1. 1
PART I
1. INTRODUCTION
―Religion‖ and ―Crime‖ are both highly vague and argumentative terms. It would
be really hard to assign a specific definition to these polysemous words as it varies
from person to person. However, though distinct from each other these two terms may
be, they are somewhere interlinked together becoming a prime reason to set off the
harmony among people in the present times.
Religion is a matter of faith, personal beliefs and experiences according to
one‘s own culture and social upbringing. The exact definition for this volatile term is
hard to find. It is this variable aspect of the meaning of term ―Religion‖ that causes a
lot of conflict of interest in its name. Though none of the religions of the world ever
intended to divide people from one another and to create disharmony among them,
inadvertently it has become an inevitable pretext for the miscreants to commit most
heinous crimes against humanity. On the other hand, a crime, considered as a legal
category, is an act punishable by the state. For conduct to be considered criminal in
this legal sense, it must be something more than the violation of group morality or
custom. A person's conduct may deviate from some social norm and be regarded as
eccentric, bad manners, highly improper, or even downright immoral, but it cannot be
criminal conducive to the legal aspects unless it is also a deviation from the criminal
code established and enforced by the state.
To better understand the past, present, and future role of religion in addressing
matters related to crime, delinquency, offender treatment, rehabilitation programs, and
even the transition of prisoners back to society, this research oeuvre examines the
relevant literature readily available in order to assess the possible benefit or harm that
religious influences may bring to bear on criminal justice. In addition, it summarize
the current state of the social knowledge regarding the relationship between religion
and crime and also discuss how religion, faith-based groups, and religious institutions
may play a more central and salutary role in improving the effectiveness of the
criminal justice system.

2. 2
Religious adherents, be it any, no doubt find that their actions in life are
influenced by their respective religious beliefs. The association between religion and
violence is long-standing. Many religious wars have a political and cultural
component. Often it is not just two groups of people fighting over religion, but, one
culture fighting another. Some defend religion in general by saying that societal
divisions are the main factor in such conflicts. However, such divisions are
themselves worsened by the adhering to religious identities. Religion is not only just
another way of separating them, but, it is often intrinsic to the religion that non-
believers are less moral or less worthy. It seems that religious texts actively promote
sectarianism, and, given that this is the case, even where cultural factors play a role in
mass violence it seems that religion often makes it worse and is sometimes the cause
of the conflict in the first place.
Research Problem
India is a hetero–religious state and has a diverse cultural and religious history
that has been deeply imbibed in the very conscience of majority of its people.
Religion is often referred to as a guiding and driving force of the masses and since
this term is interpreted erratically, there arise disputes and conflicts of interest which
ultimately result into violence and various acts of crime. Crimes associated with
religion in India include a variety of criminal acts which include the acts of violence
by adherents of one religion against another.
India, in spite being a ―Secular‖ state and having a ―religiously tolerant‖
Constitution, has witnessed in the past and still continues to see a broad religious
representation in various aspects of society including its government among others. In
summary, inter alia, there is an eminent need to understand how a religion contributes
to the commission of crimes and what should be done in order to curb it down.
This research, due to paucity of time is focused to study the Communal Violence
occurrences, more particularly of those which happened post-independence in India.
This study is the analysis and evaluation of the past events, the measures and
investigative efforts and its present impact on the society. This study is also a

3. 3
consideration to new aspects which could be helpful in undermining the re-
occurrences of such events.
Methodology
The primary research method for this study is literature review. The researcher has
referred to a vast variety of previously available data germane to the topic. This
research work is of empirical nature.
1.1 Religion within Criminology
Contemporary research on the religion-crime relationship is often traced to Travis
Hirschi and Rodney Starks's (1969) important study entitled Hellfire and
Delinquency. Their primary finding was that religious commitment among youth was
not related to measures of delinquency. To their surprise, the study created quite a stir
in the academic community, and became the subject of considerable debate and
speculation. The "hellfire" study, as it was referred to by some, became the catalyst
for new research on religion and crime, and a number of scholars sought to quickly
replicate the study. After a series of studies over a decade or so, the question of
whether religion helped reduce delinquency among youth was still very much in
question. However in India, the study related to the religion-crime relationship is still
in its primacy and since it is super sensitive subject not much data is available easily
within the spheres of society.
1.2 Religious Violence In India
Communal violence in India includes acts of violence by followers of one
religious group against followers and institutions of another religious group, often in
the form of rioting. Religious violence in India, especially in recent times, has
generally involved Hindus and Muslims, although incidents of violence have also
involved Christians, Jews, and Sikhs. There is also history of Muslim – Parsee riots.
Despite the secular and religiously tolerant constitution of India, broad
religious representation in various aspects of society including the government, the

4. 4
active role played by autonomous bodies such as National Human Rights Commission
of India and National Commission for Minorities, and the ground-level work being
out by Non-governmental organisations, sporadic and sometimes serious acts of
religious violence tend to occur as the root causes of religious violence often run deep
in history, religious activities, and politics of India.
Along with domestic organisations, international human rights organisations
such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch publish reports on acts of
religious violence in India. During 2005 to 2009, an average of 130 people died every
year from communal violence, or about 0.01 deaths per 100,000 population. The state
of Maharashtra reported the highest total number of religious violence related
fatalities over that 5-year period, while Madhya Pradesh experienced the highest
fatality rate per year per 100,000 population between 2005 and 2009.1
Over 2012, a
total of 97 people died across India from various riots related to religious violence.2
According to Karl Marx, religion is one of those social institutions which are
dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no
independent history but is instead the creature of productive forces. Marx‘s most
famous statement about religion comes from a critique of Hegel‘s Philosophy of Law:
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of
the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is
the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The
abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the
illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition,
which needs illusions.” (Marxists Internet Archive)
1
PRS Legislative Research : Vital Stats Communal Violence in India, Rohit Kumar (2011)
2
Bharti Jain, Government releases data of riot victims identifying religion, The Times of India (24
September 2013)

5. 5
This is often misunderstood, because the full passage is not used. The quote is
presented dishonestly by most people as 'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed
creature...' leaving out the 'heart of a heartless world.' This is more a critique of
society that has become heartless and is even a partial validation of religion that it
tries to become its heart. In spite of his dislike towards religion, Marx did not make
religion the primary enemy of his work and thoughts; if he had regarded religion as a
more serious enemy than would have devoted more time on it. In the above quotation
Marx is saying that religion‘s purpose is to create illusory fantasies for the poor.
Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion
tells them that this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life.
Although this is a criticism of religion, Marx is not without sympathy: people are in
distress and religion provides solace, just as people who are physically injured receive
relief from opiate-based drugs.3
Current times are witnessing violence of severe nature all around in which
religion is projected one of the reasons. It is also projected as a clash between people
of two religions and that people belonging to a particular religion are violent due to
their faith, also that some violence is a retaliatory violence to check the activities of
others who are out to convert the gullible people by luring them.
In India one has seen the intensification of violence in the name of religion
more so from last two decades. After Babri demolition a wave of violence rocked the
nation. In 1998, a Pastor working amongst leprosy patients was burnt alive along with
his two innocent sons. Anti-Christian violence has been the marker of our times. The
burning of Sabramati express in Godhra followed by the massive anti-Muslim
violence, the genocide, was another blot on the national life. The 9/11 events, resulted
in the death of close to three thousand people of all religions. Along with this came
the thesis that current time is the one of clash of civilizations, the backward Islamic
civilization is out to destroy the advanced Western civilization. One can see the
underlining element of the attempt to relate the violence and religion in some form or
the other.
3
Marx‘s Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843)

6. 6
Along with this came the misunderstanding about other religions. This
misunderstanding has assumed mammoth proportions today and it provides the base
for the violence and the policy of aggressions/acts of violence and terror. There is a
clear need to understand the difference between religion and politics, there is a need
to understand the rise of violence from these misconceptions.
Most of the religions came as a set of moral values to guide the people to
cultivate the feelings of love for mankind. There began a process of
institutionalization of religions to ensure that these values are sustained and
percolated to the broad layers of people. At the same time the emphasis on rituals
began to be heavier while the focus and emphasis on moral values took a back seat.
There have been numerous attempts to ensure that the basic unity between people of
different religions is sustained though the efforts of saints and others who preached
the values of humanism in right earnest. Today the vested interests have launched the
efforts to suppress the weaker section of society and weaker nations for the sake of
their material interests. As these attempts are undertaken in the name of religion a
feeling of alienation amongst people overtakes the real spirit of religion.
Here at home those associated with RSS and politics in the name of Hindutva
have been spreading the hate amongst different communities. The result is there for
all to see. This hate has been spread against Muslims and Christians both. Muslims
have been projected to be fanatics, aggressors, having more wives, converting through
sword and being more loyal to Pakistan. This has resulted in a broad social common
sense which sees Muslims as the ‗other‘, their demonization, the consequent violence
at different places even on the smallest of pretexts, the fear and insecurity leading to
their ghettoization. At global level the US has been resorting to War against terror
which is a ploy to attack the areas in oil rich countries and to create a global
Islamophobia. Worldwide this hate against Muslims is on the rise. In India the
problem is worst confounded as the US goals worldwide and RSS goals at home
match and worsen the problem. In many a Muslim majority countries similar
processes are going on against the other religious minorities. According to Ram
Puniyani,

7. 7
“In India even the tiny minority of Christians has been accused of
conversions through allurement and fraud. As a matter of fact the
population of Christians is declining from last four decades (1971-
2.60%, 1981-2.44%, 1991-2.32% and 2001-2.30 %), despite that a
sustained scattered attacks on Christina missionaries is on the rise.
Similarly the myths against Muslim minorities have no truth but
have captured the minds of people, the destruction of holy places
done by kings in the past for the sake of power and wealth is being
presented as the insult of faith, the conversions in the past are
being presented as due to coercion, the demographic profile which
is due to social factors is being shown to be due to religion, the
loyalty to other nations is a mere propaganda meant to suit their
political goals, and that all Muslims are terrorists also does not
hold any water as neither is terrorism due to religion nor all
terrorists belong to Muslims. (LTTE, ULFA, Khalistainis, Irish
Republican Army and so on)”4
(Puniyani, Contemporary Times-
Role of Religions, 2007)
The responsible people of different faiths do realize that this is not in tune with
the spirit of their religion. They are watching helplessly this whole process of
demonization of certain religious communities and the social rifts being created due to
that. Faith in the values of humanism is paramount in the values of religion. This
current scenario is pushing back the aspirations of poor people and so it is needed that
the situation is overcome for the sake of better world, for the sake of peace and amity.
While the political forces bent upon creating this mayhem are very powerful and
almighty, have control over resources of different types and on media, the people with
genuine faith in human values need to come forward to ensure that this dark phase of
human history is overcome in the spirit of dialogue. The need for inter community
relations and dialogue was never needed more than at present times.
The isolation due to this political process is not only creating emotional walls
amongst different communities, it is also resulting in the retardation of social
4
Contemporary Times-Role of Religions: Ram Puniyani (2007)

8. 8
development. The kernel of present efforts for peace lies in the process of building
bridges amongst communities and that process can be started only by a genuine
dialogue amongst people of different faiths, by coming close to each other by
abolishing the artificial boundaries created by the politics of hate being practiced by
various forces, globally and locally.
These dialogues amongst different religious communities are needed at all the
levels, starting from the basti, mohalla to the leadership of religions, scholars of
religions, the activists engaged in dispelling hate from the society, and those working
for human rights, all of them need to be involved in this process of dialogue. The
present impasse which is presenting religions as the separating points need to be
overcome and the understanding that religious differences and plural ways of life are
a strength not an obstacle to peace. The dialogue amongst religions needs to be
supplemented by the cooperation in the field of social work to alleviate the pain and
misery of the mankind, there is a need to encourage and coordinate in the field of
struggles for the human rights of deprived sections of society. We aspire for peace
and we remind ourselves that the peace desired by us cannot be achieved without
justice for the people. Justice is a mandatory prerequisite for peace. The spirit of
service to mankind has to prevail over the current assault on the basic human values
in the name of religion.
1.3 Religion and Crime: An Updated State of the Field
This study reports a comprehensive assessment of the religion-crime literature
to date by reviewing a variety of studies published and available for research. The
results of this current review confirm that the vast majority of the studies report pro-
social effects of religion and religious involvement on various measures of crime and
delinquency. Approximately 90 per cent of the studies find an inverse or beneficial
relationship between religion and some measure of crime or delinquency. Only 9 per
cent of the studies found no association or reported mixed findings, whereas almost a
per cent of studies found that religion was positively associated with a harmful
outcome.
***

9. 9
2. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS CRIMES IN INDIA
Religious influence in the commission of crimes more specifically violent
ones are quite prominent in Indian history. One will have to go back several centuries
to speculate the origins of religious violence but it will be impossible as well as
pointless to establish the same. The Buddhist king Ashoka (304-232 BCE) is said to
have ordered killings of 18,000 Jains after someone drew a picture of Buddha bowing
at the feet of Mahavira.5
Three major world religions have their roots in India: Hinduism, Buddhism
and Sikhism. Buddhism and Sikhism both grew from Hinduism. All three share the
idea of non-violence (ahimsa). The term 'Non-Violence' was actually coined in
English (about 1920) by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) as a direct
translation of ‗ahimsa‘, 'avoiding harm to others'.
The idea of non-violence was very important to Mahatma Gandhi‘s thinking
and actions as a Hindu leader during India's approach to independence in 1947. He
wrote in his Quit India Speech (1942):
„I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good
is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent‟ (Abhi Sharma,
2013)
However, Gandhi‘s views but obviously were of personal nature and had good
intention in its reasoning of 'Non-Violence', today is has shaped up just as a mere
ideology less practicality. People follow religion through their faith and faith is
something which has no requisite of evidence. Having said that, when challenging
Gandhi‘s view of ―Non-Violence‖ many of the anti-Gandhi people embrace a stance
citing lord Krishna‘s explanation to Arjuna justifying the killing of his own kinsmen
under the pretext of greater good and morality (Dharma). Nevertheless, it implies that
religion though it requires a lot of study and analysis to be interpreted in an accurate
way is actually vulnerable to the manipulation based on the faith of the people.
5
James Jones (14 March 2008), Blood That Cries Out From the Earth : The Psychology of Religious
Terrorism: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism, Oxford University Press, p. 82

10. 10
2.1 Religious Stances on Violence & Non Violence (Ahimsa) & Holy Warriors
Religious beliefs are often complicated; individuals and groups within each
religion often have different views; and religious affiliation is often closely associated
with partisan emotions.
i. Hinduism
Hinduism is perhaps the oldest world religion; in some of its writings ahimsa
has been considered the highest duty from the beginning of time. Jainism also grew
out of Hinduism; Jainists believe that people should strive to become detached from
the distractions of worldly existence; and that the practice of ahimsa is an essential
step on the way to personal salvation.
In Hinduism, however, there is another tradition. The Hindu scripture called
the 'Bhagavad Gita' tells the story of Arjuna, who learns it is his duty to fight as a
member of the soldier caste. Arjuna is told by his chariot driver Krishna, who is really
the god Vishnu in human form, that:
‗Even without you, all the soldiers standing armed for battle will
not stay alive. Their death is foreordained.‟6
In the story, Arjuna overcomes his doubts and fights, even though he knows it means
killing some of his own family. Strict rules, however, are laid down for war: cavalry
may only go into action against cavalry, infantry against infantry and so on. The
wounded, runaways, and all civilians are to be respected. The idea of a Just War is
represented here.
How did Gandhi deal with this story in a scripture he loved? He thought of it
as an allegory, and interpreted it as meaning that one should certainly engage in
6
Bhagavad Gita Ch. 11:32-3

11. 11
struggle, but only by means of non-violence. Certainly one should not kill anyone.
However, not all Hindus interpret the story in Gandhi‘s way.
ii. Buddhism
―Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is
appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.‖7
Buddhism developed from the teaching of Siddhartha Gautama, called the
Buddha (c.563 - 483 BC), who believed that human suffering could be overcome by
following a particular way of life. The first precept of Buddhism is 'non-harming'
(ahimsa): Buddhists reject violence. Buddhism is clearly pacifist in its teaching, and
many Buddhists say quite bluntly that it is ‗better to be killed than to kill‘. Some
Buddhists have been very active in promoting peace, particularly during the Vietnam
War (1961- 1975), when they offered a 'Third Way' of reconciliation between the
American and Communist armies. Some Buddhist monks burned themselves to death
in self-sacrificing protest against the war.
Buddhism perhaps has the best record of all religions for non-violence.
However, Buddhists in Sri Lanka have been criticised for oppressing the Tamil
minority there (Tamils are a mostly Hindu people whose origins are in southern
India).
Buddhism, like all religions, seeks to be ethical. Confucianism and Taoism,
which both developed in China, also share similar principles with Buddhism. For
example, they seek to adjust human life to the inner harmony of nature
(Confucianism) and emphasise mediation and non-violence as means to the higher life
(Taoism). The founders of these religions, Confucius and Lao-Tze, lived in the same
period as Buddha, the 6th century BC.
7
Dhammapada : Ch. 1, Verse 5

12. 12
iii. Sikhism
Guru Nanak (1469-1534), the first Sikh Guru (a guru is a spiritual teacher, a
revered instructor) wrote this hymn:
‗No one is my enemy
No one is a foreigner
With all I am at peace
God within us renders us
Incapable of hate and prejudice.‘
He too emphasised the importance of non-violence and the equality of all humans
whatever their religion (he was particularly concerned to reconcile Hinduism and
Islam). But this pacifist emphasis changed as persecution against the Sikhs developed.
The sixth Guru said:
‗In the Guru‘s house, religion and worldly enjoyment should be
combined - the cooking pot to feed the poor and needy and the
sword to hit oppressors.‘
The tenth and last Guru, Guru Gobind Singh (1666-1708) was a general as well as a
Guru. In order to strengthen the courage and military discipline of the Sikhs at a time
of great persecution, he organised the Khalsa - the Sikh brotherhood. Guru Gobind
Singh expressed the idea of 'Just War' as follows:
„When all efforts to restore peace prove
Useless and no words avail,
Lawful is the flash of steel,
It is right to draw the sword.‘
But the idea of 'Holy War' is not found in Sikhism. A central teaching of Sikhism is
respect for people of all faiths.

13. 13
Three world religions with their roots in the Middle East adopted, at some
stages of their history, the idea of a 'Holy War', as well as that of a 'Just War'.
iv. Judaism
“They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears
into pruning hooks: instruments of war shall be no more used, but
shall be turned into instruments of husbandry, much more
advantageous and useful to mankind. Nation shall not lift up sword
against nation; neither shall they learn war anymore”8
(Bible
Hub).
Peace is the central teaching of rabbinical Judaism (teachings based on the writings of
early Jewish scholars). However, Judaism is not a pacifist religion. The idea of Holy
War occurs in the Hebrew Bible, but it was not about making others Jewish, but about
survival.
The idea of 'Just War' is clearly expressed both in the Old Testament and in
the later rabbinical tradition. So while revenge and unprovoked aggression are
condemned, self-defence is justified. Jews have been victims of dreadful persecution,
usually at the hands of Christians, for nearly two thousand years, culminating in the
Holocaust during the Second World War (1939-1945). On the other hand, defending
modern Israel and dealing justly with the Palestinians places thoughtful Jews in
difficult dilemmas.
v. Christianity
Christianity, during its 2,000 year history, has taken up all three positions on
war: Pacifism, Just War and Crusade or Holy War. Jesus‘ teachings in the Sermon on
the Mount (The New Testament: Matthew 5 - 7) are very clearly non-violent: for
example, ‗blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God‘
(Matthew 5:9) and ‗love your enemies‘ (Matthew 5:44).
8
The Old Testament: Isaiah 2:4

14. 14
Pacifism was the teaching and practice of the Christian Church until the
Roman Emperor Constantine (274-337) made Christianity the official religion of the
Empire. Pacifism then largely gave way to the development of the 'Just War' doctrine.
Politics and religion were able to endorse each other in going to war.
In the middle Ages the Crusades were fought mainly to recover the Holy Land
(the area between the Mediterranean and the river Jordan) from Muslim rule. Today
most Christians would be ashamed of the terrible cruelty and injustice to which the
Crusades gave rise. Most Christians would also be ashamed of the later persecution of
heretics (people who did not accept the official teachings of the Christian church) and
non-Christians (such as Jews).
The majority of present-day Christians supports the idea that war is regrettable
but unavoidable and should be fought according to 'Just War' rules. Pacifism is a
minority position held by some Christians in the larger denominations (Roman
Catholic, Church of England, Methodist, etc.). The Quakers, Mennonites, Amish and
Hutterites together make up the historical 'peace churches', with a long tradition of
pacifist belief and action.
The question remains: which position on war is the most faithful to the
teaching of Jesus, who advised his followers to ‗turn the other cheek‘ and who, when
arrested, forbade a disciple to use a sword?
vi. Islam
'Islam' means 'submission' or 'surrender' to the will of God (Allah). Its founder
was the prophet Mohammed (c.570-632), who recorded his understanding of the word
of Allah in the Islamic sacred book, the Qur'an.
Islamic teaching is often misunderstood in the West, particularly on the matter
of Jihad. What does Jihad mean? One scholar wrote: 'Jihad means to ‗strive‘ or
‗struggle‘ in the way of God.' Jihad has two further meanings: (1) the duty of all
Muslims, as individuals and as a community, to exert themselves to realize Allah‘s

15. 15
will, to lead good lives, and to extend the Islamic community through such things as
preaching and education and (2) 'Holy War' for, or in defense of Islam.
In the West Jihad has retained only the meaning of 'Holy War'. However, it is more
correct to say that there are four different kinds of Jihad:
 Personal spiritual and moral struggle in order to overcome self-centeredness
and follow the teachings of the Qur‘an;
 Calm preaching and
 Righteous behavior that witness to the unbeliever about the
way of Islam; and
 War against those who oppress or persecute believers.
All faithful Muslims are thus involved in a continuous 'greater jihad' which is
largely non-violent. 'The lesser jihad', war, is commanded by Allah but must be
carried out according to strict rules. There is a sense in which the lesser jihad is both
'Holy War' and 'Just War'. But it is not about making others Muslim, although some
Muslims believe it is. The Qur‘an says: ‗There shall be no compulsion in religion‘.
One Muslim became widely known for his practice of non-violence. Abdul
Gaffar Khan, a member of the often warlike Pathans on the north-west frontier of
India, adopted Gandhi‘s ideas in leading his people to independence with the
establishment of Pakistan. He became known as ‗the Frontier Gandhi‘. Like Gandhi,
he was often imprisoned.
In recent times religion has played a decreasing role in many societies,
particularly in the West. Many people have consciously rejected the notion of a
spiritual and sacred religion or god. This does not necessarily mean the rejection of
ethical principles. Some people have developed a philosophy of ‗humanism‘. This is
based on humanitarian ideals, such as individual responsibility for one‘s actions,
respect for others, co-operating for the common good, and sharing resources.

16. 16
Some humanists would accept the ‗Golden Rule‘, a term first used by
Confucius: 'Do as you would be done by', or 'Treat others as you would wish them to
treat you‘. Some see the natural or logical conclusion of such a principle to be the
rejection of all war and violence. Others, who have reservations about pacifism, argue
for 'Just War' rules similar to those based on religious law.
There are four main ways in which religious texts have been used to comment
on war and the use of violence for mass killing:
 Evangelical war
This is the war when one state (or one religious group within a state) decides
that its neighbours should either convert to its religion peacefully or be punished with
conquest or death for remaining loyal to another faith.
 Wars of conquest: glory of the state is the glory of God
This is the war where the state authorities, often backed by the hierarchy of the
dominant religion, see the destiny of the state as ordained by God and are willing to
perpetrate wars of conquest in order to advance state power, because gains in state
power and military victories are seen as a reflection of the glory of God.
 Just War: God permits violence for self-defense
This is the belief that some wars, at least, are right because they are perceived
to be in the interests of justice - and should therefore be fought according to just rules.
 Wars of retaliation: God is vengeful
Belief in 'Holy War': the God of a religion is perceived to ask, or command, its
followers to make war on those who have committed some offence against the
religion. These four categories really depend in the main on the idea that in some
circumstances, God and religion justify war. This is the ‗just war‘ doctrine.

17. 17
The notion of ‗just war‘ is based on the violence-of-God tradition, attempting
to solidify the relationship between God and war. However, any arguments regarding
divine war are built upon understandings of divine justice. Analysing the concept of
‗just war‘, Richard Kirby contends that ‗it is not that the variable attributes of the war
which are problematic; it‘s the elasticity of the concept of justice‘.9
Subsequently,
justice, too, can be described as a spectrum of extremes, from vengeful to
compassionate. Is God‘s justice punitive, retributive, distributive and/or restorative?
Divine warfare or divine violence is founded upon retributive justice, or, in
other words, vengeance. Crossan poignantly asserts: ‗if we await a divine slaughter of
those who are not Jews or those who are not Christians, then we are the killer children
of a killer God. It is a question, once again, of character. Is your God a God of justice
or of revenge?‘ Scriptures act as constitutive texts that portray the constitutive nature
of one‘s God. Islamic teaching on war and just war is not too different in its
philosophical roots from that of the Christian tradition, in that it provides for self-
defence.
‗Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but aggress
not. God loves not aggressors. And slay them wherever you come
upon them‘ (Surat Al-Baqarah 2:190).
‗To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight]
because they are wronged; and verily, God is most powerful for
their aid‘ (Surat Al-Ĥaj 22:39)
The Islamic tradition provides for limits on the use of force in war similar to those
found in the Christian tradition: ‗Never transgress limits, or take your enemy by
surprise or perfidy, or inflict atrocities or mutilation, or kill infants‘; and ‗Never kill a
woman, a weak infant, or a debilitated old person; nor burn palms, uproot trees, or
pull down houses‘. The Quran also provides for the humane treatment of prisoners of
9
Richard Kirby, ‗Is God At War?‘, World Network of Religious Futurists, 23 March 2015, [Online]
Available at: http://www.wnrf.org/cms/war.shtml

18. 18
war: ‗And they feed, for the love of God, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive‘
(Surat Al-'Insān 76: 8-9).
According to many interpretations though, the Quran does appear to command
evangelical war – that is, war to convert non-Muslims to the faith. The text often cited
from the Quran is Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or the last day....
until they pay the jizya from their hand (Surat At-Tawbah 9:29-30). The concept of
jihad in Islamic tradition has often been seen, incorrectly, as embodying this idea of
evangelical war: a war against non-Muslims simply because they do not confess
Islam.
2.2 Religious Violence and Modern India.
Large-scale religious violence and riots have periodically occurred in India
since its independence from British colonial rule. In the riots which preceded the
partition in the Punjab region alone, between 200,000 to 500,000 people were killed
in the retributive genocide.10
Since then India has seen many heart churning instances
of religious violence in the form of riots of which few are studied in this research as
below:
i. Gujarat communal riots (1969)
The 1969 Gujarat riots refer to the communal violence between Hindus and
Muslims during September–October 1969, in Gujarat, India. The violence was
Gujarat's first major riot that involved massacre, arson and looting on a large scale. It
was the most deadly Hindu-Muslim violence since the 1947 partition of India, and
remained such until the 1989 Bhagalpur violence. According to the official figures,
660 people were killed, 1074 people were injured and over 48,000 lost their property.
Unofficial reports claim as high as 2000 deaths. (Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia,
2015)
10
Paul R. Brass (2003). "The partition of India and retributive genocide in the Punjab, 1946–47:
means, methods, and purposes". Journal of Genocide Research. (2003), 5(1), 71–101 p. 75

19. 19
"There are many religions as there are individuals; but
those who are conscious of the spirit of nationality do not interfere
with one another‟s religion. If Hindus believe that India should be
peopled only by Hindus, they are living in a dreamland. The
Hindus, the Mahomedans, the Parsees and the Christians who
have made their country are fellow countrymen and they will have
to live in unity if only for their own interest. In no part of the world
are one nationality and one religion synonymous terms; nor has it
ever been so in India."11
To no state of the country could these warning words apply better than to Gujarat, the
birthplace of the Mahatma, where the misuse of religion for political ends resulted in
the worst carnage against a religious minority post-Independence.
According to a report presented by Citizens for Justice and Peace (Concerned
Citizens Tribunal - Gujarat 2002), during 1961-71, 16 districts in Gujarat were rocked
by communal violence, recording some 685 incidents in urban and 114 in rural areas.
Of the 685 incidents in urban Gujarat recorded for the decade, 578 occurred in 1969
alone, during the worst riots in that ten year period. Starting with Ahmedabad, the
worst affected city, violence spread to several other places including Vadodara. The
description of one instance of rioting in Ahmedabad, as recounted before the Tribunal
by a prominent human rights activist from Gujarat who was an eyewitness at the time,
epitomises the malaise of inter-community relationships in the region:
"A gruesome episode in the afternoon (September 20, 1969) brings
out the depth of animosity against the Muslims. A young Muslim,
enraged by the destruction of his property said he would take
revenge. Upon this the crowd seized him, showered blows on him,
and tried to force him to shout „Jai Jagannath‟. Staying firm, the
youth refused even if that meant death. To this, someone in the
crowd responded that he might indeed be done away with. Wood
11
Mahatma Gandhi, quoted by Jagmohan Reddy and Nusserwanji Vakil in the Judicial Commission
Report on the Ahmedabad Riots, 1969.

20. 20
from broken shops was collected, a pyre prepared in the middle of
the road, petrol sprinkled on the pyre as well as on the youth, and
he was set alight with ruthless efficiency. What is remarkable is
that there was no resistance from any Hindu. The wails of the
Muslim inhabitants of the area were drowned in the celebration of
the incident by the Hindus."12
This was Gujarat‘s first major bout of communal violence involving massacre,
arson and looting on a large-scale. The violence took over 1,100 lives and property
worth several crore rupees was destroyed. Planned riots took place for the first time in
Vadodara in 1969. Shops of Muslims, marked out in advance for easy identification
were systematically destroyed, suggesting pre-planning and organisation. The nexus
between anti-social elements (of both communities) and politicians, which was started
in 1969, when Hitendra Desai was chief minister, and encouraged under Chimanbhai
Patel‘s rule from 1969-1970, got a further boost in the ‘80s when Madhavsinh Solanki
was chief minister. The patronising of liquor mafia dons belonging to rival
communities, Hindu and Muslim, by different factions of the Congress in Ahmedabad
and Vadodara led to the criminal-politician nexus behind communal violence
surfacing with a vengeance.
Between 1987 and 1991, 106 communal incidents took place in Gujarat.
Political rivalry and conflicts during elections were responsible for triggering around
40 percent of these riots. Tensions related to ‗religious processions‘ were responsible
for another 22 percent of these clashes.
Contrived ‗aggressions‘ by the Muslim community (‗abduction‘ and ‗forced
marriage‘ with Hindu girls), and Christians (‗forced conversions‘) have been used to
whip up local sentiments to a fever pitch. The utter failure of the law and order
machinery and other wings of the state to check such blatantly unconstitutional
behaviour are truly worrying for the future of secularism and democracy.
12
Concerned Citizens Tribunal - Gujarat 2002; 2002 11 22. (n.d.). An inquiry into the carnage in
Gujarat : History of Communal Violence in Gujarat. Mumbai: Citizens for Justice and Peace. [online]
accessed on 2015 03 24.

21. 21
In the past four years alone, an atmosphere of threat and intimidation has
deeply affected the social fabric of Gujarati society. In 1999, during the Kargil war,
violence erupted in Ahmedabad city when Gujarat‘s Muslims were subtly and not-so
subtly projected as being pro-Pakistan and anti-India. In 2000, Muslim property
running into crores of rupees was looted or destroyed all over the state in ‗retaliation‘
to the killing of Amarnath yatris by terrorists in the Kashmir valley. The activities of
organisations like the VHP, RSS and BD have become more and more brazen as they
defy the law, confident that with ‗our government‘ (BJP) in power, they need have no
fear of any censure or penal action.
It is under this political dispensation that the ground for the present carnage
was carefully laid and at any appropriate moment, ruthlessly implemented. If the letter
and spirit of the Indian Constitution are to be redeemed and reaffirmed, that exercise
must begin with Gujarat - the land of the Mahatma. Let every man or woman guilty of
base crimes, however highly placed they be and irrespective of the short-term political
consequences, be tried speedily and punished. India and its Constitution are crying out
for redressal. As are the souls of the victims massacred in gruesome fashion. And the
plaints of the traumatised survivors of the Gujarat carnage.
 Judicial Commissions on Communal Violence in Gujarat (Concerned
Citizens Tribunal - Gujarat 2002)
The Jagmohan Reddy and Nusserwanji Vakil Commission of Inquiry was
instituted in 1969 in the wake of the violence that claimed 1,100 lives. Unfortunately,
irrespective of their political affiliation, successive governments in power have shown
no interest in punishing the guilty, or in initiating the systemic changes recommended
to check the recurrence of unbridled violence.
In 1986, the Dave Commission was appointed, but the Congress (I)
government under Chimanbhai Patel found its recommendations politically
inexpedient. Hence, it simply did not accept the findings that were made. In between,
the Kotwal commission also investigated bouts of communal violence in Ahmedabad
city. Again the report was not implemented.

22. 22
The Chauhan Commission was set up after the brutal violence in Surat in
1992, in the course of which, too, women were gang raped. This commission had
completed its report and needed barely a 15-day extension for finalisation of the
document, when the Congress-supported Vaghela government disbanded it. As a
result, the findings of this commission could not even be made public, let alone the
issue of its recommendations being acted upon.
According to the author and social activist Achyut Yagnik, the 1969 riots were
a turning point in the Hindu-Muslim relations in Gujarat, and led to a drop in the
tolerance levels, which was visible in the later riots of 1992-93 and 2002. After the
1969 riots, the state saw increasing Muslim ghettoisation. While, according to a
conspiracy theory, the violence was "deliberately engineered" to discredit the chief
minister Hitendra Desai, who had been supporting the Congress (O) leader Morarji
Desai instead of the Congress (I) leader Indira Gandhi. (Wikipedia The Free
Encyclopedia, 2015)
A significant debate during the proceedings of the Reddy Commission was
related to how the commission should interpret its mandate to subsequently decide on
a scope within which it would function. The commission was given a wide mandate
which required it to investigate not just what happened during the riots but also on
what was the atmosphere a few months before the riots. Also, the commission was
expected to investigate if there were any organizations that were involved in
fomenting communal sentiments between the two communities.
The commission was also to inquire into administrative lapses during the riots
and whether the Gujarat government had prior knowledge of the possibility of a
communal riot. Then there were issues related to curfew, role of the police during the
riots and relief and rehabilitation for the victims of the riots. While other aspects of
the mandate were fairly clear and there was no conflict in the way the commission
interpreted them, the commission's interpretation regarding the role of organizations
in fomenting communal violence in Gujarat became a source of debate. As there were
a number of organizations representing both the Hindus and the Muslims, in addition
to the Ahmedabad Relief Committee and the government, there was tremendous
pressure on the commission, to redefine its scope.

23. 23
The government and some of the organizations participating in the
proceedings wanted the commission to introspect more deeply why communal riots of
such proportions occur and in the process they felt that the commission should
investigate the ideology of some of the political organizations and see whether such
ideology was responsible for communal riots.
The commission clearly tried distancing itself from commenting on the
communal nature of any organization. To comment on the communal nature of any
organization, the commission suggested, would require defining communalism and
lead to questioning the credentials of some of the political parties as well and though
the commission was mandated to investigate if any organization in particular was
involved in fomenting communal riots, the commission felt that this kind of
investigation would result in providing a political color to the inquiry. Also, the
commission was a fact finding commission which was expected to investigate the
riots under inquiry and therefore a deeper inquiry into the political, economic and
psychological factors that give rise to a communal riot was not the function of the
commission, particularly in the limited time frame and mandate which was provided
to it.
Overall the findings of the commission were that the Jagannath temple
incident which was the starting point of the riots in Ahmedabad was not a deliberate
attack on the temple but on the Sadhus who had a tussle with those participating in an
Urs procession. But this does not, according to the commission, mean that there was
an absence of a communal atmosphere in Ahmedabad before the attack on Jagannath
temple incident as was being claimed by the police throughout the proceedings. The
commission held the view that the situation in Ahmedabad had reached a stage after
the Ramayana and Quran incidents earlier that anything involving the two
communities could have resulted in a riot like situation and the attack on the
Jagannath temple only provided this opportunity for the riots to begin in the society.
The commission inferred that the communal riots in Ahmedabad were not
started by anti-social elements as was being claimed by the government. Once the
riots began, anti-social elements could have taken over and found the situation
convenient for looting and arson but the riots began because of different reasons and a

24. 24
combination of factors were responsible for the same. In making this conclusion, the
commission ensured that the responsibility of the riots did not get shifted to the anti-
social elements who might have participated in the violence, but the reasons for the
riots had to be searched elsewhere.13
ii. 1984 anti-Sikh riots
The 1984 anti-Sikh riots or the 1984 Sikh Massacre were a series of pogroms
directed against Sikhs in India, by anti-Sikh mobs, most notably by members of the
Congress party, in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh
bodyguards. There were about 2800 deaths all over India, including 2100 in Delhi.
The Central Bureau of Investigation, the main Indian investigating agency, is of the
opinion that the acts of violence were organized with the support from the then Delhi
police and some central government officials. Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as Prime
Minister after his mother's death and, when asked about the riots, said "when a big
tree falls, the earth shakes".14
During the Indian Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi in the 1975-1977,
thousands of Sikhs campaigning for autonomous government were imprisoned. The
sporadic violence continued as a result of an armed Sikh separatist group which was
designated as a terrorist entity by the Indian government. In June 1984, during
Operation Blue Star, Indira Gandhi ordered the Indian Army to attack the Golden
Temple and eliminate any insurgents, as it had been occupied by Sikh separatists who
were stockpiling weapons. Later operations by Indian paramilitary forces were
initiated to clear the separatists from the countryside of Punjab state.
The violence in Delhi was triggered by the assassination of Indira Gandhi,
India's prime minister, on 31 October 1984, by two of her Sikh bodyguards in
response to her actions authorising the military operation. The Indian government
reported 2,700 deaths in the ensuing chaos. In the aftermath of the riots, the Indian
13
Ch. III : J. Reddy Commission and D.P. Madon Commission: Post-Riot Commissions Prior to 1980s
@ shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/.../07_chapter%203.pdf
14
IANS, Amritsar, 1984 anti-Sikh riots ―wrong‖, says Rahul Gandhi, Hindustan Times (18 November
2008)

25. 25
government reported 20,000 had fled the city; however the People's Union for Civil
Liberties reported "at least" 1,000 displaced persons.15
The Akal Takht, the governing
religious body of Sikhism, considers the killings to be genocide.16
In 2011, Human Rights Watch reported the Government of India had "yet to
prosecute those responsible for the mass killings". The 2011 WikiLeaks cable leaks
revealed that the United States was convinced about the complicity of the Indian
government ruled by the Indian National Congress in the riots, and termed it as
"opportunism" and "hatred" of the Congress government against Sikhs. The United
States has refused to recognize the riots as genocide, but do acknowledge that "grave
human rights violations" did take place. Also in 2011, a new set of mass graves were
discovered in Haryana, and Human Rights Watch reported that "Widespread anti-Sikh
attacks in Haryana were part of broader revenge attacks" in India.17
After the assassination of Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984, by two of her
Sikh bodyguards, anti-Sikh riots erupted on 1 November 1984, and continued in some
areas for days, killing more than 3,000 Sikhs in New Delhi and perhaps 8,000 or more
in 40 cities throughout India.18
Sultanpuri, Mangolpuri, Trilokpuri, and other Trans-
Yamuna areas of Delhi were the worst affected. Mobs carried iron rods, knives, clubs,
and combustible material, including kerosene and Petrol. The mobs swarmed into
Sikh neighbourhoods, arbitrarily killing any Sikh men or women they could find.
Their shops and houses were ransacked and burned. In other incidents, armed mobs
stopped buses and trains, in and around Delhi, pulling out Sikh passengers to be
lynched or doused with kerosene and burnt alive. Others were dragged out from their
homes and hacked to death with bladed weapons. Sikh women were reportedly gang-
raped. These riots are alternately referred to as pogroms or massacres.19
15
Mukhoty, Gobinda; Kothari, Rajni (1984), Who are the Guilty?, People's Union for Civil Liberties
16
"1984 riots were 'Sikh genocide': Akal Takht ". Hindustan Times. 14 July 2010.
17
"India: Bring Charges for Newly Discovered Massacre of Sikhs", Human Rights Watch. 25 April
2011.
18
Bedi, Rahul (1 November 2009). "Indira Gandhi's death remembered". BBC.
19
Ibid.

26. 26
 Use of voter lists by the Congress Party
On 31 October, Congress party officials provided assailants with voter lists,
school registration forms, and ration lists. The lists were used to find the location of
Sikh homes and business, an otherwise impossible task because they were located in
unmarked and diverse neighbourhoods. On the night of 31 October, the night before
the massacres began; assailants used the lists to mark the houses of Sikhs with letter
"S". In addition, because most of the mobs were illiterate, Congress Party officials
provided help in reading the lists and leading the mobs to Sikh homes and businesses
in the other neighbourhoods. By using the lists the mobs were able to pinpoint the
locations of Sikhs they otherwise would have missed.20
Sikh men not in their homes were easily identified by their distinctive turban
and beard while Sikh women were identified by their dress. In some cases, the mobs
returned to locations where they knew Sikhs were hiding after consulting their lists.
One man, Amar Singh, escaped the initial attack on his house by having a Hindu
neighbour dragged him into his neighbour's house and declared him dead. However, a
group of 18 assailants later came looking for his body, and when his neighbour
replied that others had already taken away the body an assailant showed him a list and
replied, "Look, Amar Singh's name has not been struck off from the list so his dead
body has not been taken away."21
The Nanavati Commission was established in 2000 after some dissatisfaction
was expressed with previous reports. The Nanavati Commission was appointed by a
unanimous resolution passed in the Rajya Sabha. This commission was headed by
Justice G.T. Nanavati, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The commission
submitted its report in February 2004. The commission reported that recorded
accounts from victims and witnesses "indicate that local Congress leaders and
workers had either incited or helped the mobs in attacking the Sikhs"22
On this ground
the Sikh riots are cited as a reason to support creation of a Sikh homeland in India,
often called Khalistan.
20
Kaur, Jaskaran; Crossette, Barbara (2006). Twenty years of impunity: the November 1984 pogroms
of Sikhs in India (2nd ed.). Portland, OR: Ensaaf. p. 29.
21
Ibid.
22
"Leaders 'incited' anti-Sikh riots". BBC Online (BBC News). 8 August 2005.

27. 27
iii. Anti-Muslim Violence in India
The history of modern India has many incidents of communal violence.
During the 1947 partition there was religious violence between Muslim-Hindu,
Muslim-Sikhs and Muslim-Jains on a gigantic scale. Hundreds of religious riots have
been recorded since then, in every decade of independent India. In these riots, the
victims have included many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Buddhists.
There have been periodic instances of violence against Muslims in India (referred to
as communal riots in India) since its partition from Pakistan in 1947, frequently in the
form of mob attacks on Muslims by Hindus that form a pattern of sporadic sectarian
violence between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Over 10,000 people have been
killed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence since 1950 in 6,933 instances of
communal violence between 1954 and 1982.
The causes of this violence against Muslims are varied. The roots are thought
to lie in India's history – resentment toward the Islamic domination of India during the
middle Ages, policies established by the country's British colonizers, and the violent
partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan and a secular India with a Muslim minority.
Many scholars believe that incidents of anti-Muslim violence are politically motivated
and a part of the electoral strategy of mainstream political parties associated with
Hindu nationalism. Other scholars believe that the violence is not widespread but that
it is restricted to certain urban areas because of local socio-political conditions.
Violence against Muslims is frequently in the form of mob attacks on Muslims
by Hindus. These attacks are referred to as communal riots in India and are seen to be
part of a pattern of sporadic sectarian violence between the Hindu and Muslim
communities, and have also been connected to a rise in Islamophobia throughout the
20th century. These patterns of violence have been well-established since partition,
with dozens of studies documenting instances of mass violence against minority
groups. Over 10,000 people have been killed in Hindu-Muslim communal violence
since 1950. According to official figures, there were 6,933 instances of communal
violence between 1954 and 1982 and, between 1968 and 1980, there were 530 Hindus

28. 28
and 1,598 Muslims killed in a total of 3,949 instances of mass violence. (Wikipedia
The Free Encyclopedia, 2015)
Hindu nationalists use the historical subjugation of India by Muslims as an
excuse for violence. Their view is that these conquerors had raped Hindu women and
destroyed places of worship. They feel that, since the Partition, Indian Muslims are
allied to Pakistan and are possible terrorists and, therefore, the Hindus must take
revenge for these past wrongs and reassert their pride. The higher fertility rate among
Muslims has been a recurring theme in the Hindu Right's rhetoric. They claim that the
higher birth rate among Muslims is part of a plan to turn the Hindus into a minority
within their own country. Another reason given for these outbreaks of violence is the
upward mobility of the lower castes caused by the expansion of the economy. The
violence has become a substitute for class tensions. Nationalists, rather than deal with
the claims from the lower class, instead view Muslims and Christians as not "fully
Indian" due to their religion, and portray those who carry out these attacks as "heroes"
that defended the majority from "anti-nationals".
Muslims are viewed as suspect and their loyalty to the state is questioned
because of the ill-will still prevalent after the violence during partition. According to
Ram Puniyani, anti-Muslim violence is planned and executed to render Muslims
economically and socially crippled and, as a final outcome of that economic and
social backwardness, assimilating them into lower rungs of Hindu society (Puniyani,
Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths, 2003). Anti-Muslim violence creates a
security risk for Hindus residing outside of India. Since the 1950s, there have been
retaliatory attacks on Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh in response to anti-Muslim
violence in India. After the 1992 violence in Bombay, Hindu temples were attacked in
Britain, Dubai and Thailand. This recurring violence has become a rigidly
conventional pattern which has created a divide between the Muslim and Hindu
communities.
 Islamophobia
Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim sentiment) is a term for prejudice against,
hatred towards, or fear of the religion of Islam or Muslims. The term entered into

29. 29
common English usage in 1997 with the publication of a report by the Runnymede
Trust condemning negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and dread directed at Islam
or Muslims. While the term is now widely recognized and used, both the term and the
underlying concept have been criticized. The causes and characteristics of
Islamophobia are still debated. Some scholars have defined it as a type of racism.
Some commentators have posited an increase in Islamophobia resulting from the
September 11 attacks, while others have associated it with the increased presence of
Muslims in secular nations. (Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 2015)
The Runnymede report contrasted "open" and "closed" views of Islam, and stated that
the following eight "closed" views are equated with Islamophobia:
1. Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2. It is seen as separate and "other." It does not have values in common with
other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3. It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive,
and sexist.
4. It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and
engaged in a clash of civilizations.
5. It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
6. Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
7. Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards
Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8. Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.23
23
"Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All", Runnymede Trust, 1997.

30. 30
These "closed" views are contrasted, in the report, with "open" views on Islam which,
while founded on respect for Islam, permit legitimate disagreement, dialogue and
critique. The Runnymede Trust notes that anti-Muslim discourse is increasingly seen
as respectable, providing examples on how hostility towards Islam and Muslims is
accepted as normal, even among those who may actively challenge other prevalent
forms of discrimination.
On 6 December 1992, members of the Vishva Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang
Dal destroyed the 430-year-old Babri Mosque in Ayodhya, it was claimed by the
Hindus that the mosque was built over the birthplace of the ancient deity Rama (and a
2010 Allahabad court ruled that the site was indeed a Hindu monument before the
mosque was built there, based on evidence submitted by the Archaeological Survey of
India. This action allegedly caused humiliation to the Muslim community. The
resulting religious riots caused at least 1200 deaths. Since then the Government of
India has blocked off or heavily increased security at these disputed sites while
encouraging attempts to resolve these disputes through court cases and negotiations.
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya by Hindu
nationalists on 6 December 1992, riots took place between Hindus and Muslims in the
city of Mumbai. Four people died in a fire in the Asalpha timber mart at Ghatkopar,
five were killed in the burning of Bainganwadi; shacks along the harbour line track
between Sewri and Cotton Green stations were gutted; and a couple was pulled out of
a rickshaw in Asalpha village and burnt to death. The riots changed the demographics
of Mumbai greatly, as Hindus moved to Hindu-majority areas and Muslims moved to
Muslim-majority areas.
The Godhra train burning incident in which Hindus were burned alive
allegedly by Muslims by closing door of train, led to the 2002 Gujarat riots in which
mostly Muslims were killed in an act of retaliation. According to the death toll given
to the parliament on 11 May 2005 by the United Progressive Alliance government,
790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed, and another 2,548 injured. 223 people are
missing. The report placed the number of riot widows at 919 and 606 children were
declared orphaned. Tens of thousands were displaced from their homes because of the
violence. According to New York Times reporter Celia Williams Dugger, witnesses

31. 31
were dismayed by the lack of intervention from local police, who often watched the
events taking place and took no action against the attacks on Muslims and their
property.24
The Liberhan Commission stated about the Babri Mosque demolition:
―The preparation was accomplished with phenomenal secrecy, was technically
flawless with consistency and assured results.... The theme was power. It attracted
clusters of young men to support the hidden agenda. Leaders know how passions are
aroused and how to prevent the same; they however always see what would be
beneficial to them rather than what would be good for the nation. This is what
happened in Ayodhya.‖25
(Seema Chishti, 2009) Furthermore, it even observed and
recorded that,
“It is established that the events of and leading up to the 6th of
December in birthplace of the virtuous Lord Ram considered an
incarnation of God and the ideal king, were tainted by a joint
conspiratorial enterprise. A handful of malevolent leaders
unabashedly invoked the name of the paragon of tolerance to turn
peaceful communities into intolerant hordes” (M. S. Liberhan,
2010)
The report submitted by Justice Liberhan has come under severe criticism for being
biased and rhetorical in nature. It has been pointed out that, The report also noted (in
para 18.3 on page 63) that ―although, there was no order restraining the Muslims from
going to the disputed structure or from offering namaz therein either by the judiciary
or from the administration, yet namaz was not offered at the disputed structure since
1934. No processions were taken out inside the disputed structure nor any grave dug
there about.‖ The country was rocked by communal riots immediately following
demolition of the mosque, between Hindus and Muslims in which more than 2,000
24
Dugger, Celia W. Hindu Rioters Kill 60 Muslims in India New York Times. New York, N.Y.:1
March 2002
25
"How the BJP, RSS mobilised kar sevaks". Indian Express. 25 November 2009.

32. 32
people died. Many terror attacks by banned jihadi outfits like Indian Mujahideen cited
demolition of Babri Mosque as an excuse for terrorist attacks.
The riots started as a result of communal tension prevailing in the city after the
Babri Mosque demolition on 6 December 1992. The Shrikrishna Commission
identified two phases to the riots. The first was mainly a Muslim backlash as a result
of the Babri Masjid demolition in the week immediately succeeding 6 December 1992
led by political leaders representing Hindutva in the city of Ayodhya. The second
phase was a Hindu backlash occurring as a result of the killings of Hindu Mathadi
Kamgar (workers) by Muslim fanatics in Dongri (an area of South Bombay), stabbing
of Hindus in Muslim majority areas and burning of six Hindus, including a physically
handicapped girl in Radhabai Chawl. This phase occurred in January 1993, with most
incidents reported between 6 and 20 January.
The Report asserted that the communal passions of the Hindus were aroused to
fever pitch by the inciting writings in print media, particularly Saamna and Navaakal
which gave exaggerated accounts of the Mathadi murders and the Radhabai Chawl
incident; rumours were floated that there were imminent attacks by Muslims using
sophisticated arms, though the possibility of it happening was very imminent. From 8
January 1993, many riots occurred between Hindus led by the Shiv Sena and Shiv
Sainiks and the Muslims funded by the Mumbai underworld at that time. The
communal violence and rioting triggered off by the burning at Dongri and Radhabhai
Chawl and then the retaliatory violence by Shiv Sena was hijacked by local criminal
elements who saw in it an opportunity to make quick gains. By the time the Shiv Sena
realised that enough had been done by way of "retaliation", the violence and rioting
was beyond the control of its leaders who had to issue an appeal to put an end to it.26
The report was criticised as "politically motivated". For a while, its contents
were a closely guarded secret and no copies were available. The Shiv Sena
government rejected its recommendations. Since under the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, an Inquiry is not a court of law (even if it conducts proceedings like a court of
law) and the report of an inquiry is not binding on Governments, Srikrishna's
26
Srikrishna, B.N. (1998, 02 16). Full Srikrishna Report Retrieved 03 24, 2015, from
http://www.sabrang.com/: http://www.sabrang.com/srikrish/vol1.htm

33. 33
recommendations cannot be directly enforced. To date, the recommendations of the
Commission have neither been accepted nor acted upon by the Maharashtra
Government.
At present the Government of India has implemented almost all the
recommendations of the Sachar Committee to help Muslims in India. It was
commissioned to prepare a report on the latest social, economic and educational
condition of the Muslim community of India. The committee had highlighted and
presented its suggestions and solutions to include and mainstream Indian Muslims.
According to Sachar Committee report some of the major concerns are:
1. The status of Indian Muslims is below the conditions of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.
2. The overall percentage of Muslims in bureaucracy in India is just 2.5%
whereas Muslims constitute above 14% of Indian population.
To ensure equity and equality of opportunities to Indian Muslims in residential, work
and educational sector, the Committee had proposed multiple suggestions to be
adopted, with suitable mechanisms.
iv. Anti-Christian violence in India
Anti-Christian violence in India refers to religiously-motivated violence
against Christians in India, usually perpetrated by Hindu nationalists. The acts of
violence include arson of churches, re-conversion of Christians to Hinduism by force
and threats of physical violence, distribution of threatening literature, burning of
Bibles, raping of nuns, and murder of Christian priests and destruction of Christian
schools, colleges, and cemeteries. Violence against Christians has been seen by
Human Rights organization as a tactic used to meet political ends. According to a
Human Rights Watch report that was published in September 1999, the number of

34. 34
incidents of anti-Christian violence rose in the months following the victory of the
Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in March 1998.27
It further mentioned that attacks against Christians throughout the country
have increased significantly since the BJP began its rule at the center in March 1998.
They include the killings of priests, the raping of nuns, and the physical destruction of
Christian institutions, schools, churches, colleges, and cemeteries. Thousands of
Christians have also been forced to convert to Hinduism. The report concludes that as
with attacks against Muslims in 1992 and 1993, attacks against Christians are part of a
concerted campaign of right-wing Hindu organizations, collectively called the sangh
parivar, to promote and exploit communal clashes to increase their political power-
base. The movement is supported at the local level by militant groups who operate
with impunity.28
From 1964 to 1996, at least 38 incidents of violence against Christians were
reported. In 1997, 24 such incidents were reported.29
Since 1998, Christians in India
have faced a wave of violence. In 1998 alone, 90 incidents were reported. Incidents of
violence against Christians have occurred in nearly all parts of India, it has largely
been confined to north, central, and western India, in the states of Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and the capital area of New Delhi
In June 2000, four churches around India were bombed. In Andhra Pradesh,
church graves were desecrated. A church in Maharashtra was ransacked. In
September 2008, two churches were partly damaged in Kerala. Christian leaders
described the events of September 2008 as deliberate acts by anti-socials and denied
any religious motive in the attacks.30
Muslims in India who convert to Christianity
have frequently been subjected to intolerance, harassment, intimidation, and attacks
by Muslims.31
In Jammu and Kashmir, the only Indian state with a Muslim majority, a
27
"Anti-Christian Violence on the Rise in India". Human Rights Watch. 29 September 1999.
28
Ibid.
29
Stanley, Alessandra (6 November 1999). "Pope Lands in India Amid Rise in Anti-Christian
Violence". The New York Times.
30
"Attacks on churches decried". Chennai, India: The Hindu. 30 September 2008.
31
Gheddo, Piero. "INDIA Indian Kashmir, two Christians arrested on false charges of forced
conversions - Asia News".

35. 35
Christian convert and missionary, Bashir Tantray, was killed, allegedly by militant
Islamists in 2006.32
A 1999 Human Rights Watch report states increasing levels of religious
violence on Christians in India, perpetrated by Hindu organizations (Puniyani,
Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths, 2003). In 2000, acts of religious violence
against Christians included forcible reconversion of converted Christians to
Hinduism, distribution of threatening literature and destruction of Christian
cemeteries.
v. Anti-Hindu violence in India
There have been a number of more recent attacks on Hindu temples and
Hindus by Muslim militants. Prominent among them are the 1998 Chamba massacre,
the 2002 fidayeen attacks on Raghunath temple, the 2002 Akshardham Temple attack
allegedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba and the 2006
Varanasi bombings (supposedly perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Toiba), resulting in many
deaths and injuries. Recent attacks on Hindus by Muslim mobs include Marad
massacre, Godhra train burning etc.
In August 2000, Swami Shanti Kali, a popular Hindu priest, was shot to death
inside his ashram in the Indian state of Tripura. Police reports regarding the incident
identified ten members of the Christian militant organisation, NLFT, as being
responsible for the murder. On 4 Dec 2000, nearly three months after his death, an
ashram set up by Shanti Kali at Chachu Bazar near the Sidhai police station was
raided by Christian militants belonging to the NLFT. Eleven of the priest's ashrams,
schools, and orphanages around the state were closed down by the NLFT.
September 2008, Swami Laxmanananda, a popular regional Hindu Guru was
murdered along with four of his disciples by unknown assailants (though a Maoist
organisation later claimed responsibility for that33
), allegedly due to the Guru's
provocative opposition of Christians' conversion activities and Missionary
32
Christian convert from Islam shot dead in Kashmir, SperoNews.23 November 2006
33
"We killed Swami, Maoists say again" (Press release). The Times of India. 6 October 2008.

36. 36
propaganda. Later the police arrested three Christians in connection with the
murder.34
Lesser incidents of religious violence happen in many towns and villages in
India. In October 2005, five people were killed in Mau in Uttar Pradesh during Hindu-
Muslim rioting, which was triggered by the proposed celebration of a Hindu festival.
Religious violence has led to the death, injuries and damage to numerous Hindus. For
example, 254 Hindus were killed in 2002 Gujarat riots out of which half were killed
in police firing and rest by rioters. During 1992 Bombay riots, 275 Hindus died.35
***
34
3 arrested in Laxmanananda murder case Indian Express – 7 October 2008
35
"Govt releases data of riot victims identifying religion - Indian Express"- 24 September 2013.

37. 37
PART II
3. CAUSATION OF RELIGIOUS CRIMES AND ITS IMPACT
Religious violence has probably existed for as long as religion. History has
done nothing to calm the passions, hatred, and brutality expressed in the name of
religion; if anything, the progress of science and technology have enabled religious
extremists to hate and kill ever more effectively. Almost everyone would like to end
the violence, but few understand its causes. Even worse, some religious believers are
in denial about the causes and connections between violence and their religion.36
Many religions proclaim that they are peaceful and opposed to violence, but
these same religions generally have traditions in which violence, war, and aggression
not only exist and are not only permitted, but are in fact sanctified. To be "sanctified"
means "to be made holy" thus violence becomes a form of religious devotion like
prayer or reading sacred scripture. So long as violence is treated in such a manner, it's
unlikely that it will be eliminated. This suggests that the problem for religions goes
much deeper than a contradiction between theory (proclamations of peace) and
practice (violent behaviour), but is instead a conflict between two important and
fundamental aspects of religious theory: one part that treats peace as holy and another
that treats violence as holy. Although violence certainly exists outside religion,
irreligious atheists are right to point out that violence like this is only going to exist in
a religious context — only religions consistently differentiate between places, times,
events, or objects that are "sacred" and those that are "mundane."37
Unfortunately, insisting that violence is somehow a sanctified act of religious
devotion also means that a person is trying to place that violence beyond human
criticism. In the context of religion, calling something "holy" is to place it on a higher,
almost transcendent plane. It is separated from the mundane world and placed beyond
human judgment or standards. This means that criticism must either focus on the
problem of describing violence as holy, or denying that this category has any validity
36
Cline Austine; Religious Terrorism as Symbol, Ritual & Performance Violence [online] at
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousviolencecauses/a/RitualViolence.htm Accessed on 2015 02 26.
37
Ibid.

38. 38
and thus insisting that the violent acts in question be treated like any other mundane
example of human violence.
Prayerful killing, Religious warfare, Violence is readily sanctified by religion
there is nothing inherent in religion to prevent these things from occurring. At best,
religious believers may be able to engage in a constant effort to promote peace over
violence, but that can't positively prevent it from happening. It might cause sanctified
violence to be a little less likely, but nothing more. In general, it is observed that the
religious violence and crimes evolves from the following three prominent arguments:
 Religion is Absolutist
In a general sense, it refers to those people or groups of people (sects, cults,
etc.) who believe something, e.g. a proposition or set of propositions (which they
might refer to as "tenets", or perhaps their "creed") absolutely, i.e. the proposition is
undeniable, inarguable, unquestionable, undebatable, etc. "Absolutist" is most
typically applied to those who believe the Bible or the Qur‘an is the inerrant, literal,
"word-for-word" word of God. Absolutism is the belief that certain actions are right
or wrong, no matter what the situation is.
Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of
morality as having been set by God. They therefore regard such a moral system as
absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. For example, under some religious
moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behaviour is considered fundamentally wrong,
even in a committed monogamous relationship. Many who make such claims often
ignore the changing views of their communities. However even absolutists may
change opinion over a long period of time e.g. today almost no religious group
endorses slavery, whereas in the past many communities held it to be perfectly
ethical. The historical character of religious belief provides strong grounds for
criticism of religious moral absolutism.
“Self-created ideologies are always self-justifying, more so
by invocation of divine sanction. No religion is immune from
misconceived absolutism. This fatal facet of religious absolutism

39. 39
allows neither competitors nor compromise. By the time the Roman
Empire ended, the Church claimed that kings and emperors ruled
by its sanction. They did” (Mir Adnan Aziz, 2012).
Tolerance and compassion has been the eternal message. The onus lies on those
wielding greater economic and military power to reach out and bridge the divide.
Afghans, Palestinians and Kashmiris are not the enemy but a people wronged. Their
subjugation cannot be justified, their cause ensnares millions. Expecting peace
without establishment of justice is a fallacy.
Many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their
system of morality as deriving from divine commands. Therefore, they regard such a
moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular
philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of
morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or
the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence
considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defence.
The problem with this being that as time goes on and societies change, so too
does peoples' morality, even if they ostensibly adhere to the same religion as their
ancestors. For instance, the Bible and related scholarship have a number of passages
about the legality and regulation of slavery, an institution that is almost universally
reviled today. Yet few people who adhere to divine command theory will argue in
favour of slavery. Thus even religious moral absolutism is relative.
 Religion is Divisive
All religious lay emphasis on love and humanity. But in practice religious
make people hate another: those who believe in a particular religion do not like those
who believe in other religion. This has divided mankind, and has been one of the
causes of bloodshed in the world.
The resurgence of regionalism in various parts of the country has emerged as
such a serious problem that it literally threatens to divide the country. The creation of

40. 40
new states like Jharkhand, Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) and Chhattishgarh in recent
times is in fact the expression of territorial. Again, the demand for Bodoland,
Vidarbha, Telangana, Gorkhaland, etc. cannot be traced in the earnest desire of the
people to have their regional identity, which results from regional imbalances. (Dr.
Satyendra Singh & Dr. Yogeshwar Prasad Baghel, 2013)
India is a large country having continental dimensions and comprising no
fewer than 28 States and 7 Union Territories. It is a multi-racial, multi-lingual nation.
In India regionalism is not a new phenomenon and in fact, the fillip given to it by the
emergence of regional movements in different parts of the country has a historical
continuity. Prior to independence, regionalism was used as a tool by the imperialists
to promote their policy of keeping India divided. Regionalism was deliberately
encouraged by them with the result that people of each region thought more in terms
of their region rather than of India was a whole. After independent regional feelings
very much thrived in India. Not only this, but within the region itself, the feelings of
sub-regionalism became a divisive force in Indian politics.38
The Partition of the sub-continent into India and Pakistan in 1947 was itself
based on religion: Hindus form the majority in India and Muslims are a majority in
Pakistan. India has around 150 million (13%) Muslims and 30 million (2.3%)
Christians, 20 million of those Catholics. Religion is alive but the history of the last
sixty years, particularly regional conflicts in India as well as in Pakistan show that
religion alone cannot bind people together. However, religion continues to be used as
a political tool and the fundamentalist forces make an effort to use it as a binding
force. History also shows that the British divide-and-rule policy was not the only
cause of this division. The colonial regime exploited to its own benefit the divisions
that existed already in the sub-continent and intensified them further. India and
Pakistan are yet to recover from the Partition.39
India is a deeply religious country. Four major world religions, namely,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism have their origins in India, while
38
Ibid.
39
D‘Souza, A.; Fernandes, W. : India: Religion in a Land of Contrasts (2008) [online] available at :
http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080815_1.htm accessed on 2015 March 26

41. 41
Christianity and Islam arrived in the country soon after they were founded. Anyone
who visits India can see that religion is alive in the country. One finds small and big
temples, mosques, gurdwaras (Sikh temples) and churches all across the country; the
churches are full on Sundays. All of these religions uphold values of peace and unity,
but India has witnessed innumerable instances of intolerance and violence based on
religious differences. These are some of the easily noticeable contrasts, many of
which are interrelated. Many more can be listed but in order to explain the contrasts
rather than merely identifying them, one needs to take a broad historical perspective.40
The political system also moved towards a similar divide. At independence,
India accepted the Westminster style of parliamentary democracy based on universal
adult franchise. India also launched development plans in order to overcome two
centuries of underdevelopment of the country, without which the British industrial
revolution would not have survived. Problems arose very quickly from the fact that
the leaders of independent India opted for technology-intensive modernisation
without changing the unequal social system. That strengthened the already dominant
classes and castes. However, since democracy depended on universal franchise, the
leaders had to get the cooperation of all the classes if they wanted to remain in power.
That demanded the creation of ―vote banks‖: a caste, religious group, class or other
social group that is used as a supporter of a political party or a candidate. The said
party or candidate does them small favours without really solving their major
problems. For example, slum lords do favours to the slum dwellers, keep them under
their control and deliver their votes to a given party or candidate. (The present
agitation in Kashmir in the name of Hinduism is an effort to create a Hindu vote bank
for the state level elections that are due in October and the national elections that are
due in early 2009.)41
These processes resulted in competition between various regional, linguistic,
caste and religious groups. Promises made during the political elections raised the
aspirations of the groups that were excluded from the fruits of development. The
attention of these groups was diverted by trying to create single Hindu, Muslim and
other religious identities. Every religious leader accused other religious groups of
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.

42. 42
taking the benefits of development away from their own community. The poor among
the Hindus, for example, were told that Muslims were taking the resources away from
them by having four wives and a large family, or that Muslims were pro-Pakistani, so
they should be united against the Muslims. Division within their own religious group
was secondary to this need to unite. The use of religion for political purposes was
facilitated also by the on-going tension between India and Pakistan around Kashmir,
and other issues. Any protest by the poor could be presented as Pakistan-inspired in
India and as India-inspired in Pakistan, and could thus be labelled as anti-national.42
 Religion is non-rational
There is a third type of argument about religion and violence, one with
affinities to claims of absolutism, but more focused on the subjective dimensions of
religious belief. The claim here is that religion is especially prone to violence because
it produces a particular intensity of non-rational or irrational passion that is not
subject to the firm control of reason. ―Fervor,‖ ―rage,‖ ―passion,‖ ―fanaticism,‖
―zeal,‖ and similar words are used to describe the mental state of religious actors who
are driven to violence. These terms not only pervade journalistic coverage of public
religion, but are also found in much of the scholarly literature.
One of the most critically aware examples of the argument based on the non-
rational aspect of religion comes from historian R. Scott Appleby. According to
Appleby, religion has two faces, hence the title of his descriptively rich work on
religion and violence, (Appleby, 2000) Religion is indeed ―powerful medicine,‖ but
its driving passion can be and is used in the service of peace as well as in the service
of violence. Both aspects of religion are traceable to the non-rational core of religion.
On the one hand, religion has an ―ability to sustain cycles of violence beyond the
point of rational calculation and enlightened self-interest.‖43
On the other hand,
―religious fervor—unrestrained religious commitment‖44
does not inevitably lead to
violence. There are also many examples of peaceable believers ―inspired by ‗sacred
42
Ibid.
43
Appleby, S. R.; The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (2000), 4
44
Ibid. 5

43. 43
rage‘ against racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination"45
and a host of other social
ills. ―Both the extremist and the peacemaker are militants. Both types ‗go to extremes‘
of self-sacrifice in devotion to the sacred; both claim to be ‗radical,‘ or rooted in and
renewing the fundamental truths of their religious traditions. In these ways they
distinguish themselves from people not motivated by religious commitments—and
from the vast middle ground of believers.‖46
Appleby is careful to provide a definition of ―religion‖ to guide his analysis:
―Religion is the human response to a reality perceived as
sacred. In the next chapter I explore the various meanings of “the
sacred.” At this point, suffice it to say that religion, as interpreter
of the sacred, discloses and celebrates the transcendent source and
significance of human existence. So ambitious an enterprise
requires a formidable array of symbolic, moral, and
organizational resources. In a common formula: religion embraces
a creed, a cult, a code of conduct, and a confessional community.
A creed defines the standard of beliefs and values concerning the
ultimate origin, meaning, and purpose of life. It develops from
myths—a symbol-laden narrative of sacred encounters—and finds
official expression in doctrines and dogmas. Cult encompasses the
prayers, devotions, spiritual disciplines, and patterns of communal
worship that give richly suggestive ritual expression to the creed.
A code of conduct defines the explicit moral norms governing the
behaviour of those who belong to the confessional community.
Thus religion constitutes an integral culture, capable of forming
personal and social identity and influencing subsequent experience
and behaviour in profound ways.”47
Here questions could be raised about the absence of creeds, doctrines, and dogmas
from some things Appleby would consider to be religions—Hinduism and Buddhism,
45
Ibid. 6
46
Ibid. 11
47
Ibid. 8-9

44. 44
for example. Nevertheless, the emphasis on creed does not seem to be central to
Appleby‘s definition. What appears to separate religion from other ―integral cultures‖
that form personal and social identity is the perceived encounter with the sacred. It is
the sacred that accounts for the ambivalent nature of religion, its capacity for
extremes of violence and peace.
Religion is something that requires faith. However, faith and rationality are
two ideologies that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is
based on reason or facts. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The
word faith usually refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against
reason or evidence, while another position holds that it can refer to belief based upon
a degree of evidential warrant.
Although the words faith and belief are sometimes erroneously conflated and
used as synonyms, faith properly refers to a particular type (or subset) of belief, as
defined above. Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the
relationship between faith and rationality:
a. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual
analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.
b. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any
evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.
India is often seen as a post-colonial success story. It is the world‘s largest
democracy with a thriving civil society and a culture of pluralism and tolerance.
Despite its huge size and multi-ethnic character, conflict has been rare and multiple
groups coexist peacefully. The major exception to this is the religious conflict
between Hindus and Muslims which has spilled over into violence numerous times in
the years since independence.

45. 45
3.1 Religious Extremism
Recent religious violence in India has been overwhelmingly associated with two
atrocities; the destruction of the Babri Masjid Mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh in
1992, and the 2002 massacres in Gujarat. Both have sparked riots and retaliations
across the country and have played an important role in politics.
The Babri Masjid is a mosque built on a sacred Hindu site. It is alleged,
probably falsely, that a previously existing Hindu temple was knocked down and
replaced.48
BJP activists campaigned on the issue until, in 1992, they managed to
gather 200,000 willing people to demolish the mosque forcibly.49
In the ensuing
violence thousands of people were killed in riots across the country. The BJP state
government was dismissed for its complicity in the attacks and failure to control the
violence.50
In 2002, attempts to begin building a Hindu temple on the site led a group
of Muslims to torch a train carrying activists, killing 58 people. There followed a
long-running campaign of anti-Muslim violence centred in the state of Gujarat in
which around 2,000 Muslims were murdered and 100,000 forced to flee.51
There is
evidence that the state government both failed to intervene on behalf of the Muslim
population and in some cases also helped plan the attacks. (U.S. Department of State,
2002)
These events are explained by some by looking at the country‘s history and
the cultural differences between the two groups. They claim that there has been
tension between Islam and Hinduism since Islam arrived with the Mughal conquerors
in the sixteenth century. Cultural differences are emphasised; the differing characters
of the two religions, codes of acceptable behaviour, and lifestyles supposedly create a
gulf between the two groups. The partition of secular, Hindu dominated India and
Muslim Pakistan in 1947 demonstrated the extent of this communal tension and
sparked extraordinary brutality of which the struggle for Kashmir is a lasting
48
Karner, C.‘ Investigating Hindu Nationalism: Emic Primordialism, Modernity, Organisational Ethno-
Symbolism‘ 2002
49
BBC, ‗Mob Rips apart Mosque in Ayodhya‘ 1992 December 26 [online], accessed on 2015 03 26 at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/6/newsid_3712000/3712777.stm)
50
Ibid.
51
Kumar, R. ‗India‘s House Divided: Understanding Communal Violence‘ from Foreign Affairs
July/August 2002

46. 46
reminder. Muslim feelings of victimisation and Hindu fears of Kashmiri terrorism
supposedly serve to feed an unending cycle of violence.
For proponents of this view, including many in India for whom the conflict
has become naturalised, there is nothing special about the recent violence. However,
if we are to believe this idea of the conflict as a cultural and historical legacy of past
atrocities, how then do we account for the more general peace and cooperation
between Hindus and Muslims, and why do we see an escalation of tensions now?
A more enlightening framework in which to understand the conflict is the
active politicisation of religion for political gain. Violence may be linked to ideas of
the past, but this is not natural, rather a deliberate and very sucessful political
strategy. Although also a tactic of other organisations, the politicisation of religion is
overwhelmingly linked to the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideology
of ‗Hindutva‘ – Hindu identity.52
 Hindutva
Hindutva is a nationalist ideology which promotes the idea of a Hindu state;
proponents of Hindutva believe that the dominant Hindu culture should be adopted as
the Indian national identity and that other groups should adjust their practices
accordingly. (U.S. Department of State, 2002) Like many forms of nationalism, it
plays upon the pride and fear of the majority group and attempts to demonise
supposedly threatening minorities
A nationalist rewriting of history which portrays a humiliating series of Hindu
defeats by the Islamic Mughals and the Christian British serves to evoke feelings of
wounded pride. These ideas of former oppression are integral to the lack of tolerance
for other groups; Hindus are presented as the ―true‖ Indians while all others are
outsiders.53
The destruction of the Babri Masjid mosque was a demonstration of this
52
Dion-Viens, D. ‗India at the Mercy of Hindu Nationalism‘ in Alternatives Vol.6/11 (2002) [online]
accessed on 2015 03, 26.
53
Fickett, L. ‗Battle For The Soul Of Modern India: The Bharaiya Janata Party –Harbinger Of Indian
Fascism,‘ 2003

47. 47
force in action as it was presented as symbolic of an overthrow of Muslim
oppression.54
The Hindutva ideology also presents Hindu identity as threatened by minority
groups. In particular, it has sought to present legislation protecting minority rights as
an erosion of Hindu culture. Muslims are singled out particularly, because of their
position as the largest minority group (approximately 12%) and demonised by
remarkably pervasive stereotypes. One aspect is the portrayal of Muslim men as
particularly virile, and the women as very fertile. This plays on fears of future
domination – some believe that in a few decades Hindus will be a minority and will
eventually cease to exist.55
Thus Muslims are presented by Hindutva forces as a threat
to Hindu security and violence against them is legitimised as national defence. It is
this politicisation of religion that is behind the rise of communal violence in recent
years, not a natural and historical conflict as proponents of Hindutva claim.
Hindutva is a form of nationalism which promotes communalism. It presents
its own view of hisory and politics in which the Hindu majority are oppressed and
overlooked in favour of other groups, and serves to legitimise violence against
Muslims who are seen as a threat. It rose to prominence in the context of the
factionalisation of politics and the decline of the dominant Congress Party by
deliberately politicising religious differences and organising violence against Muslim
communities.
 Jihad
Jihad is an Islamic term referring to a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic,
the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting". A person engaged in jihad
is called a mujahid, the plural of which is mujahideen. The word jihad appears
frequently in the Quran, often in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God
(al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".56
54
Ibid.
55
Anand, D. ‗The Violence of Security: Hindu Nationalism and the Politics of Representing ‗the
Muslim‘ as a Danger‘ in The Round Table Vol.94 No.379, 2005
56
Morgan, Diane (2010). Essential Islam: A Comprehensive Guide to Belief and Practice. ABC-CLIO.
p. 87.

48. 48
The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can
simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam
as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things. The relative
importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy.
When Muslims, or their faith or territory are under attack, Islam permits
(some say directs) the believer to wage military war to protect them. However Islamic
(shariah) law sets very strict rules for the conduct of such a war. In recent years the
most common meaning of Jihad has been Holy War. And there is a long tradition of
Jihad being used to mean a military struggle to benefit Islam. (BBC, 2009)
What can justify Jihad?
There are a number of reasons, but the Qur'an is clear that self-defence is always the
underlying cause.
Permissible reasons for military Jihad:
 Self-defence
 Strengthening Islam
 Protecting the freedom of Muslims to practise their faith
 Protecting Muslims against oppression, which could include overthrowing a
tyrannical ruler
 Punishing an enemy who breaks an oath
 Putting right a wrong
What a Jihad is not
A war is not a Jihad if the intention is to:
 Force people to convert to Islam
 Conquer other nations to colonise them
 Take territory for economic gain
 Settle disputes
 Demonstrate a leader's power