separatism, Partition, and the history of Hindu–Muslim communalism (Pandey
1983, 1990; Chandra 1984; Mushirul Hasan 1997, 2004). Studies on Sikhism
(Oberoi 1994) emerged prominently in the context of the politics of identity
in Punjab. Christianity has been viewed through the lens of conversion (from
Hinduism), as Sikhism and Islam were through the lens of communalism or
fundamentalism (in opposition toHinduism). Interest in conversion has risen
sharply in recent decades, possibly in relation to the heightening politics of
identity in the region as a whole.
Whether spurred directly by contemporary political strife or engendered by
a variety of different forces, it is true that religious conversion, the politics of
religious identity, and religious conflict have taken center-stage in studies
in several South Asian countries (see V. Das 1990). More and more, the
relationship between the ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ religions and the state is
coming into focus from different angles (Z. Hasan 1994; Chandhoke 1999;
Rajan 2002; Pfaff-Czarnecka et al. 1999). In India the question of secularism
has come in for a good deal of attention. Several scholars, mainly sociologists
and political theorists, have participated in the debates. These include Bhargava
(1998; cf. Bhargava [ed.] 1998), Bharucha (1998), K. Basu and Subrahmanyam
(1996), Vanaik (1997), Madan (1997; 1998), Sheth and Mahajan (1999), and
Nandy (1985; 1990).
Madan and Nandy put forward a fervent critique of secularism on the
grounds that it does not take religions seriously and is of limited value in South
Asia, where religion shapes identities to a great extent. Secularism tries to push
religion to the private sphere, but in South Asian societies it is precisely this
forcible retreat that has led to the resurgence of religion in a more aggressive
form. On the other side of the debate, Bhargava, Bharucha, and Vanaik, among
others, justify the idea of the secular. They are largely agreed that secularism
must remain the foundational principle of the Indian polity.
Debates on secularism and discussions about fundamentalism have
proceeded simultaneously. A good deal of attention has focused on majority
fundamentalism, not only by scholars from India, where the discussions have
been dominated by historians (T. Sarkar and Butalia 1995; T. Basu et al. 1993;
S. Sarkar 2002; Pandey 1993; Panikkar 1999) but also by those from other
South Asian countries (Joanna Pfaff-Czarnecka et al. 1999; V. Das 1990;
M. Ahmad 1991; Tambiah 1986, 1992; A. Ahmed 1992).
Religious or communal violence and its implications for state and politics,
for individual survivors and for communities and their relations with each other
has for obvious reasons been of central concern to many scholars of South
Asia (Engineer 1984; Varshney 2002; Kanapathipillai 1990; Robinson 2005;
Kakar 1995). An important aspect of recent studies, that arose in part out of
the critique of Dumont but is also crucially linked with trying to understand
the reworking of Hinduism under the influence of fundamentalist and
nationalist ideas, has been an interest in looking at the modern ‘representation’
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA
133
