COMMUNALISM AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE 27 Montagu and Chelmsford received 44 deputations from Muslim bodies each claiming to speak for the community. This made nonsense of the communal categories created by the colonial rulers. It is noteworthy that the Congress did not successfully challenge the assumption made by the British rulers about Indian Muslims. In fact, they also assumed that Muslims possessed common economic and political interests and were distinct from Hindus. This was the logic in negotiating the Lucknow Pact of 1916.8 By approving the principle of communal representation, the Congress was guilty of accepting and perpetuating the misleading and artificial communal categories created by the imperialists. After 1916, the Congress continued to dwell on the unity of Hindu-Muslim interests, but having agreed to negotiate on the principle of communal representation, there was no wriggling out of it. This was made difficult by those privileged Muslims who had secured major political concessions under the Acts of 1919 and 1935. Now it became convenient for them to assert their communal identity, which had the British approval, to secure a strong position in the new power structure. The Congress mass mobilization compaigns also had severe limitations. Many Congress campaigns built a following by exploiting norrow sectarian and religious issues. It is common knowledge that the Congress was closely identified with Hindu institutions and its leaders were connected with cow-protection societies, the Nagari agitation, the Shuddhi Sabhas, the Arya Samaj, and the Hindu Maha-sabha. They used Hindu symbols—the cult of Kali, Ram Rajya, Ganapati—and religious fairs and festivals for nationalist mobilization. In Maharashtra, Tilak and his followers employed the cult of Shivaji in thir mobilization campaigns. Similarly, the Swadeshi movement in Bengal, notwithstanding its contribution to the anti-colonial struggle, had unmistakable revivalist overtones. In the United Provinces, several Congressmen, supported by traders, bankers and landlords, actively compaigned against cow slaughter, patronized the Hindi Sahitya Sammelen, the Nagari Pracharini Sabha, the Arya Samaj .and Gaurakshini Sabha.9 This is not all. The national movement, led by the Congress, failed to organize any systematic ideological campaign to combat the forces of reaction and revivalism inside and outside the Congress organization. This was not possible because the movement was built on the premises and structure of the traditional Indian society. Not being revolutionary in character, the Congress-led agitations were constrained to rely on and use the existing narrow levels of consciousness. Not surpisingly, the glory of India's past formed a constant refrain in the argument of the nationalists to mobilize support for democracy and freedom. This provided an impetus to revivalist thinking and ideology, culminating in compromises with and defence of the