This is a remarkably good book. The empirical research is impeccable; the analysis is careful; and the argument is persuasive. The issue is simple: Why is it that certain towns in India erupt into communal violence and others do not?

To answer this question, Vashney combined a careful analysis of the Times of India
covering the period 1950–1995 with interviews within carefully selected cities. These interviews operated on two levels � the elite (i.e., the leadership of the city) and a cross-section of the city taken from every strata. The cities chosen all had similar percentages of Hindu-Muslim populations. The first pair was Aligarh and Calicut; the second pair was Hyderabad and Lucknow; and the third pair � Ahmedabad and Surat � was the most interesting. This latter pair come from Gandhi’s state � Gujarat. The book weaves together a riveting description of the history and culture of these cities with a fascinating analysis. The argument that emerges is that there is a direct link between the structure of civil society and ethnic violence. By “civil society,� Vashney means the social gap between the family and the State: so all forms of social activity are part of civil society, including political parties insofar as they operate as a vehicle for association in a city or a town.

Now in a small village, everyday and informal ‘civic communication’ might be sufficient to keep the peace when tension occurs, however, Vashney shows, in a city this is not enough. For peace in the city, there is a need for what he calls “associational civic engagement.� In other words, there is a need for structures and organizations, in which Hindus and Muslims are members, to become a bulwark against potential communal violence. So, for example, in the 1920s and 30s in both Ahmedabad and Surat the following organizations were strong: the Congress Party, the Gandhian voluntary associations, and the Business associations. (In Ahmedabad, the labor unions were also strong.) The net result in both cities was peace. In the 1980s and 90s, the Congress party was in decline; the Hindu BJP was on the increase. Correspondingly, the Gandhian voluntary associations were in decline and the Hindu nationalist organizations were on the rise. The net result was two cities that became unstable. As a result, Ahmedabad had violence throughout the 1980s and into the 90s. Meanwhile, December 1992 in Surat saw 197 people killed. It was only the strength of the business associations in Surat that saved Old Surat; all the killing took place in the shantytowns.

This book deserves a wide readership. It is a milestone on the road towards a better understanding of coping with diversity in the city. It is, in many respects, a vindication of the work of the political theorist Edmund Burke, who stressed the importance of the “little platoons� (the organizations between the State and the individuals). Human life everywhere needs the community that these organizations provide. However, in addition, Varshney argues, these “little platoons,� provided they are properly constructed, can save many lives.

Published in the Muslim World.