ABSTRACT

In colonialist discourse, conclusions about the historical inevitability of communal violence were used to support the government’s claims about the benevolence of British rule and the necessity of British presence for keeping the peace between historically “hostile” religious communities. In fact, the incidents that ignited the major disturbances of this period, and much of the violence of the Calcutta riots of April, May, and July 1926 and the Pabna riots of July 1926, were in large part choreographed events, calculated to bolster efforts to unseat established leaders before the November elections. Both electoral competition and street violence provide occasions for leaders to highlight differences between groups. In elections, that opportunity is governed by institutional mechanisms that determine when and how an election can take place. The state plays an important role as the force responsible for granting legitimacy to the claims, and by extension the identities, of those affected by the violence.