After decades of efforts, Hinduism—an inclusive way of life—has been successfully transformed into a concrete, exclusivist political ideology—Hindutva.
Of course, the Hindutva ideology is not exactly new. It first emerged in the early 20th century, when Hindu nationalism started asserting itself. The main ideological foundations of Hindutva can be traced back to Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who planned the concept of Hindutva in his 1923 pamphlet titled ‘Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?’. He defined a Hindu as someone who considers India as their motherland and the land of their ancestors. Savarkar promoted the idea that India belongs to those who descend from Hindu culture. His ideas helped lay the groundwork for a movement aimed at making India an ethnic Hindu nation state.
In 1925, K.B. Hedgewar, a physician from central India, founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or ‘National Volunteer Organisation’, which became the principal organisation behind the propagation of the Hindutva ideology. The RSS began with the stated goal of promoting Hindu unity and culture. Hedgewar and M.S. Golwalkar, his successor, infused the RSS with the zeal to work for spreading the notion of Hindu nationalism and the belief that Indian culture and identity should be defined solely by Hinduism.
In 1951, Syama Prasad Mookerjee founded the political party named Bharatiya Jana Sangh, which translated the RSS’s cultural nationalism objectives into a political program. The Jana Sangh called for the establishment of India as a Hindu state and the preferential treatment of Hindus in India. While the Jana Sangh was not able to garner widespread support in elections initially, it set the stage for a political vehicle to advance Hindutva ideology nationwide.
In 1980, the Bharatiya Janata Party succeeded Bharatiya Jan Sangh as the flag bearer of Hindutva. When the popularity of the Indian National Congress among the people of India started declining, time was ripe for Hindutva to make a concerted bid for taking the centre-stage in the national politics. It began to aggressively promote Hindutva’s one nation, one culture, and one people ideals. Decades of promoting anti-minority, especially anti-Muslim, sentiments triggered Hindu anxieties about their status in their own land. The Ayodhya Ram Temple dispute came in handy for giving a concrete shape and direction to these anxieties, which were further fuelled by the rise of Khalistan violence against Hindus in Punjab. Let us not forget that the Khalistan movement turned virulent during mid 1970s and continued for almost two decades. This has, so far, been an underestimated factor in the shifting of loyalties among Hindus from INC to BJP.
The turning point arrived when BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee led the NDA to power. The coalition’s tenure lasted from 1998 to 2004. It was during this period that the Gujrat bloodbath happened in 2002, which shifted focus from the Vajpayee-Advani duo to Narendra Modi.
The ascent of Narendra Modi represented Hindutva’s full consolidation. Modi came to power by showcasing Hindu nationalist priorities like revoking Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy and building the Ram temple. Since taking office, Modi’s BJP government has implemented major Hindutva ideological policies including stripping Jammu and Kashmir of statehood, building the Ayodhya Ram temple, and discriminating against Indian Muslims through measures like the Citizenship Amendment Act which fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants only.
Through the vehicles of organisations like the RSS and an ascendant BJP, Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology has spread widely and deeply to dominate significant sections of society and politics in contemporary India. However, there are still major opponents of Hindutva in India ranging from minority groups to liberals to the Indian National Congress party. The future trajectory of Hindutva faces these countervailing ideological and political forces, which continue to challenge Hindu nationalism. Hindutva has clearly come a long way from its peripheral origins in the early 20th century writings of Savarkar to emerge as one of the most potent sociopolitical forces shaping 21st century India.
Often, people consider Hindutva as Hinduism’s synonym, which is incorrect. Hinduism is an ancient religion that originated several millennia ago on the Indian subcontinent. As a religious tradition lacking any single founder, scripture, or central religious authority, Hinduism encompasses a broad spectrum of philosophies and practices. Traditional Hinduism is pluralistic and tolerant of diverse beliefs, idol worship, and individualistic spiritual pursuits within the faith.
In contrast, Hindutva espouses the view that India should be an ethnic Hindu nation state that privileges Hindu culture and identity. Hindutva is focused on establishing Hindu political power and creating a sense of collective belonging as part of a wider Hindu community, rather than pursuing individual moksha or spiritual liberation emphasised in traditional Hinduism.
Traditional Hinduism recognises India’s religious diversity and believes all religions can co-exist harmoniously together. But Hindutva believes that Islam and Christianity are alien to Indian culture brought by foreign invaders. They promote the idea that India belongs to Hindus, while Muslims & Christians remain outsiders.
For traditional Hindus, their guiding texts include ancient scriptures like the Vedas and Upanishads, which deal extensively with spiritual concepts like dharma, karma and self-realisation. In contrast, Hindutva relies principally on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar’s “Essentials Of Hindutva” and M.S. Golwalkar’s “Bunch Of Thoughts” that outline Hindu supremacy and nationalism. The traditional Hindu texts do not comment on politics and nation states.
Regarding the position and treatment of minorities, especially Muslims and Christians, traditional Hinduism preaches equal respect for all humanity and granting refuge to those persecuted in their homeland irrespective of religion. However, Hindutva looks at Indian minority religious groups with inherent suspicion bordering on hostility regarding their Indianness and national loyalties.
In interpreting history, traditional Hinduism has an open view that recognises and understands complex developments. Hindutva relies predominantly on cherry picked interpretations of historical events to project a narrative of Hindu victimhood at the hands of erstwhile Muslim and British colonisers in order to stoke grievances. For example, medieval Muslim rule and temple destructions are overemphasised, while positive interactions between faiths are underrepresented.
Last, for identity, traditional Hinduism considers a shared humanity as the ultimate unifying identity for all rather than any race, religion, nationality etc. Hindutva fixates on establishing a consolidated Hindu identity defeating internal divisions by caste or language to present a monolithic force against perceived external threats, specially from Islam and the West. The flexibility of identity within Hinduism stands in stark contrast to Hindutva’s narrow reconceptualization.
Thus, while traditional Hinduism provides the ancient religious bedrock which Hindutva builds upon, they clearly differ substantially in their core philosophies, objectives, and worldviews. Traditional Hinduism remains oriented towards spiritual goals and an inclusive, harmonious society allowing for diverse approaches. In contrast, Hindutva focuses on modern ethno-religious nationalism and creating a hegemonic Hindu supremacist state dominating minorities. Despite some proponents’ claims, Hindutva cannot be conflated with long standing pluralistic Hindu religious traditions.
So, why am I using the term Neo-Hindus? Shouldn’t Hindu or Hindutva-vadi be enough?
Actually, the ascendancy of political Hindutva ideology over the last century has reshaped modern Hindu identity, practices and mobilisation that can be characterised as giving rise to Neo-Hindus. Here are some of the principal arguments supporting this linkage:
First, Hindutva introduces religion directly into politics, not traditionally seen in Hinduism’s pluralistic worldviews. The post-1990s wave of Hindu nationalism has led to new assertive forms of Hindu identity where religion becomes tightly intertwined with national loyalty, governance and developmental priorities. This politicised Hinduism contrasts with the apolitical, individual-focused, pre-modern religious identity.
Second, Hindutva reorders inter-religious relationships, especially with minorities like Muslims and Christians in adversarial ways, casting them as threatening outsiders. This ignores Hinduism’s historic tolerance and syncretism, creating groups like Sangh Parivar that encourage distrust and conflict with these communities through methods like forced conversions programs.
Third, new Hindu social & political participation patterns encouraged by Hindutva undermine traditional caste boundaries and religious hierarchies that dominated Hindu society for centuries. This gives urgency to forging a singular Hindu political identity above all other divisions, enabling lower castes to also invoke religious justifications for their aspirations in unprecedented ways.
Thus, through its refashioning Hindu identity into a homogenised religious nationalism centred on securing political power and carving a monolithic Hindu majoritarian state, Hindutva enables the emergence of kinds of Hindu beliefs, groups and behaviours properly understood as Neo-Hindu formations.
The Case Against Hindutva Only Birthing Neo-Hindus
However, there are also strong counterarguments disputing that today’s Neo-Hindu groups or religious identity transformations are primarily driven by Hindutva alone. These opposing points include:
First, many dynamics shaping Hinduism’s modern evolution, like urbanisation, new economic aspirations and desire for social mobility predate and are independent of Hindutva’s narratives. So, changes often attributed to Hindutva may actually reflect underlying societal transitions.
Second, while repurposing religion for political goals, Hindutva equally draws upon longstanding traditional Hindu symbols, myths and concepts of Hindu Rashtra dating back millennia. So it’s not creating novel religious fabric, only amplifying selective ancient aspects in a rupture from Hinduism’s typical tolerance and gradual evolutionary processes.
Third, groups dubbed as Neo-Hindus today like spiritual gurus or WhatsApp-connected networks are more directly traceable to modern technology and economic shifts enabling access to globalised information and new age ideologies that repackage Hindu tenets. Rather than Hindutva politics, individualised expression and entrepreneurial branding shape these spiritual movements more deeply.
Thus, in reality, the perceived forms of Neo-Hinduism today draw from diverse factors like urbanisation, technology shifts and access to international mobility or ideas that cannot be simplistically reduced to Hindutva alone without overlooking deeper societal transformations reshaping modern Hinduism’s journey.
So, we can say that while Hindutva creates a version of politicised Hindu identity and relationships with minority faiths at odds with Hinduism’s traditional pluralism, the phenomenon of Neo-Hinduism stems from more complex interplay of forces in a rapidly evolving India. One must be cautious of mono-casual ideological explanations that cannot capture these nuances accurately. But Hindutva seems to provide enabling political space for these multifaceted factors to spawn newer incarnations of Hindu thought and practice quite different from older static traditions. The actual extent of this contribution relative to other drivers remains hotly debated still today.
No comments:
Post a Comment