INTRODUCTION:

In everyday life we hear such narratives in which dishonor of religious sentiments, symbols and defiling of religious places are held responsible for communal tension and riots. Such narratives establish a straightforward causal relationship about the breaking out of communal violence or clashes. Narratives like it, could of course, be useful from the perspective of journalism but from the point of view of research such superficial generalization is of less importance. These factors, however, may be spontaneous or immediate causes for the manifestation of communal clashes.

The practice of holding these spontaneous and immediate stimulations responsible for communal clashes is unable to tell us why oftentimes communal violence/ clashes break out because of petty disputes even over secular issues. Apart from this, the most evident weakness of this causation theory of communal violence is that it takes religion as sole variable into consideration while explaining the occurrence of communal violence and left other factors that play their parts in the production of communal violence unexamined. If religion is sole factor behind breaking out of communal violence, peace and harmony would never have been prevailed in our society. Apart from this, to look at the issue of communalism as such does not has potential to explain why frequency, extent of communal clashes differ hugely from time to time. This narrow approach therefore limits our scope of study that ultimately leads us towards invalid generalization. A way out of this is to consider communalism as an ideological construction or consciousness. Doing so enables us to understand the issue of communalism in its totality. The scope of study automatically broadens as we take all the factors that are instrumental in the construction/ production of communal consciousness into consideration. Communalism as a consciousness/ ideology is a psychological construction and therefore the very process of this construction of communal consciousness should be at the center of any study on it. If this communal consciousness is embedded deep in the minds of people then even petty quarrel over secular issues like molestation, marriage, migration, land etc. would be translated into communal violence.

The conviction that different religious, ethnic groups of a particular society differ from each other with respect to their belief/ value system, tradition, rituals etc. therefore their respective interests too are mutually hostile accordingly, lies at the heart of communal consciousness. Different religious or ethnic groups are perceived by each other as rivals and threat to each other’s existence. Thus we can say that communalism is a distinct ideology that can be analyzed, contextualized and studied like any other ideology. It is pertinent to mention that communal consciousness and communal violence are two closely linked but distinct entities. Communal violence is a manifestation of communal consciousness; thus without communalism consciousness, communal violence barely takes place. In case any quarrel or dispute between two communities arises it could be resolve successfully without resorting clash or confrontation if and only if members of both communities do not look at dispute with communal perspective. Without communal consciousness, communal violence is impossible while there is always a strong possibility of flourishing communal consciousness without a single incident of communal violence. In spite of having developed communal consciousness in mass psyche, if no communal violence/ clashes break out then this state of mind would be the state of simmering/ boiling that could not be held for a long time. It needs catharsis to release its repressed consciousness. Putting it in other words, in such situation communal violence/ clashes may break out at any time.

Though various factors are involved in the construction/ production of communal consciousness in India, out of which ,in this piece of writing, just three most promising variables have been taken into consideration; the castization of politics, globalization and the mass media particularly Hindi films. It is by no means to say that only these factors are instrumental in the construction/ production of communal consciousness.

Castization of politics and the rise of communal consciousness:

During colonial period, political structure in India was founded on the basis of sharp division between the rulers and ruled. Sources of power and privilege were the symbols of feudalism like birth, dynasty, allegiance, property and so on. The common people had no political voices and they had mere one political identity and that was the identity of being subject of the British Crown. In both society and politics, power flowed from top to bottom. Here, it would be wrong to assume that in independent India, such feudal symbols of power and privilege lost its edge. However what is the most far reaching revolution that took place with the coming of Indian Independence was the question concerning with political “legitimacy”. During colonial period exercise of political power/ authority was not based on popular legitimacy, therefore there was no question of popular legitimacy. But this situation changed dramatically as the systemic revolution took place and independence was achieved. In this newly established system, “subjects” were elevated to the status of citizens of a sovereign country. Now in democratic India, the Indian polity was supposed to be based on popular participation, consent and support. The sources of power that were instrumental in the colonial era began to faint. The makers of Indian constitution adopted a parliamentary democracy with the “first-past-the-post” (FPTP) electoral system for Independent India and this parliamentary democracy was to run by the representatives elected by the citizens on the basis of universal suffrage. Recognition of universal suffrage and adoption of the “first-past-the-post” system transformed the entire socio-political landscape. Being a political power rested now upon the number of heads that someone/ group has. The renowned poet Allama Iqbal succinctly summed up this transformation as “Jamhooriyat wo Tarz-e-Hukumat hai ke jis mein bandon ko gina karte hain, tola nahin katre” (democracy is a form of government in which men are counted but not weighed). The constitution makers of India adopted secular institutions and structures of governance and this secular state was to interact with such a society in which consciousness of religion, caste, language, region etc. had embedded very deeply. Consequently, so many readily available identities were there for those individual or groups that were keen to acquire political power. Availability of identities of caste, language, region and religion opened up the door of opportunity to materialize mass mobilization and polarization on the basis of these identities.

After independence, India was to begin its journey with the same secular institutions and structures of governance that the colonial masters established. So many apprehensions were there, in fact such apprehensions were there even during colonial period whenever demand for political reforms was forwarded, about the sustainability of Indian political system that was to interact with relatively non-secular society. Such apprehensions have some points because values system of both the society and the state must be congruent else it puts a lot of strain on the entire socio-political system. The interaction between social and political system is two-way process but in a state that has adopted the first-past-the-post system, the governments barely take the risk of ignoring the urges, both rational and irrational, of society. Therefore in such social formation, the state can be seen to follow the will of those people who have power to decide the fate of governments. The way Indian people witnessed the horrific and tragic partition of subcontinent, it made them understand the consequence of poisonous blend of religion with politics. After independence the religion was perceived as main villain and a common consensus emerged regarding to make India a secular country. This psyche of India was instrumental in keeping religious political parties on the periphery of Indian politics and they remained on the same periphery until that common consensus bowed down to religious appeal.

As the wheel of history moved on, shift became inevitable in country’s socio-political, economic landscape. In the political history of independent India, the general election of 1967 is marked as the watershed in Indian politics because for the first time in independent India the Congress party faced defeat in several state assembly elections and India witnessed samvid sarkar (coalition governments formed by Samyukt Vidhayak Dal) in at least eight Indian provinces. These coalitions consisted of parties like the Jansangh, Socialist party, Swatantra party and other regional parties. At one level the formation of coalition governments signalled the rise of the lower castes who had benefited from land legislation but been denied the fruits of political power. In the north, these castes included the Jats in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the Kurmis and Koeris in Bihar, the Lodhs in Madhya Pradesh and the Yadavs in all these states. In the south, they included the Marathas in Maharashtra, the Vokkaligas in Mysore, the Vellalas in Madras and the Reddys and Kammas in Andhra Pradesh. In many areas despite of numerically significant they lacked access to state power (Guha, 2007). But this situation was to change soon.

The decades from 1960s to 1980s were the era of emergence of caste-based/ regional forces in Indian politics. The castes that remained on periphery of Indian politics for a long time now began to try very hard to elevate themselves to the center of Indian politics. However this process of emergence of marginalized castes was never without disruptions. It faced obstacles on its way that came in the form of Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 and the imposition of national emergency from 1975-77. Thanks to these phenomena a national consciousness emerged either in favour of the central government or against the central government and this national consciousness pushed the peripheral forces into background for a while. Religious forces too were not exception to it. The process of castization of politics, what Rajni Kothari preferred to call “politicization of caste”, resumed once again after the withdrawal of national emergency and by the end of 1980s this process of castization / regionalization of Indian politics completed. By the 1980s the regional and caste-based forces had been institutionalized well that manifested in the formation of coalition governments at both the levels, central and state.

The most far-reaching consequence of the rise of these castes and regional identities in Indian political landscape was the proportional decline of “the Congress system” which was once known as a secular umbrella political party that had assimilated several identities and ideologies within its fold. The traditional electorate components of the Congress, on which “the Congress system” rested, now succeeded in finding their own respective “messiah (as)” and began to organize themselves. The traditional vote bank of the Congress began to scatter. In parliamentary democracy with the first past the post system what is the most important is the politics of number game or vote bank. Therefore even the secular Congress too, leave aside communal parties for a while, was left with no other option than to resort the policy of religious appeasement aimed at to fortify or secure a vote bank. The cases of unlocking the Babri masjid (1986) and Shahbano case (1986) were nothing but a “balancing act” that signaled the changed political scenario of then India. Consequently, the wide gulf between the two distinct political streams of Indian politics, the secular and communalist, to a great extent started to obscure. Now both streams of Indian politics began to trust the same tactic keeping their political survival in view.

The 1980s was the decade of backward and lower castes since these forces had institutionalized by the end of the decade. This transformation could be seen in the implementation of the recommendations of Mandal commission by VP Singh government amid nationwide protest. The lower and backward castes had now become politically bold and they could not be ignored anymore. This castization of Indian politics, proved to be a setback to those communal forces that sought to mobilize and polarize people on the basis of religious identity. It was like a major hurdle on the way of those Hindu fundamentalists who were dreaming about a monolith, coherent Hindu nation by eliminating all the differences based on caste, creed, sect, ritual observation etc. that exist in Hindu religion. By keeping this inconvenience of Hindu fundamentalists in view regarding the rise of so many parochial consciousnesses it seems not any coincidence that in the same decade, the Hindu nationalism began to rise. The decade of 1980s was not only the decade of castization of politics rather it was the decade of the rise of Hindu nationalism also. This phenomenon of Indian politics was captured as “the politics of Mandal (named after BP Mandal who headed Mandal commission) and Kamandal (literally refers to a water-pot used by Hindu saints but in politics, a metaphor for Hindutva politics).The parallel emergence of the Hindu nationalism was meant to neutralize the charge of the castization of politics. The rise of Hindu nationalism could be interpreted as a calculated backlash of Hindu fundamentalism against the fortification of regional and caste-based forces in Indian politics. The emergence of Hindu nationalist movement of 1980s led by L.K. Advani was meant to hijack caste/ region based consciousnesses and to replace them with a pan-Hindu consciousness. Lancy Lobo summed up it as “The phenomenon of Hindu nationalism has, by and large, been interpreted in India as the resurgence of Brahminism. Brahminism is not strictly limited to Brahmins alone, but an attempt by the middle and upper castes to safeguard their privileges, perks, status, wealth and power, which was theirs in the traditional caste hierarchy”( Lobo, 2009).

The manoeuvre of the Hindu nationalism aimed first at encountering the castization of Indian politics and then absorbing these castes into its fold. But this encounter changed the very nature and contour of the Hindu nationalism. It made the Hindutva brigade realize of the numerical significance of lower and backward castes. This was the prime reason why the BJP, the political face of Hindutva, began to accommodate these numerically significant castes and started to play the caste card. The emergence of Narendra Modi, Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Sushil Kumar Modi, Keshav Prasad Mourya and so on, in Indian politics exemplifies this changing face of the Hindu nationalism. As such, The Hindu nationalism first encountered the castization of politics and ultimately replaced it with the “communalization of castes”. This “communalization of castes” helped the BJP to expand its vote base and to consolidate Hindu votes. Other political parties like the Congress could be seen trying very hard to dismantle BJP’s this hold on Hindu votes. This is why now, to achieve this aim, even the Congress is resorting to what the political pundits call “soft-Hindutva”.

Globalization and the making of communal consciousness in India:

Globalization has become a buzzword and also an engaging topic for academicians around the world. The process of globalization is said to have left hardly any domain of human life unaffected. Anthony Giddens defines globalization as “The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice-versa”(Giddens, 1991, p.64). The process of globalization is fuelled by the contemporary advancement in information technology and transportation. Although dynamics of time and geography still matter but the process of globalization is largely seen as a process of “time and space compression”. Simply put, world has shrunk, what Marshall McLuhan has called, into a “global village”. The process of globalization, as such, on the one hand is the process of rapid integration and interaction while on the other hand it has given birth to unmatched fragmentation, uncertainty, and instability. In other words, both the process of integration and fragmentation unfolds simultaneously.

Traditional cultures, value systems, structures, identities are being proved to be more vulnerable to the twin process of integration/ fragmentation that makes a human-being psychologically fractured, unstable and uncertain. Fundamental existential questions like who I am and what my identity is, are the most important questions which globalization poses to us. On the other hand due to the rapid process of integration; cultural homogenization, which several theorists have called McDonaldization, Americanization or Westernization, has become a universal phenomenon in which concern about the preservation of cultural uniqueness occupies central place. Human-being in such a globalized universe suffers from existential anxiety and stress. Now when human-being is suffering from this existential anxiety, what Jean Paul Sartre has succinctly summed up as “solitary man in a hostile universe”, he tends to be easily susceptible to the appeal of such collective consciousnesses/ identities which may assure him of providing refuge against the destabilizing forces of cultural homogenization. And in this context, religion and religious identity seems the most important among all other collective identities. This is the reason why globalization is making the whole world more religious─ and all religions more political. Even as they are drawing closer economically, people all over the world are becoming more self conscious of their religious and civilizational heritage (Nanda, 2009, p.2).

The identity vacuum created by globalization-borne existential anxiety is easily filled by invoking religious identity. Religious identity defines human existence; provides a meaning, order and stability to life. It is pertinent to mention here that independently religion or religious identity does not breed communal consciousness as analysts of Marxist orientation claim. The purpose for which religion or religious identity would be used is largely determined by the specific socio- political structure in which human-beings interact. Religion/ religious identity can be manipulated for the purpose of justifying extremism, fundamentalism, status-quo, exploitation, injustice and so on while on the other hand it could also be used for the emancipation from injustice and exploitation, as the liberation theology claims, establishing peace and harmony in society. So saying that religion always yields human misery is unfounded.

The process of globalization does not produce communal consciousness directly but it prepares such social, political, cultural and psychological grounds that allowed communal forces to sow the seeds of communal consciousness. The harms caused by globalization are deflected skillfully by politicians who portray these issues as being caused by “other” community (ies). It has become now a universal phenomenon. The loss of job opportunities, declining rate of remuneration, migration, absence of social safety net are all the notorious products of the process of liberalization, privation and globalization but everywhere and almost in every state of the world, these issues are projected as if these all were caused by “other” community or religious community. The cases of the Biharis in Maharastras, Kairana of UP, the Bengali Muslims in Assam are few among the examples that substantiate it. By holding the “other” community responsible for structural problems, the foundation of populism is laid that ultimately breeds demagogues like The Thackerays, Yogi Adityanath and other “hridaya-samrats” (king of hearts). The issues for which “other” community is held responsible are more or less deliberate consequences of the state and international financial institutions’ (IFIs) policies. Notorious by-products of globalization facilitate the right-wing political parties (as everywhere happens in this era of post-truth) to manipulate public consciousness and often divert it towards petty issues having communal charge like love jihad, ghar wapsi, gau raksha, mandir/ masjid, national/ anti-national, controversies over historical facts and so on. The withdrawal of the state from public spheres has contributed to strengthen the socio-political power of religion. Religion as a social power has always derived much of its strength from its ability partially to redress material-secular needs. Such an order reinforces particularist religious (and caste) loyalties. Hindu communalism has the material infrastructure of the RSS and its offshoots; orthodox Islam has its own infrastructure (Vanaik, 1997, pp. 53-54). What is to be emphasized here is that withdrawal of the state creates a sort of vacuum and this vacuum is filled by the philanthropic works of religious groups.

In Indian context religion and religious identity is used by power seeking populist politicians solely for political gain; it is resorted to deflect mass consciousness away from structural injustice and structural violence that exist in Indian society. Such deflection provide, however, immediate relief and pleasure to the followers of Indian right-wing demagogues, on the other hand it leaves them unaware of the very exploitative and unjust system which they themselves support. In exactly this sense Karl Marx has wrote “Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people” (Marx, 1992, p. 244).

The mass media and construction of communal consciousness:

At a time when we are witnessing an age which we can call the golden era of cultural politics, role of the media seems to be indispensable. This is an age of ‘hyper-reality’ in which the line between illusion and reality is increasingly getting blurred. Moreover, age-old cherished values, concepts and belief system are being redefined swiftly. The process of globalization is propelled, along with other factors, by information technology. Source of power lies now on control over the mass media because whatever we know about society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media (Luhmann, 2000, p.1). Whose concept of reality prevails is determined by who has control over the mass media. Thus in the age of information technology mastering world requires mastering over the mass media. It would not be exaggeration to say that mass media has become, in the age of globalization, a site of struggle among different groups.

Human actions are determined by his worldview, whereas his worldview is structured by his belief system and his belief system itself is shaped by his concept of reality. And in manufacturing of individual’s concept of reality the mass media plays decisive role. What kind of image or opinion about the socio-political milieu in which we live, do we have is largely determined by the way the mass media presents the concerned issues. To put it simply, what kind of opinion and perspective someone in India has on the issues of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan, Babri masjid/ Ram mandir, love jihad, ghar wapsi etc. would largely depend on the news papers, magazines, books he reads, the news channels he hears, the movies he watches. However, this is not to say that Individual is just a passive receptor and what the mass media shows him he accepts them unquestionably. Of course, we don’t simply accept what we see on TV or read in the newspapers or hear on the radio. As Hall notes, we ‘decode’ media text in different ways─ sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. Nonetheless, the power to decide what stories, ideas, tastes and values are offered to us via media communications is structured unequally in favour of some interests (the ruling one) rather than ones (the interests of the silent majority) (Laughey, 2007, p.55). The media does not operate in vacuum rather it is located in a larger social, political, cultural and economic system and no socio-political, cultural system can exist without its own urges. Therefore, to assume that media is just a neutral means of communication that always reflects reality naively would be wrong.

The role that the mass media plays in the context of construction of communal consciousness in India could be analyzed on at least two levels. First level is the relatively subtle level of construction of communal consciousness and another level is the level of production of distorted reality/fact when actual communal violence breaks out. Though both levels of analysis are important but the first can be said to have sown the possibility of another within it, therefore much emphasis would be given to the first level. The first level at which the mass media plays important role can be called subtle level because construction of communal consciousness is accomplished through a consistent and sustained reproduction of a specific issues in a particular way.

Since the ideology or consciousness of communalism like any other ideology is a psychological construction hence be it the issue of minority/ majority complex or feeling of hatred of one community towards another community, all these processes are shaped/ reshaped at the subtle level of individual consciousness. As I mentioned above that human actions are determined by his consciousness therefore riots and ethnic cleansing are nothing but externalization of this subtle communal consciousness. If communalism is a psychological construction then the nature of relationship between and among different communities would depend on the nature of image of other communities that these communities have in their minds. And this construction/ transplantation of image is the very point where the mass media i.e. newspapers, magazines, films, radio, books and so on play very promising role. In the lines to come we will deconstruct the ways how the mass media play its part in the construction/ production of communal consciousness.

Identities are always referential/ contextual in that identities are always forged in reference/context or contrast to any other identity. Identities are not a historical, given and innate, as the primordialist approach claims, rather one’s identity is consciously constructed. The first prerequisite of any kind of identity construction is the presence of two parties, the first one (individual/community) that constructs the identity and the another one, which identity is constructed. The entire process of identity construction, basically when it is based on hatred, is endeavored on the basis of binary opposites of ‘saintly Us’ versus ‘satanic Them’. Those who construct identity are saintly Us while whose identity is constructed is demonized and stigmatized as satanic Them. Identity of Us/ Them is constructed in such a way as tough identity was homogenous, essentialist, and fixed. However in reality every community, be it Hindu or Muslim, is full of diversities based on ritual/religious observation, sect, tradition, religious texts, cultures etc. The diversities and complexities that are found in every community left no scope for any homogenous, essentialist, coherent and fixed identity. Defining identity in terms of homogeneity is necessary because of two reasons. First it facilitates to impose/transplant a single identity over entire “Us” and make the internal heterogeneities of Hindu/Muslim community absence and second, which is corollary of the first, this in turn makes convenient to polarize the entire society into ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’, between Hindu and Muslim. The natural consequence of such polarization results in overwhelming majority for communal right-wing political parties like the BJP in India while on the other hand it leaves minority communities, literally because they lack numerical superiority, without or inadequate representation in legislature. This is why right-wing collectivities in India like the BJP, RSS and its affiliates trust heavily on the politics of polarization. The politics of polarization and its viability in acquiring state power has been substantiated (Bhattacharya, The Economics Times, 05 December, 2014) by numerous examples starting from the Advani’s Rath-Yatra to till today. It means that Identity construction in ideological framework of ‘saintly Us’ versus ‘satanic Them’ works. Now we look at how the media play its part in the construction/production of identity in such a way that the communal demagogues and parties consume it for their political mileage.

However, the mass media includes all the technologies that are intended to reach a large audience i.e. internet, newspapers, magazines, radio, social networking sites, films and so on. The function of identity construction/production, however, is performed by all the components of the mass media some way or the other but by keeping the factors of broadness and space, focus of our study will be confined to the Hindi films only. Fareed Kazmi by challenging the myth that cinema is pure kitsch and is only entertainment and fantasy-oriented, writes about conventional cinema (which is commonly understood as commercial cinema) that it “Draws its ‘raw material’ from the specific social milieu in which it is located. In other words, conventional cinema is politically and ideologically loaded”(Kazmi, 1999, p.16). What is relevant to explain the role of Hindi films in making of identity and therefore communal consciousness, is the analysis of the portrayals of Muslims in Hindi films. Hindi films frequently picturize Muslims negatively. Hindi films are often accused of linking Muslims with terrorism. However, to say that Muslims are portrayed in Hindi films as terrorists only would be, of course, unfounded but saying its exactly opposite is not without ground. If leave some exceptions, in mainstream films it is only Muslims that are portrayed as terrorist/traitor. Being terrorist, as these films convey, is being a man dressed in kurta-pyjama, with long beard, kohl in eyes, Arabian scarf on shoulder and reciting Arabic/Urdu words like assalam-wa-alaikum, insha-allah etc. In such portrayals what physical appearances are attributed to a terrorist are more or less the compulsory attributes of every devoted Muslim. The real effect of such portrayal in which portrayal of terrorist is overlapped with a devoted Muslim can be seen in stigmatization and victimization of devoted Muslims in everyday life. Such portrayal of Muslims is in line with the Hindutva discourse according to which, what Narendra Modi said in 2001 on Star TV, “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims” (Bharucha, 2014, p.94). Apart from the portrayal of Muslims as terrorist on the one hand, a parallel and contrasting portrayal of Muslims runs in Hindi movies in which other Muslim characters are seen as doing their best to save their country from “terrorist/traitor Muslim” or seen giving up their lives for nation. The image of good Muslim is erected in immediate contrast to bad Muslim (terrorist/ traitor Muslim). Roja (1992), Sarfarosh (1999), Lakshya (2004), Fanna (2006), A Wednesday (2008), Kurbaan (2009), Special 26 (2013), Phantom (2015), Baby (2015) are just few among those films therein Muslim characters have been slotted into the framework of good Muslim versus bad Muslim. The problem with this good/ patriotic Muslim and bad/ desh-drohi Muslim schema is that it fits perfectly into the Hindutva paradigm (Kazmi, 2004). Such portrayals of Muslims in Hindi films inject the stereotype image of Muslims into mass consciousness that is easily evoked by the communal forces in India. Such picturization of Muslims is not confined to the Hindi films only rather other media of mass communication too more or less do the same job. In Hindutva paradigm good Muslim is one who conforms to hegemonic, chauvinist manifesto or ideology of The RSS and its political wing, the BJP. Those Muslims who conform to the BJP and presently to Modi and his government, would be in category of A. P. J. Abdul Kalam and those who do not would be “Babar/ Aurangzeb ki aulad/ Pakistan-parast”. It is this schema of good/ bad through which communal consciousness is nurtured. The BJP, India, Modi, national, patriot and the Hindu have now crystallized as synonyms while being secular, anti-BJP/ Modi, Muslim, traitor and therefore anti-Hindu are more or less the same. Such polarized crystallization of communal consciousness makes it easy for communal forces to polarize Indian society on communal lines and to stifle the voices of the dissent.

CONCLUSION:

The process of the construction/ production of communal consciousness is very complex and subtle. It includes various stages, structures and actors. The seed of communal antagonism, hatred and violence is sown in the fertile land of communal consciousness. The making of communal consciousness or communalization of society is not easily noticed and also not observable. Its being not observable is the reason why relatively less energy is invested to curb the process of construction/ production of communal consciousness. Nevertheless a way-out may be that the state is entrusted with the duty to curb and regulate this process but much more complexities are added to it when the state apparatuses itself indulge in the production of communal consciousness and offer patronage to the producers of communal consciousness. It is not that the state lacks the adequate resources and infrastructure required to curb this process of construction of communal consciousness. It is not states’ inability rather it is unwillingness; unwillingness because doing so serves governments’ vested interests.

Construction/ production of communal consciousness is, in the age of information technology, a universal phenomenon. Despite of this fact, finding any uniform system of explanation is not only unreasonable but also almost impossible because there is much heterogeneity in regard to structures and institutions involved in this process and they differ from place to place. However, it not true of the process of globalization and the role of mass media for they are ubiquitous. The third independent variable that I took in this paper to explain communal consciousness is “castization of politics in India” and this variable is specific to India and unique of its kind.

It is socio-cultural arena through which the road to the political throne passes. This is exactly what Antonio Gramsci has emphasized in his analysis of “war of position”. According to Gramsci, the state (the Western for Gramsci) is shielded and protected by civil society, therefore direct confrontation with the state that aims at capturing state power is insufficient and often futile. He convincingly suggested the revolutionists to resort to a war that is fought on socio-cultural arena. Victory over this arena will surely result into control over political arena. This is exactly the reason why the Hindu fundamentalists in India invest much energy in bringing about a transformation in society. Making Indian masses more Hindu paves the way for making India a Hindu-rashtra. Golwalkar wrote about this contemplation of Hindu fundamentalist as “We aspire to become the radiating centre of all the age-old cherished ideals of our society ─ just as the indescribable power, which radiates through the sun. Then the political power which draws his life from that source of society, will have no other (goal) to reflect the same radiance” (M. S. Golwalkar in Jaffrelot, 1996, p.115).

In recent years we witnessed the revival and resurgence like never before of religious and ethnic identities in all sphere of social life. This phenomenon invalidates “the secularization thesis” according to which religion, religious beliefs, practices and institutions lose their social importance as modernization advances. It contends that secularization is inevitable consequence of industrialization and modernization. On the contrary what is really happening is exactly the opposite of the claim of secularization thesis. The collision of modernization with religious belief is provisioning unparalleled vitality to religious identities or beliefs. Religion seems to have prevailed over science and scientific teaching. The most obvious evidence of it could be seen in our obsession with finding science in religious scriptures and in obsession of every religion with proving their respective religion scientific.

REFERENCES:

Bharucha, Rustom. 2014. Terror and Performance. New York, the USA: Routledge.

Bhattacharya, D.P. “BJP Gains in Polls after every riot, says Yale Study”. The Economic Times, 05 December, 2014. Accessed on 23 November, 2017. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/bjp-gains-in-polls-after-every-riot-says-yale-study/articleshow/45378840.cms

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. The United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Guha, Ramchandra. 2007. India After Gandhi: The History of The World’s Largest Democracy. The United Kingdom: Pan Macmillan.

Jaffrelot, Christophe. 1996. The Hindu Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics 1925 to the 1990s. India: Thomson Press (India) Ltd.

Kazmi, Fareed. “Missing the Target”. Outlook, 02 September, 2004. Accessed 20 October, 2017. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/missing-the-target/224976

Kazmi, Fareed. 1999. The Politics of India’s Conventional Cinema: Imaging a Universe, Subverting a Multiverse. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Laughey, Dan. 2007. Key Themes in Media Theory. England: Open University Press.

Lobo, Lancy. 2009. “Religious Fundamentalism- A Challenge to Democracy in India.” Social Action, Vol.59 (April- June): 143-158.

Luhmann, Niklas. 2000. The Reality of The Mass Media. The United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Marx, Karl. 1992. “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”. In Karl Marx: Early Writings, Translated by Rodney Livingstone and Gregor Benton. London, The United Kingdom: Penguin Books Ltd.

Nanda, Meera. 2009. The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu. India: Random House Publishers India Private Limited.

Vanaik, Achin.1997. The Furies of Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity and Secularization. The United Kingdom: Verso.

Received on 01.01.2018 Modified on 03.02.2018

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2018; 9(1): 269-276.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2018.00049.9