Lessons of Panipur

Instead of blaming religious conflicts as the main factor behind the riots of Panipur, Roy instead blames the riots on cultural and historical meanings attached to the communities. While this is an interesting point, aren’t culture and history part of what makes up a religion? Roy goes on to say to explain the term communalism as, “Tension between Hindus and Muslims is inbred, and so ancient as to constitute unchangeable character.” (126) While she obviously doesn’t agree with the theories of communalism, there are aspects of the theory that must be true. It doesn’t seem possible that every religious resurgence or conflict that has happened in history can be blamed on something other than religion. I agree with Roy when she states that the villagers of Panipur were not swept mindlessly or forced into the behavior that they represented. Instead, they acted upon their own interests, whether religious or not, clarifying that the riots were more complex then most thought. At the very end of the article she even contradicts herself, saying that while religion did figure into the story, she didn’t believe that the fights were religious conflicts. That just doesn’t make sense to me.