Fundamentalism is the first of our three concepts and it stresses the infallibility of a scripture (e.g. the Bible, the Granths, the Gita or the Quran) in all matters of faith and doctrine. The believers accept it as a literal historical record. The result is that a militant stand is taken by the followers; often preceded or followed by a desire for a separate homeland. At times, this too is taken as a prophecy in the scriptures. Fundamentalism thus separates a certain community from the mainstream. However, society, by its various methods attempts to suppress or eliminate the fundamentalists. This is especially so when they begin acting outside of the law. Communalism is associated with eruption of violence and riots, these conflagrations may not have any particular aim or goal (apart from communal ascendancy or supremacy). Fundamentalism however is an organised all encompassing movement, which aims at promotion of social goals specifically in the light of religious enshrinements. Operational strategy includes peaceful as well as war-like uses and movements.

Aspects of fundamentalism

Fundamentalism as a concept was first used in 1910-1915 when anonymous authors published 12 volumes of literature called them ‘The Fundamentals’. In the early 20s the print media used this word with reference to conservative protestant groups in North America. These groups were concerned about liberal interpretations of the Bible. Alarmed by this the conservatives insisted on some “fundamentals” of faith. These included belief in the virgin birth, divinity, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and the infallibility of the scripture. As mentioned these and other fundamentals were published in 12 pamphlets called The Fundamentals between 1910-1915. Thus began the specialised usage of the concept of “fundamentalism”. Thus a fundamental movement is  one, which takes infallibility of a scripture as a basic issue and as a guide to life. Some fundamentalists add that there is no need to even interpret the scripture as meaning in it is self-evident. This often amounts to intolerance of any form of disagreement or dissent. Thus there is an apprehension that fundamentalists are narrow minded, and bigoted.

T.N. Madan (1993) has pointed out that the word Fundamentalism has gained wide currency in the contemporary world. According to him it refers to a variety of norms, values, attitudes which either judge the fundamentalists or condemn them outright. This word is sometimes erroneously used in place of communalism. In fact the word fundamentalism has become a blanket term. That is to say that various fundamental movements across the world are actually not identical but differ in various ways. But they are linked by  a ‘family’ resemblance.

Fundamentalist movements are of a collective character. They are often led by charismatic leaders who are usually men. Thus the 1979 Iranian movement was led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the  recent Sikh fundamentalist upsurge by Sant Bhindranwale (Madan, ibid). Fundamentalist leaders need not be religious leaders. Thus Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamati Islami in India was a journalist. K.B. Hedgewar, founder of the Rashtriya Sewak Sangh was a physician.

The fundamentalists are a practical people and try to purge the way of life of all impurities (religiously speaking). They reject all corrupt lifestyles. An example of this is Dayanands critique of the traditional, superstition filled way of life .This Maududi characterised the present Muslim way of life as ‘ignorant’ and Bhindranwale talked of the ‘fallen’ Sikhs who shave off their beardes, cut their hair and do not obsrve the traditional Sikh way of life. Thus fundamental movements are not only about religious beliefs and practices, but lifestyles generally.

Thus fundamentalist movements are reactive and a response to what the persons involved-the leaders and participants, consider a crists. The crisis calls for urgent remedies. The basic programme is presented as a return to the original tradition. That is to say to the contemporarily redefined fundamentals, which cover the present-day needs. This usually involves a selective retrieval of tradition. It may even be an invention of tradition.

The case of Dayanand illustrates this very well. He tried to evolve a semitised Hinduism in response to the challenge for conversion by Christian missionaries. (Madan, ibid) He claimed that the Vedas were the only true form of Hinduism and his call was back to the Vedas.

In Iran Khomeini developed on Islamic state based on the guardianship of the jurists. Again Bhindranwale gave a selective emphasis to Guru Gobind Singh’s teaching rather than those of his immediate successors. Assertion of spiritual authority and criticising the culture are two aspects of fundamentalism. A third crucial element is that of the pursuit of political power.

The pursuit of political power is very important to fundamentalism, for without it we would be presented with a case for revivalism. The Arya Samajists were ardent nationalists in North India, and the movement had its political overtones. Again the RSS which has been described as a cultural organisation has had close links with political parties and contemporarily with the Sangh Parivar. This covers both cultural and political aspects of Hindu nationalism. This explains why fundamentalist movements often turn violent, and the ideology of secularism is rejected. They are totalitarian and do not tolerate dissent. However these movements also perform a particular role in modern society which cannot be ignored.

Thus an objective intellectual analysis should consider fundamentalism as a distinctive category. It is not theocracy or backward communalism.