Did the British Create Hindu-Muslim Divide? Romila Thapar vs. Irfan Habib on Origin of Communalism

Overview

The video debates whether British colonial rule created (or significantly shaped) the Hindu–Muslim divide/communalism. It presents competing arguments associated with Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib, and then offers a synthesis using Bipin Chandra’s framework.

---

Core Arguments and Analysis

Claim 1: British “two-nation” / communal framing was manufactured through historical writing

One narrative (linked to Romila Thapar) argues that British historians popularized a view of irreconcilable, permanent Hindu–Muslim hostility, which later contributed to modern communal narratives.

• A cited example is James Mill (early 19th century), who wrote an influential History of British India (1817)
  • despite not having been to India
  • and not knowing Indian languages
• Mill periodized Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British eras, which the discussion characterizes as misleading and having communal effects.
• The discussion also notes that, for decades (roughly up to the 1950s–1970s/80s), historians often argued that Hindu–Muslim conflict was largely a British construction, with earlier periods marked more by coexistence.

---

Claim 2: Religious conflict predated British rule; British exploitation was not the origin

The opposing narrative (linked to Irfan Habib) argues that Hindu–Muslim disputes have older roots than British rule.

• The point attributed to Habib is that blaming the British is “unfair/untrue” if it implies the conflict began with them.
• The video emphasizes pre-existing frictions, such as disputes involving temples and mosques (sacred-space conflicts).
• British actions are framed as exploitation or amplification, but the underlying religious differences and conflicts already existed historically.

---

Synthesis: both perspectives contain truth—religious conflict becomes modern communalism under colonial/modern conditions

The presenter suggests resolving the disagreement by distinguishing between:

• Religious conflict (pre-modern / pre-British)
  • described as localized, episodic
  • rooted in sacred/ritual frameworks and moral logic
• Communalism (modern / British-era and beyond)
  • described as more than religious conflict
  • becomes a political ideology that homogenizes communities—e.g., assuming “Muslims have the same interests” and “Hindus have the same interests.”

The “modern” transformation is attributed to factors such as:

• the modern political state
• administrative systems like censuses and pan-Indian bureaucracy
• a shift in how people are counted and understood—a “numbers game”—that reshapes political consciousness

Conclusion: History writing and “historical raw material” matter. Both sides rely on historical narratives, and crucially: pre-existing religious conflict was transformed and repurposed into modern communalism, so there is “an element of truth” on both sides.

---

Presenters / Contributors

• Romila Thapar (referenced)
• Irfan Habib (referenced)
• Bipin Chandra (credited with the resolving framework; referenced)