Is Hindutva bringing Hinduism a bad name, and harming India’s interests? Do we need post-Hindutva schools of thought immediately?

 

Hindutva is a political ideology that also provides a basis for Hindu nationalism and the desire to establish Hindu hegemony within India. It is often associated with Hinduness, and the state or the quality of being a Hindu with an interplay between cultural, religious, and national identities. This ideology traces its roots to the ideals of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1922 in reaction to the pan-Islamic Khilafat movement, and due to fears that Hindu culture and Hindu values were being trampled upon by colonialists. It was however used much earlier, in the 1890’s by Chandranath Basu, and others. It has  also been used extensively for political and non-political purposes by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and other similar or affiliated organisations,  which are collectively referred to as the Sangh Parivar. The RSS had been founded by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar in 1925 who also operationalized most of its activities at a grassroots level. For Savarkar, in his work “Hindutva: Who Is a Hindu?”, Hindutva is an inclusive term of everything Indic. The three essentials of Hindutva in Savarkar's definition were the common nation (rashtra), common race (jati), and common culture or civilisation (sanskriti).  Savarkar had also made a clear distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, that they are not same things as Hindutva does not concern religion or rituals but the basis of India's national character. Savarkar himself was not overly religious, and his ideas bordered on atheism.

Hindutva proponents also seek to uphold Hindu values, and Hindu dharma. Some Hindutva proponents even go to the extent of claiming that only adherents of Indian religions are true nationals, and Christians and Muslims can be called Indians only if they accept Indian culture in toto. There are varying levels of intensity within Hindutva, though it is indeed true that extreme versions border on fascism. Many Hindutva proponents have however mellowed down, and many have even begun to adopt a much softer stance towards Muslims and other minorities. Critics of the Hindutva ideology however allege that the movement bears some resemblance to European fascist movements that were common in the early part of the twentieth century. It is therefore a form of right-wing ethno nationalism, in tune with similar movements in other parts of the world, they allege. Some critics also allege that the term Hindu as it describes a religion is a relatively more recently constructed term in reference to a geography, and is partially foreign in origin. It is also a nebulous and a hazy concept, and is difficult to define with any degree of precision.

According to Arvind Sharma, a noted scholar of Hinduism, Hindutva has not been a "static and monolithic concept", rather its meaning and context has gradually changed over time. Its early formulation incorporated the racism and nationalism concepts prevalent in Europe during the first half of the twentieth century, and culture was in part designed on the basis of the concept of "shared blood and race". Savarkar and his Hindutva colleagues also eventually adopted the social Darwinism theories that were common in the 1930s. After India’s independence, according to Arvind Sharma, the concept has begun to suffer from a high degree of ambiguity and its understanding has been aligned on "two different axes" – one of religion versus culture, another of nation versus state. In general, the Hindutva thought among many Indians has "tried to align itself with the culture and nation" axes. Therefore, there are extreme variations in the concept of the term today, right from the innocuous to the radical, and even Hindutva proponents are sometimes not clear of the boundaries and the precise connotations and implications of the term. Some Hindutva proponents are harmful and fascist. Some others are mere mischief makers. Some are of course, utterly innocuous, and may only be swimming with the tide.

There are also allegations in some quarters that Hindutva is a form of Brahminism and neo-Brahminism associated with Aryanism. According to Chetan Bhatt, Hindutva is nothing but a “dense cluster of ideologies of primordialism”, and some concepts associated with orientalism and romanticism also lent their weight and credence to Hindutva. These statements and assertions may be partly true. While the RSS has actively written against the caste system, and even promoted inter caste dining in the 1920’s, (the RSS is open to all members), it is indeed true that Brahmins continue to be its most enthusiastic supporters.  Hindutva groups have also attempted to rewrite history infamously in the 2000’s drawing inspiration from the fact that the historical models prevalent then, were indeed obsolete. Their justification was also partly based on the biased interpretation of Indian history by some colonialists. They however, went on to fallaciously emphasize Brahminical versions of India. History. Some kind of an extremely innocuous form of Hindutva may be tolerable, but extremely virulent versions must be chasticized. Hindutva groups must not:

1.       Misrepresent history to suit a narrow version of Hinduism, namely Brahminsm, or promote other altered forms of history.

2.       Must not interfere with the inculcation of a scientific temper, and the inculcation of scientific values. Also refer to our works on twenty-first century intellectualism. Most Indians unfortunately do not possess a scientific temper even to this day.

3.       Must not promote hatred against other religious groups; however, all religions are open to criticism. There must be a spirit of religious harmony at all times.

4.       Must not discriminate between people of different faiths.

5.       Must not seek to override or overturn the constitution, and values of fair justice.

6.       Religious values must not be allowed to override universal human values.

7.       Must not otherwise, and in any other way or fashion, interfere with internal or international peace and harmony. Indian and Hindu culture, values and traditions may be allowed to flourish and thrive if they do not trample upon other people’s rights.  

If all these ideas are being compromised with, we need to think twice, and think again. It is time to marshall all our resources to ruminate and ponder how post-Hindutva schools of thought can be articulated and concretized. After all, the interests of society must always reign supreme, and must override all other considerations at all times.