Citation

Saha S. Aust. J. Polit. Hist. 2009; 55(4): 565-583.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1467-8497.2009.01534.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Concentrated principally in four of twenty-eight Indian states, there have been more than 33,000 Hindu-Muslim riots since 1947. Scholars have differently explained communal violence. Some have argued that there are innate qualities in Indian society which encourage what Donald Horowitz calls “deadly ethnic riot”. Psychoanalysts have wondered if proneness to violence is ingrained in India's religion-based culture. After assessing several existing explanatory paradigms, I examine the legitimacy of psychoanalysis and some selected aspects of other explanations, arguing that both the rational and psychological theories help explain Hindu-Muslim conflict. I submit that Sudhir Kakar, who worked with Erik Erikson at Harvard and trained at the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt, unduly follows the elitist French social psychologist, Gustave Le Bon (1895), to present violent communities as undifferentiated masses. Specifically, Kakar's contention that Hindu males are psychologically socialized by confrontational religious values deserves close scrutiny. Methodologically, drawing on the postmodern thesis of the de-centered subject and minimizing the significance of the master narrative, I conclude that primordial ancient hatred is not programmed in India, arguing that Kakar's insights do not speak to religion's truth, but do help us understand its manifestation and political psychology.