Shadows of Strife: Communal Violence Between Hindus and Muslims in Pre-19th Century India

 

Shadows of Strife: Communal Violence Between Hindus and Muslims in Pre-19th Century India

Long before the British tightened their grip on India, and centuries before the Partition’s blood-soaked lines were drawn, the land bore witness to communal clashes between Hindus and Muslims. Under the sprawling canopy of Mughal rule, from the 17th to the late 18th century, tensions flared over sacred spaces, religious processions, and political power. These early riots — less documented than their later counterparts — offer a glimpse into a society wrestling with diversity amid empire. Here, we uncover five key instances of communal violence before 1800, piecing together their causes, casualties, and the responses of those in power, wherever history allows us to peek through the cracks.

Satnami Rebellion, 1672: A Sect’s Defiance Turns Deadly

Cause: In 1672, the Satnamis, a Hindu sect with a mix of spiritual and social ideals, rose against the Mughal Empire under Aurangzeb. What began as a protest against taxation and authority spiraled into a communal clash, pitting the Hindu Satnamis against Muslim rulers and their forces.
Casualties: Mughal chronicles paint a grim picture — hundreds of Satnamis were slaughtered when the rebellion was crushed, though exact numbers remain murky, lost to the fog of 17th-century record-keeping.
Response: Aurangzeb’s response was swift and brutal. He dispatched an army to quash the uprising near modern-day Haryana, leaving no room for negotiation. The rebellion was stamped out, but it left whispers of resistance — and division — in its wake.

Jat Rebellion, 1669–1707: A Long Simmering Clash

Cause: The Jat community, largely Hindu peasants in northern India, rebelled against Mughal rule over decades, with peaks under Aurangzeb’s reign. Driven by land disputes and resentment toward Muslim nobles, their defiance often took a communal hue as they targeted Mughal officials and their allies.
Casualties: The violence stretched across years — raids and reprisals likely claimed hundreds of lives on both sides, though specifics are scarce. Villages burned, and skirmishes left a trail of loss.
Response: The Mughals fought back with military campaigns, especially after the Jats sacked Akbar’s tomb in 1688. Leaders like Rajaram and Churaman faced relentless pursuit, but the rebellion persisted, a testament to deep-seated tensions that outlasted Aurangzeb’s death in 1707.

Ahmedabad Riot, 1713: A Procession Sparks Chaos

Cause: In 1713, Ahmedabad — a thriving Mughal city — erupted when a Hindu festival procession, possibly Navratri, clashed with local Muslim sensitivities over its route. The jostling for public space turned violent, an early sign of urban communal friction.
Casualties: Historical accounts suggest dozens died or were injured as mobs clashed, though precise figures elude us, buried in the sparse records of the time. Property damage was likely widespread in this bustling trade hub.
Response: Mughal authorities, still in control, likely deployed local forces to restore order, though details are thin. Their focus was on maintaining trade and stability, not resolving the underlying rift — a pattern that would echo later under British rule.

Surat Riot, 1718: Sacred Spaces Ignite Fury

Cause: Surat, a bustling port under waning Mughal influence, saw violence in 1718 over a dispute between a temple and a mosque. Claims to sacred land fueled a clash, reflecting the growing strain in diverse urban centers.
Casualties: Casualties likely numbered in the tens, with injuries and wrecked homes marking the conflict, though exact counts are absent from surviving records.
Response: Local Mughal officials probably stepped in with guards to quell the riot, prioritizing the city’s commercial lifeline over communal harmony. The response was practical, not peacemaking, leaving tensions to simmer.

Banaras Riot, 1793: A Holy City’s Unholy Clash

Cause: In 1793, Banaras — India’s spiritual heart — flared up over a Hindu procession’s route through Muslim areas. This late-18th-century riot, as Mughal power faded and British influence crept in, underscored the persistent danger of religious overlap in sacred spaces.
Casualties: Dozens likely perished or were wounded, with property damage adding to the toll, though the lack of detailed logs leaves us guessing at the full scale.
Response: By this time, the East India Company had a foothold in the region. They likely relied on local Mughal remnants or their own nascent forces to break up the violence, though no grand policy shift is recorded — just a focus on keeping the peace, not forging it.

What Fueled These Fires?

These clashes weren’t mere religious squabbles — though faith lit the spark, power and survival fanned the flames. Processions, like in Ahmedabad and Banaras, were battlegrounds for identity in crowded cities, where every drumbeat could be a provocation. Sacred spaces, as in Surat, became symbols of dominance, while rebellions like the Satnami and Jat uprisings blended economic grievances with communal pride. Mughal policies — think Aurangzeb’s jizya tax or temple demolitions — cast long shadows, turning local disputes into broader conflicts. As Mughal control weakened, regional powers and urban tensions filled the void, often with violent results.

Counting the Cost

The human toll is hard to pin down. Rebellions like the Satnami and Jat conflicts claimed hundreds, perhaps thousands, over time, while urban riots like Ahmedabad or Surat left dozens dead or hurt. Injuries, looted homes, and shattered trust piled on the losses, though 17th- and 18th-century scribes rarely tallied the full price. What’s clear is that each clash scarred communities, deepening divides that lingered into the British era.

Power’s Play: Responses and Rulers

Responses varied with the rulers. The Mughals met rebellions with iron fists — Satnami and Jat leaders faced armies, not talks, as Aurangzeb and his successors clung to control. In urban riots, local officials aimed to douse the flames quickly, using guards to protect trade and order over reconciliation. By 1793, the East India Company’s early presence in Banaras hints at a shift — less ideology, more pragmatism — but their role was still limited, leaving communal wounds unhealed. These reactions weren’t about unity; they were about keeping the empire, or its fragments, intact.

Echoes Through Time

These pre-19th century clashes were early tremors of the seismic rifts that would later tear India apart. From Ahmedabad’s streets to Banaras’s ghats, they reveal a society navigating faith, power, and coexistence under strain. They remind us that communal violence isn’t a modern invention — it’s a thread woven deep into history, shaped by rulers, rebels, and the restless pulse of human difference.