Dick Kooiman
'Communities and Electorates: a comparative discussion of communalism in
colonial India'
CAS 16 (1995)
In studying the emergence of communalism in India, many historians tend to establish a direct
connection between colonial policies and present-day religious conflict. Especially the institution
of separate electorates (1909) is often put forward as a powerful explanatory factor. The end of
the nineteenth century saw the gradual introduction of representative political institutions and
separate electorates were one of the electoral arrangements created to organize access to these
new institutions. It meant that voters belonging to a certain community were placed in a separate
constituency in which only members of that particular community were entitled to vote and to
stand as candidate. This distribution of political privilege along lines of religion is alleged to
have divided people into mutually exclusive, often hostile, if not openly conflicting social
groups, culminating in regular outbursts of communal violence. Therefore, these separate
electorates have come in for wide-spread criticism, especially in nationalist quarters and
handbooks of history. Indian historians contend that the provision for communal representation
created two or more imagined religious communities fighting each other instead of their common
oppressor. Even though most of them acknowledge that the policy of divide-and-rule could only
succeed because of the many social divisions already existing within Indian society, separate
electorates stand among the prime accused.
As Kooiman argues, it is difficult to avoid the intriguing question of what turn the development
of communal relations in India might have taken, if the British presence had made itself felt less
intrusively in matters of election and political representation. However, this kind of question is
not part of the standard equipment of the professional historian who is expected to study events
as they took place and not to ask what might have happened if a certain factor had been
eliminated. Fortunately, however, the Indian situation offers an unparalleled field of comparison
because of the co-existence of British-Indian provinces and the many semi-independent Indian
princely states. Whereas British India underwent several stages of administrative reform
including the organization of minorities into separate electorates, the Paramount Power refrained
from imposing similar reforms on Indian India. The princely states were left free to make their
own electoral arrangements, if they wanted to make any at all.
In this CAS study a synchronic comparison is made between political developments in British
India and two major princely states, namely Baroda and Travancore. The conclusion states that
systems of election and political participation were introduced in British India much earlier and
on a much larger scale than in either Baroda or Travancore, even though these states with their
high level of literacy were quite exceptional in having representative institutions at all. There
were no separate electorates in Baroda and communalism was practically unheard of prior to
1947. Conversely, Travancore also had no separate electorates, but this state had to cope with
strong communal animosities right from the beginning of this century. Thus, this state presents
us with a completely different case: several communities joined in a desperate campaign to wrest
separate electorates from a government that was reluctant to grant them. In the final chapters
of this book Kooiman, relying on the study of source material in both former states, elaborates
on the remarkable differences between Baroda and Travancore. His main conclusion is that
separate electoral arrangements for religious groups had less influence on the formation of
communal identities than has generally been assumed.
Call for manuscripts
Colleagues working on texts that suit our editorial formula are most welcome to submit their
manuscripts to our editorial board. All manuscripts will receive serious consideration and the
board's decisions will reach prospective authors no later than two months after receipt of the
manuscript.
A certain number of CAS studies is distributed free of charge to libraries of university
departments and research institutes in Asia. Directors who wish their libraries to be placed on
our mailing list should apply to the address below. We prefer sending our publications to those
departments and institutes in Asia that are willing to send us their own publications, journals or
newsletters in return, thus establishing an exchange-relationship that may be mutually
advantageous and rewarding.
The Editor of the CAS series
Centre for Asian Studies
Oude Hoogstraat 24
1012 CE, Amsterdam
The Netherlands.
The title of the book, CASA Nova, may need some explanation. CASA
means Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam while Nova refers to the newly emerging generation
of CASA researchers. Indeed, that is what this publication is all about: to give interested
`outsiders' the opportunity to take a look `inside' the Centre. At the same time, it provides
CASA students - i.e. those who are in the process of completing their dissertation as well as
those who have recently obtained their doctorate - with an opportunity to present their findings
to a wider audience.
Of course, there is also a bit of `tongue in cheek' involved. Like all genuine
casanovas, all PhD students represented in this volume `fell in love' with their
research topics. As can be seen in
the texts, all researchers are committed scientists, doing their utmost to find theoretical and/or
practical tools to come to grips with important social issues and problems. In addition, all of
them came across new areas of interest during their research, thereby establishing new `amorous
affairs'. As the articles in this book show: answering one question gives rise to many new
questions.
In more than one sense this publication deserves the qualification `Melting Pot'. Regarding
themes: the book encompasses a wide range of topics including research methodology, labour
history, trade networks, social policies and political violence. With regard to regions: various
areas in China, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam are dealt with. In time:
most articles present a long-term historical perspective, often culminating in an in-depth analysis
of contemporary processes. Turning to the authors themselves: they differ in many respects,
particularly in terms of personal background, academic career and political perspective, all
influencing their respective writings.
At the same time, however, the approach adopted by the scholars is very much the same.
Indeed, the research methodology can be seen as the unifying principle of the book. As
advocated by CASA and the Amsterdam School for Social Science Research (ASSR) as a whole,
research projects need to be Empirical, Historical and
Comparative. Empirical: research findings are to be based firmly on written
and/or oral accounts, not on philosophical speculations. Historical: socio-economic en political
configurations are the outcome of long-term, continuous developments and are to be studied as
such. And comparative: all events and processes can only be placed in their proper perspective
by comparing such phenomena with similar occurrences in other places and/or time-periods.
Perhaps an additional, fourth feature of the book should be added here. Most findings are the
outcome of interdisciplinary research methods, all authors are trying to transcend the different
boundaries of the various social sciences.
Back to IIAS Home Page
Back to IIASN5