Breaking down the question
The question sets up a comparison between two phenomena that are frequently confused in popular usage — religious revivalism and communalism. The command word is "how is X different from Y", so the examiner wants a clear conceptual distinction, not two separate essays. The instruction to "elaborate with suitable examples from the Indian context" is not decorative; the illustrations carry marks and must be accurate.
Religious revivalism refers to a movement to renew, purify or reassert religious faith and practice, usually turning inward towards one's own tradition. Communalism, by contrast, is a political ideology that treats a religious community as a homogeneous social and political bloc whose interests are held to be opposed to those of other communities. The heart of a good answer is showing that the first is primarily religious and reformist in orientation, while the second is essentially political and antagonistic.
How to approach it
Open with crisp definitions of both terms so the ground of comparison is clear. Then organise the body around the axes of difference — the object of concern, the orientation towards other communities, the role of politics, and the typical consequences. A comparative structure, whether point by point or theme by theme, reads far better than two disconnected descriptions.
Weave Indian examples into each point rather than tacking them on at the end. The nineteenth-century reform and revival movements illustrate revivalism, while the growth of organised communal politics illustrates communalism. Note carefully that the two can overlap and that revivalism can be politicised into communalism, which is the analytical subtlety examiners reward. The wider sociology of faith in a plural society is developed in our notes on religion in modern society.
Model answer
Religious revivalism and communalism are distinct phenomena that are often conflated, yet they differ in their object, orientation and consequences. Religious revivalism is a movement aimed at renewing, purifying and reasserting a religious tradition, typically by returning to what its adherents regard as an authentic or original form of the faith. Communalism, by contrast, is a political ideology which holds that people who share a religion also share common secular — social, economic and political — interests, and that these interests are necessarily in conflict with those of other religious communities. The first is fundamentally about faith; the second is fundamentally about power.
The primary difference lies in orientation. Revivalism is inward-looking: it seeks to reform and strengthen one's own community, often through renewed observance, the removal of accretions, or a return to scripture. It need not be hostile to others. The nineteenth-century movements illustrate this well. The Brahmo Samaj and later the Arya Samaj, with Dayananda Saraswati's call to go "back to the Vedas", sought to purify Hinduism and combat social evils such as untouchability and idolatry. Comparable currents of renewal appeared among Muslims, as in the Aligarh and Deoband responses, and among Sikhs through the Singh Sabha and Akali reform of gurdwaras. These were principally religious and reformist undertakings.
Communalism, by contrast, is outward-looking and antagonistic. As Bipan Chandra argued, it develops in stages: first the belief that co-religionists share common secular interests; then the belief that the interests of different communities differ; and finally the belief that these interests are mutually hostile and irreconcilable. It is the third stage that makes communalism dangerous, for it translates religious identity into political enmity. The two-nation formulations that preceded Partition, and the recurring communal riots of the twentieth century, exemplify this antagonistic logic in which religion becomes a marker of political mobilisation and violence.
A second difference concerns the relationship to politics. Revivalism is chiefly cultural and spiritual, even where it has social reform aims; its arena is the temple, mosque, gurdwara, school and household. Communalism is inherently political; its arena is elections, agitation, and competition for state resources and power. Sociologists such as T. K. Oommen have stressed that communalism is best understood as the politicisation of religious identity rather than as religiosity itself. A society can be deeply religious without being communal, and communal mobilisation can be led by people who are not personally devout.
A third difference lies in consequences. Revivalism, at its best, can produce social reform, self-respect and cultural confidence, as the reform movements did in combating caste rigidities and improving the status of women. Communalism, by contrast, tends to produce division, suspicion, riots and the erosion of the composite culture and secular fabric of Indian society. Where revivalism can strengthen a community internally, communalism weakens the nation by setting communities against one another.
The two are nevertheless related, and this is the crucial analytical point. Revivalist symbols, sentiments and organisations can be harnessed for communal political ends, so that a movement that begins as religious renewal is turned into an instrument of communal antagonism. Revivalism supplies the emotional and symbolic raw material; communalism supplies the political project. Assertive religious identity is therefore a necessary condition of communalism but not a sufficient one — the decisive addition is the claim of irreconcilable inter-community conflict.
In conclusion, religious revivalism is a reformist, faith-centred movement to renew one's own tradition, whereas communalism is a divisive political ideology that constructs religious communities as rival power blocs. The Indian experience shows both the reformist promise of revival and the destructive potential of communal politics, and it warns that the line between them can be crossed whenever religious sentiment is mobilised for political antagonism.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners look first for a sharp conceptual distinction — revivalism as religious and reformist, communalism as political and antagonistic — rather than two loosely related descriptions. Scripts that use Bipan Chandra's stages and Oommen's politicisation thesis, and that ground each contrast in an accurate Indian example, occupy the highest band.
The common weakness is treating the two as synonyms or reducing revivalism to a mild form of communalism. The subtler, higher-scoring move is to acknowledge the overlap — that revivalism can be politicised into communalism — while maintaining the analytical difference. A balanced close that affirms India's secular and composite tradition, without editorialising, rounds off the answer well.