and belonging. Instrumentalism, by contrast, sees ethnic identity as a resource mobilised by elites in pursuit of political and economic ends. Benedict Anderson's notion of the imagined community and the broader constructivist view hold that ethnic identities are historically produced rather than eternal.
In India, ethnic conflict has taken the form of linguistic movements, demands for statehood, sons-of-the-soil agitations against migrants, and insurgencies in the north-east and elsewhere. Paul Brass argued influentially that such conflicts are less the eruption of ancient hatreds than the outcome of elite competition, in which leaders instrumentalise identity to build constituencies. The tension between assimilationist and pluralist models of nation-building lies at the heart of these struggles.
Communalism
Communalism, in the Indian usage, denotes the belief that people of the same religion share common secular — political and economic — interests that conflict with those of another religion. Bipan Chandra distinguished stages of communal consciousness, moving from a mild sense of shared religious interest to the extreme conviction that different communities are irreconcilably hostile. He and other historians located the roots of communalism in the colonial period, in the divide-and-rule strategies of the British and in the uneven development that pitted communities against one another.
Sociologists such as T. K. Oommen and Dipankar Gupta stress that communalism is a modern ideology, not an expression of genuine religiosity. Communal riots, far from being spontaneous, are frequently organised; Paul Brass's idea of an institutionalised riot system describes the durable networks that produce violence at politically opportune moments. Ashis Nandy controversially distinguished faith, as a lived way of life, from ideology, arguing that it is the ideological use of religion in the service of the modern state that breeds intolerance.
Religious revivalism and fundamentalism
Religious revivalism refers to renewed assertions of religious identity in public life, often coupled with demands to organise society and polity around religious norms. It frequently accompanies rapid social change, offering certainty and community to those dislocated by urbanisation, migration and economic insecurity. Fundamentalism, in the sense elaborated by scholars of religion, involves a selective return to supposed foundational truths and a rejection of secular pluralism.
The politics of religious nationalism, or communalism organised at the scale of the nation, seeks to redefine belonging in religious terms and thereby to relegate minorities to second-class status. Revivalism among majority and minority communities alike can feed one another in a spiral, each mobilisation provoking a counter-mobilisation. The result is the erosion of the shared civic space on which democratic pluralism depends.
Toward coexistence
Secularism, in the distinctive Indian sense of principled state engagement with all religions rather than strict separation, was designed to manage this diversity. Rajeev Bhargava's idea of principled distance captures the state's attempt to intervene even-handedly. Sustaining pluralism requires more than constitutional guarantees; it depends on inclusive development, credible policing of riots, and a public culture that resists the instrumentalisation of identity.
How to use this in the exam
Keep the three concepts analytically distinct while showing their connections. Use the primordialism–instrumentalism debate and Paul Brass on elite mobilisation for ethnicity, Bipan Chandra and the colonial roots argument for communalism, and the institutionalised riot system to explain organised violence. Cite Nandy and Bhargava on secularism to add theoretical texture, and conclude by framing these conflicts as products of modernity and competition rather than of religion itself, which lifts the answer beyond description.