Hindutva: the kinetic effect of Hindu Dharma
by S. Gurumurthy
Introduction
Hindu
Dharma is a relatively new name for what has been timelessly known as
Sanatana Dharma. Hindu Dharma is geographically Indian, or Bharatiya,
but it is universally valid because, unlike other schools of thought, it
accepts all other and diverse thoughts without rejecting any. This
all-inclusive school of thought was a nameless philosophy that did not
need to distinguish itself from others, as there was no other thought
system from which it needed to be distinguished. It was a thought that
did not need an identity different from other thoughts as it accepted
all other thoughts as valid. It is only when exclusive schools of
thoughts emanated from the Abrahamic stable, which rejected the validity
of all thoughts other than those of the concerned Abrahamic school,
Sanatana Dharma needed to distinguish itself form the exclusive
Abrahamic thoughts. It is not Hindu Dharma which rejected the Abrahamic
thoughts, but it is the Abrahamic thoughts which rejected the Hindu
Dharma. With the result that the Sanatana Dharma had to acquire and
accept a name to distinguish itself; not because it was an exclusive
thought but because it was an inclusive thought and all other thoughts
exclusive. This is how the word Hindu evolved to distinguish the
exclusive Abrahamic thoughts from Hindu Dharma or Sanatana Dharma. The
name was meant not so much to distinguish Hindu Dharma from others as it
was to distinguish the newly emerged exclusive thoughts from the
inclusive Hindu Dharma.
Secular India’s allergy to ancient India
In
secular India, where anything associated with ancient India is viewed
with suspicion as communal and unfriendly to secular way of life, the
definitions of what constitutes Hindu, Dharma, Hindu Dharma and Hindutva
are rendered contentious by the secular polity that is largely defined
and directed by vote banks. Nevertheless, as politics penetrates every
aspect of life including the impenetrable institution of family, any
discussion on the socio-cultural life of a nation, particularly a nation
like Bharatvarsh, which has an unbroken, though disturbed, tradition of
thousands of years, is a complex and demanding one. More so because our
nation has drifted away from public domain; it has been preserving its
core life style stealthily for hundreds of years under alien rule, and
has continued its stealthy living for five decades even under the
independent indigenous rule. The task is even more difficult, because
any discussion on understanding the core values of our ancient life
represented by Hindu Dharma has to be carried out in a situation that is
confounded by such drift and stealthy living. What was and is even now
original to the Hindu people has become a hidden virtue; the Hindus have
lost the confidence to openly live with it because of secular India’s
explicit and institutionalised allergy to traditional India. Yet Hindu
Dharma is the core of India’s tradition.
Proper understanding of
India’s traditional values represented by the concept ‘Dharma’ requires a
dispassionate discussion on the socio cultural life of this ancient
nation, uninhibited by the politics of the day. Traditional India is
largely the product of Hindu Dharma. The concept of secularism evolved
in the mono-religious Christendom. As a result of the misapplication of
this Christian concept to the multi-religious Hindu Dharma, which does
not distinguish between different faiths and accepts all faiths, the
Hindu Dharma was itself equated to the exclusive Abrahamic faiths. This
has made an understanding of the meaning of Hindu Dharma even more
difficult.
Secularism is a concept evolved within Christianity;
it was never designed to handle a multi-religious situation. Only the
Hindu tradition, and certainly not Christian secularism, has accepted
and handled a situation where multiple religions are accorded validity.
This fact has not been internalised in the understanding of secularism
in free India. We have refused to understand that outside the history
and geography of India there is no multi-religious social, cultural and
political matrix which can be presented as a benchmark for this ancient
nation. We have tried, incorrectly and inappropriately, to make the
secularism of Christendom as benchmark for this ancient nation’s modern
polity. Consequently, understanding of different elements of ancient
India has been rendered difficult in modern conditions, conditions for
which the rules have been laid by Christendom.
Dharma, Hindu, and Hindu Dharma
To
understand Hindu Dharma one has to be clear about the meaning of the
word Hindu and also the import of what Dharma means. Both words are
difficult to define, but the word “Dharma” is even more difficult to
comprehend, particularly in English. This is a word that the ordinary
people of this country understand and apply in their day-to-day life,
but it is difficult for even scholars to properly define for scholarly
discussion. For, Dharma is based on experience, rather than explanation.
For the intellectual, explanation is more important than experience;
and, for the ordinary, experience is more important than explanation.
If
the word ‘Hindu’ signifies the collective identity of the people of
this ancient land, than their experience of the world and life enshrined
in a continuously evolving belief system approximates to the idea of
Hinduism. The Hindu experience, or Hinduism, is the longest known and
living continuity in the world. And perhaps the most chequered one. The
Hindu tryst with humans – why? – with all living creatures, and with
nature and in fact the entire creation, has been a fascinating story of a
civilisation that grappled with the complexities of humans and of the
creation as whole on a practical plane.
This civilisation had
the wisdom to let the accumulated human experience to handle current
human problems, even as it firmly believed that the eternal values of
creation would continue to guide the destiny of humans. The Hindu
understanding of the world is conditioned by the Hindu experience of
nature and the propensities of humans; and the immutable laws of nature
as translated into continuously evolving rules of life in observable
form were called ‘Dharma’.
This in brief is the story of the
endogenous evolution of the Hindu society. But the discussion cannot be
limited to the endogenous evolution alone. We also have to deal with the
exogenous factors that impacted and are continuing to impact on the
body, mind and intellect of the Hindu society.
Hindu Dharma – a non-combative socio-cultural view intertwined with politics and economics
Pandit
Deendayal Upadhyaya, one of the well-known thinkers of Independent
India, repeatedly asserted, in his profound exposition of ‘Integral
Humanism’, that human life is integral. No aspect of life is autonomous,
or compartmental. This is true both at the micro and at the macro
level. In fact, this integral nature is not limited only to the humans.
It extends to the whole of the creation. Pandit Upadhyaya refers to the
integration of the Vyashti, the individual, Samashti, the collective,
and the Parameshti, the creator. There is integral relationship in the
creative processes; and this applies particularly to the relationship
between humans and nature. Given this integral relationship, and even
limiting it to humans only, the politico-economic life of a nation
cannot be divorced from its social and cultural life.
Socio-cultural
behaviour of the people impacts and shapes the economic and political
construct of a nation. Economic and political dimensions in turn have a
vital bearing on the socio-cultural evolution of a society. The modern
world moves on economic theories and econometrics. Every decision,
concerning political, diplomatic or security aspects, is linked to
economics. Yet even the die-hard west-centric economic and social
thinkers feel that there is something like a ‘20% missing link’ in
economics. What is that missing link? That is culture. Culture is the
uniqueness in the personality of a society. It is inextricably mixed
with economics. And economics interfaces politics. Therefore there is an
inseparable linkage between society, culture, economics and politics.
Not only are they interdependent, they exert enormous mutual influence.
It is admitted that economics influences culture. But culture influences
economics more than economics influences culture. Therefore any
analysis of socio-cultural life will have to factor-in economic and
political dimensions as well.
As a faith, Hinduism is inclusive,
and inner-directed. It does not impose itself on its own adherents. So
no question of its imposing itself on others arises. This principle of
life has been observed and unfailingly put into practice by the
inhabitants of this land since time immemorial. That was why they could
receive invading Sakas and Hunas and assimilate them and integrate them
into their society. That was why they could receive the Jews, Parsis,
Shia Muslims and the early Christians – all of whom came as refugees,
with their thoughts and beliefs orphaned in their own lands – and treat
them as equal members of this ancient society. There was no modern
constitution that guaranteed rights to minorities then; there were no
secularists to protect them from the majority. It was the majority
inhabitants, seeped in their Hindu Dharma, who protected them. The
non-conflicting nature of Hindu Dharma is not just a matter of theory,
but an observed practice that has been followed and adhered to for ages.
Hindutva – the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma
Hindu
Dharma represents the potential energy of the Indian people. But
without the manifestation of that potential energy in it active form, it
was unable to gather together its adherents to face the challenges.
Hindutva is the kinetic aspect of Hindu Dharma. Hindu Dharma or Hinduism
was never organised. Nor was it organisable. Organisation and Hinduism
were contradictory terms. A thought which accepted all other thoughts as
valid, which found fault with none and demeaned and discredited none,
can never be organised, because organisation is always motivated to
build strength around a thought against another. If there is no ‘other’
thought and all thoughts are acceptable and valid then there is no need
to organise. This was the strength of Hinduism or Hindu Dharma. It did
not need an organisation, and it was incapable of being organised.
But
when it was faced with the onslaught of the Abrahamic faiths which
rejected other thoughts, considered their followers as kafirs and
heathens, and denied them even the right to live, Hinduism slowly
assumed a kinetic form. Hinduism had to acquire this form to secure its
defence against the thoughts that used physical might against Hinduism.
This is how Hinduism, which had internal kinetic dimensions that led to
continuous evolution and to change with continuity, and which did not
need any external kinetics, began to develop external kinetics as
defence against the thoughts that sought to extinguish it.
That
was how Chatrapathi Shivaji thought of and was motivated to establish a
Hindavi Swarajya; this was an unprecedented departure from the
traditions of the Hindu nation. Never in the history of Hindus was there
a kingdom which had a religious connotation or implication. In fact,
the Hindu concept of RajaDharma protected the desachara of even the
conquered people; it made it obligatory on a conquering king to respect
the beliefs and life-style of the conquered people. Thus the victory or
defeat of kings did not mean any impact on or change in the life-style
or beliefs of the people. But, since the Abrahamic faiths were powered
by the state and the army, to defend itself Hindu Dharma also had to
manifest an external kinetic form that allowed it to take defensive
counter-actions. Over the years such counter action became the kinetic
force of the Hindu society, and come to be known as Hindutva. Hindutva
is the kinetic aspect of Hindu Dharma. For an unorganised thought like
Hinduism, this kinetic aspect is necessary; without Hindutva, the
kinetic force inherent in Hinduism, Hinduism was incapable of saving
itself from the aggressive Abrahmic faiths. Those aggressive faiths
would have long overrun Hindusim, if it were not protected by Hindutva.
The transition of Hinduism to its kinetic form Hindutva
An
introductory background to the modern theoretical understanding of
Hinduism or Hindutva is essential for any discussion on reinstating
Hindutva in the socio-cultural life of Bharatvarsh. This takes us to a
discussion on what constitutes Hindutva as it might be understood
through the exposition of scholars and literature which the modern world
and the modern Hindu are familiar with. As the modern Hindu and the
world at large are the principal factors that need to be tackled – the
ordinary Hindu is already in tune with the concept of Hindutva in his
total lifestyle – this discussion is focussed on the more recent and
modern understanding of Hindutva. It is focussed on Hindutva as it is
defined outside the intellectual process of the Hindutva movements; but
this definition is not very different from the understanding of Hindutva
within the Hindu movements.
‘Hindutva’, ‘Hinduness’ and
‘Hinduism’ are not independent but interchangeable concepts. The
statesman-philosopher, Dr S. Radhakrishnan, said in his lectures at the
Oxford University that originally the word Hindu had geographical, not
creedal, significance. It signified the geographic identity of Bharat,
the identity of the people in a particular geographic area, that is,
Bharatvarsh; the term did not signify any particular faith or method of
worship. Hindu was the name of the people of Bharatvarsh, the national
identity of Bharat. Even in the sense of a faith, Hinduism is unlike
Semitic religions, particularly Islam and Christianity, which have a
global agenda to Islamise or Christianise the world, which means
converting the adherents of other faiths and beliefs and eliminating
those faiths. The goal is not denied. It is only the means and the
methods that are in dispute or debate. The Hindu view is in direct
contrast to this Semitic mission.
The best definition for
Hinduism is given not by any scholar on Hinduism, but the one contained
in Encyclopaedia Britannica, a compilation that perceives the world from
a Christian standpoint. On Hinduism, the Encyclopaedia says:
In
principle Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without
necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is
inclined to revere the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may
be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others – including both Hindus
and non-Hindus – to whatever creed and worship practices suit them the
best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a
Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to
regard other forms of worship, strange Gods, and divergent doctrines as
inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that
the highest divine powers compliment each other for the well being of
the world and the mankind. Few religious ideas are considered to be
finally irreconcilable. The core of the religion does not even depend on
the existence or non-existence of the God or whether there is one God
or many. Since religious truth is said to transcend all verbal
definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Hinduism is then both
a civilisation and a conglomerate of religions with neither a
beginning, nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or
organisation.
Quoting
this from the encyclopaedia, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
held in 1977 that Hinduism is a non-conflicting religion. Later, when
the political idiom of India began to be influenced by Hindu Dharma
through the kinetics of Hindutva, the Supreme Court had to consider the
meaning of Hindutva. After considering the meaning and content of
Hinduism and Hindutva, the Court held in 1994 that Hindutva, the kinetic
effect of Hinduism, too is a non-conflicting and secular idea. So
conceptually and practically, Hindutva, which is the kinetic effect of
Hindu Dharma, is a non-conflicting idea. And so it has been in history
and in practice. The Hindavi Swaraj of Chatrapathi Shivaji is the first
state that adhered to Hindu Dharma. Otherwise it was the general rule of
Rajadharma which was the governing rule of this land. The addition of
the world Hindu as a prefix to the rule of Shivaji was in response to
the Islamic theological rule which had devastated the Hindu land
everywhere.
Strength as weakness: Inability to handle a faith that denies validity to other faiths
That
it is non-conflicting in precept and practice is the distinctness of
Hindutva. It is its differentiating uniqueness, its strength, and also
its weakness, particularly in its interface with Islam and Christianity.
In the Christian view, Hindutva is a pagan idea. Paganism everywhere
collapsed in the face of Christianity, because it did not know how to
deal with a faith that denied the foundations of all faiths other than
its own. Analysing why the Roman Empire and Roman Paganism collapsed
under the onslaught of Christianity, Encyclopaedia Britannica says:
Christianity
consistently practiced an intolerant attitude to Judaism and paganism
as well as heresy in its own ranks. By practising its intolerance
vis-à-vis the Roman Emperor cult, it thereby forced the Roman Empire on
its part into intolerance. Rome, however, was not adapted to the
treatment of a religion that negated its religious foundations, and this
inadequacy later influenced the breakdown of paganism. [Vol. 4. page
492]
It
is not just the fate of Roman paganism; all pagan religions collapsed
the same way before the onslaught of Christianity. Pagan religions were
unfamiliar with a religion like Christianity, which negated the
foundations of all other religions. Till Christianity arose on the
horizon, no religion negated the foundations of another religion. It is
only Christianity which introduced the idea of a religion rejecting
another religion and claiming to be the true religion. Even Judaism,
even though it claimed to be the only religion, did not invalidate or
negate other religions. It is this proselytising element of
Christianity, which makes it essentially intolerant and violent.
Hinduism
is similar to the pagan religions as it does not negate the foundations
of other religions, and in fact accepts all other religions. Therefore,
like the Roman pagan religions, Hinduism must also have been a
candidate for collapse; but it did not collapse. Why Hinduism did not
collapse has stunned the forces inimical to it. More than theological
foundations, it is the socio-religious structure of Hinduism that
protected it. Its defences were too complex for any armed or ideological
aggression of the kind that felled the other pagan faiths. What these
defences were, and continue to be, will be discussed at some length
later in this article.
While Hindutva did not and will not
collapse in the face of Christianity, it has been hurt and hurt
grievously in many areas. It is being hurt and injured even now. The
Hindu belief that all faiths are sacred human experiences is
fundamentally incapable of handling a faith like Christianity, which
completely denies validity and legitimacy to any faith other than
itself. It is difficult even to make the Hindus imagine that there could
be a faith that denied validity to another. This inability persists
even today. This is one of the greatest challenges to Hinduism in
Bharat.
The Islamic belief in exclusive validity is identical to
that of Christianity. But the problems of Hindus in their interface
with Islam are even greater. Islam came into Bharat mainly as an
invading faith; it was imposed here through statecraft and military,
both of which were driven by faith. The interface between Hindutva and
Islam has been highly violent. Will Durant says that Islamic invasion of
India is the bloodiest invasion in history. The Islamic impact on India
led to huge transfer of populations and territories from the Hindus to
Islam. First Afghanistan, then Pakistan and Bangladesh, ceased to be
part of Bharat, after the people in those societies ceased to be part of
the Hindu society.
Thus both Islamic and Christian theologies
constitute the mightiest problem and pose the greatest challenge to the
Hindus and to Hindutva, to the security and life and culture of the
Hindus.
Even a greater problem is posed by the inability of the
adherents of Hindutva to believe that a faith could deny and even claim,
as a matter of faith, the right to eliminate other faiths. As a result,
Hinduism is handicapped in facing the aggressive proselytising thrust
of Christianity, which is founded on the premise that Christianity alone
has the patented know-how for human salvation, and no other faith is
valid. It is handicapped in understanding that the trigger for Islamic
terrorism is the very belief that only Islam has the right to exist, and
no other faith has such a right.
So the real problem of Hinduism
lies in the theology of Islam and of Christianity. The problem is not
the Muslims or Christians; not even the organised Church or the Mosque.
The problem is their fundamental religious belief that negates other
faiths the right to exist. This is where proselytising faiths differ
fundamentally from those that do not proselytise. This is where even the
Judaic faith, which is part of the Abrahamic family, differs from
Christianity and Islam. The Jewish faith is a racial faith; it believes
in domination, but not in elimination of other faiths by conversion.
The
challenge: The notion among Hindus, even Hindu scholars and leaders,
that all religions are of the same nature or have the same goals
The
internalised experience of the Hindus over millennia that all religions
are same has settled in the genetic code of the Hindus. This was
blindly applied to the Semitic religions also when they arrived in
India. This is evident from the intellectual and social responses to
Judaism, early Islam and early Christianity when they reached the shores
of India. This is also partially true of our response to the Parsi
religion. But these faiths, when they arrived in India, were refugee
faiths, having been driven out from their lands by their enemies or
quarrelling cousins, like in the case of Shias who were driven out by
their Sunni cousins.
The general truth about these faiths is that
they never recognised or shared the Hindu idea of Dharma, which was the
common denominator of the multitude of faiths within Hindutva. In fact
this was and continues to be an area of unresolved theological conflict
between these alien religions and Hindutva. This conflict was less
pronounced in the cases of Judaism and Zorastrianism, which were racial
religions not open to other races, and which therefore did not insist
upon Hindus converting to these faiths. They became like separate castes
in Bharat. But this conflict became pronounced and even violent in the
case of Islam and Christianity, which entered Bharat as refugee faiths
and turned into invading faiths after the Islamic hordes and
colonialists entered Bharat.
The violence arose because of the
spirit of conversion that was not only inherent in them, but also was
ordained as a compulsive trait of a believing Christian or Muslim.
Encyclopaedia Britannica records that Columbus set out to sail to India
because he believed that Satan, in the form of Hinduism, had taken
refuge in India, and further believed that unless this hindrance called
Hinduism were to be removed through Christian missions, the impending
return of Christ, which was on hand, would be indefinitely delayed. Thus
the colonial powers had as much a religious motive as an
economic-commercial motive fuelling their urge for expansion. The less
said about Islamic invasion of India the better. It was motivated as
much by religious fervour as by the desire to loot.
These two
proselytising religions are violent by nature, because of the idea and
institution of conversion that is inalienable from the core of their
faith. The faith in these religions is incomplete unless the faithful
simultaneously invalidates and de-legitimises other faiths; hence their
hostility to the Kafir and the Heathen; and hence their core
institutions of Jihad and Crusade designed to deal with the non-believer
in their exclusive faiths.
All this continues to be beyond the
comprehension of the Hindu mind. So, even the scholarly Hindus, and
Hindu religious leaders, continue to believe that Christianity and Islam
are just like our own religions, except that these faiths tend to
emphasise their point of view very strongly. The misbehaviour inherent
in these religions is attributed to the zealots among them. But the
truth is that there is mischief in the very foundation of these
religions. So long as religious conversions are inherent and compulsive
to a faith, that faith shall be violent to other faiths. To hold the
followers responsible for such violence and exonerate the fundamental
religious doctrines which preach such violence is a miserable
intellectual failure of the Hindus. The misreading of these two
religions, of understanding them in the image of Hinduism, is the
biggest intellectual and philosophic failure of Hinduism.
Removing
this gross misconception from the minds of Hindu religious leaders,
scholars, and others is the first and the greatest challenge facing the
Hindu society and the Hindu religious leaders and scholars. The Hindu
leaders and scholars must study the Islamic and Christian scriptures
thoroughly. They must undertake a massive effort to make the Hindus
understand the theology of both. They must engage Islam and Chritianity
in an open debate so that modern audiences may listen and watch. They
must openly question the Christian and Islamic belief that all other
beliefs are illegitimate; question their classification of the humans
into Faithful and Pagan or Kafir; torment them on what they mean by
Jihad and ask them whether Hindus are Kafirs and Heathens.
This
alone will throw them on the defensive. Their aggressive pursuit of
their religious and political goals can be checkmated only if they are
thrown on the defensive. The only thing that will shame them is the
public exposure of the narrowness and violence inherent in their faith
and theology.
Even many Muslims and Christians do not know how
narrow and violent their faiths are. They merely want to differentiate
themselves from the Hindus, and for the sake of that differentiation
tolerate their own leaders’ intolerance to Hindus and Hinduism. If they
come to know that their own faith is the culprit in fomenting violence
against the Hindus and Hinduism, their response could be very different.
The
Hindu religious and social leaders must also link up globally with the
leaders of other non-proselytising faiths. They must strike alliances
with Buddhists, with the remaining pagans in Europe, Africa and the
Americas who are trying to revive their traditions, and also with the
enlightened followers of Semitic religions all over the world,
particularly among the Christians who do not agree with the mission of
Christianising the world. We should also ally with enlightened sections
of Islamic societies in Iraq, Iran and Egypt and with the tribal chiefs
of Afghanistan.
The evolution of Hindutva in vote bank based secular polity
Hindu
Dharma, which almost got eclipsed in the public domain and went
underground in Independent India under the Nehruvian spell, began to
assert itself again in the public domain in the late 1980s and early
1990s through the Ayodhya movement.
The secular polity of
Independent India had gradually turned into a game of minority
appeasement for votes; it had consequently become anti-Hindu. The
Ayodhya movement evolved as a corrective to this distortion. The
movement brought about massive political changes in the country; it put
the pseudo-secular polity, parties and leaders on the defensive. The
BJP, with its agenda of Hindutva, became the largest political party in
less than a decade and captured power in 1998 as part of a coalition.
Today
Hindutva is the mainline thought of the country. Pseudo-secular
political parties and their leaders are in the process of giving up
secularism to fight elections on the basis of good governance. Politics
is in the process of being restored to political parties, which were
only appeasing the minorities for votes just a decade ago. Expressing
allergy to Hinduism and Hindus had become part of the political process
and normal secular ideological expression. But today this style of
politics is fetching negative returns.
Now one can disagree with
Hindutva, but cannot disregard the Hindus or distance themselves from
Hinduism any more. Imagine the government of Kerala extending the rights
of minority institutions to the Hindu educational institutions! This
would have been unimaginable without the tectonic shift that is taking
place in the national polity. The secular political parties are seeking
to make a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva, implying that
Hinduism is good, but not Hindutva. But some reflection would show that
Hindutva is only the kinetic manifestation of the dormant potential of
Hinduism; it is the defensive force of the only non-conflicting and
non-combative religious faith.
Hindutva is no more a marginal
idea today. It is now the mainline thought. It is Hindutva that has been
setting the agenda for national debate for the past decade and more.
The emergence of Hindutva as the mainline thought places special
responsibilities on those leading the Hindutva movement. Unlike the
minority-led movements which can agitate and go on agitating as
perpetual dissenters, unconcerned about governance and the running of
the country, the Hindutva movement has the responsibility to ensure that
national governance is not affected, whichever party is in power. It is
the alienation of the Hindus from the establishment which turned the
majority Hindus into dissenters in the decades following Independence.
As a result of such alienation the majority of this country never felt
that it was in power as Hindus. In fact the very idea of majority rule
was defined as opposed to the idea of secularism.
The polity of
Independent India prior to the Ayodhya movement and rise of Hindutva had
virtually no character. It was a polity that was driven by
personalities rather than ideology. The cult of personalities as the
centre of politics, without any ideology informing and driving the
polity, has almost ended with the ascension of the BJP to power. Whether
the ruling BJP asserts its Hindu character or not, whether it owns up
to its basis in Hindutva or not, it is always seen as a Hindu force.
With
Hindutva emerging as the central focus of the nation and
pseudo-secularism getting marginalized, the earlier phase of the
marginalisation of Hindutva and Hindus in politics is over. The Hindu
movements now will have to reconsider their posture of perpetual
dissent, and turn into mainline drives of the country. It is true that
the Hindu agenda remains largely unfulfilled. But the Hindu movement has
a difficult situation to handle. It cannot agitate and at the same it
cannot give up its ideological thrust. Any agitation today is seen as a
rift within the Hindu movement. So the Hindu movements need to handle
the situation with extreme dexterity and skill.
The need
to avoid creating or contributing to create the image of a reactionary
intolerant and violent Hindutva, and of the Hindu organisations as the
counterparts of Islamic terrorist outfits
Today, when
communications have linked the whole world and anyone saying something
or any event happening in a remote corner is soon broadcast all over the
world, all debates have become global, and so has all opinion making.
This is particularly so where the debates concern a nation like Bharat,
which constitutes 1/6th of humanity, and which is perceived to be an
emerging global player in the economic and strategic fields. It is even
more so, when the debate concerns Hindutva in relation to Islam or
Christianity, which are global faiths with powerful global lobbies
supporting them.
The world suffers from utmost ignorance about
Hinduism. The ordinary world sees it as another exclusive faith. Most
people in the world do not believe that there can be a religion that
grants the validity and legitimacy of other religions. The world is used
only to religions that proclaim not only their exclusive validity, but
also the falsity of all other religions. Such ignorance pervades those
in the media and even many of the intellectuals. Their knowledge of
religions is limited, and they treat all of them to be about the same.
They tend to understand Hinduism and Hindutva only through their
understanding of Islam or at best of Christianity.
The Christian
West thinks that all religions other than Christianity are like Islam.
They believe that Buddhism is like Islamic extremism, and they find
evidence for this belief in the ‘Aum Shirinyo’ phenomenon of Japan. They
think that the Hindutva movement in Bharat is the counterpart of
Islamic fundamentalist movements in Pakistan or Indonesia or Malaysia.
The difference between the Semitic faiths and the Hindu pantheon of
faiths is largely unknown to the world, particularly the Western world.
Even scholars are unaware of the difference between Hindutva and Islam
for instance.
Today it is the media that is informing scholarship
and not the other way round. The leaders of the Hindutva movement must
understand that the Hinduism and Hindutva are being judged on the
analogy of Islam and Christianity. For, to the West, religion means only
Islam and Christianity. They understand and judge other religions only
on their understanding of these two Semitic faiths.
The profane
media-generated opinion, which happens to be mostly incorrect, is a
problem for Hindutva and the Hindu organisations. The latter are in
danger of being bracketed with Islamic extremist and terrorist
organisations. Why go out of India? Even within India the pseudo-secular
and left elements always juxtapose Hindu organisations with the Islamic
extremist organisations; they always tend to compare and club together a
Hindu organisation like Bajrang Dal with the Islamic SIMI. This is a
ready trap into which the Hindu organisations and their leaders keep
falling repeatedly. In the process Hindutva is being regarded as a
cousin of Islamic extremism and Hindu organisations as the mirror-image
of Islamic terrorist and extremist organisations.
The leaders of
the Hindutva movement must understand that Hindutva is the only thought
that lacks global support. Equally it is a thought that has as its
adversaries two of the most powerful global thoughts, Islam and
Christianity. It requires sound strategy and great skill and dexterity
to navigate the Hindutva movement through this maze of global
overseeing. The leaders of Hindu organisations need extensive training
and deep thinking to undertake this highly demanding enterprise. They
must choose words that cannot be faulted; employ the language that
cannot be questioned. They must project an image of being the victims of
Islamic terror and extremism rather than as their equal or equivalent
counterparts. The Hindu organisations must understand that it is only
the state that can fight terror with fire. The society can only generate
fierce public opinion against terror to enable the government to fight
terror freely and without being constrained by the human rights
industry, and by the liberals and other intellectual anarchists.
This
is an area to which the Hindutva movement and the leaders of the
movement need to devote adequate time and attention. They must devise
proper strategy. They must develop proper leadership and appropriate
tools and language for articulation. For, on them depends the opinion
that the world shall form of the Hindutva movements and the view it
shall take of Hindutva.
Since global opinion is very crucial to
fight Islamic terror, which is a globally linked and globally directed
phenomenon, it is necessary for the Hindu organisations to start
correcting the distorted opinion created in the past by the omissions
and commissions of the Hindutva movement and its leadership. This needs
to be attended to immediately on an emergency footing. If need be
diverse chosen leaders of the movement will have to travel to important
countries in the world, meet opinion-makers within and outside of the
national establishments and ensure that the obvious difference between
the Islamic and Hindu movements are clearly explained to them, that
these differences are clearly etched in their understanding. Now is the
time when the world will be receptive to such viewpoints; it was not so
two years back. The situation offers a challenge as well as an
opportunity.
Hindu Dharma is inherently a global thought: Hence the challenge of factoring Global influences
In
the present context, with mass communication invading individuals,
families, societies and nations, there is cross-country interface
between different cultures, which also influences and impacts national
cultures. Today there is an undeniable and unstoppable global influence
over national cultures. All over the world there are debates taking
place about the consequences of such cross-country influences, about the
creeping westernisation of all cultures, about the homogenisation of
all cultures into a single global construct. Even within the West there
is growing resentment towards the Americanisation of the European
culture. Particularly the French feel so. In fact there are debates that
points towards emerging global conflicts over culture.
As early
as 1994, long before Islamic terrorism struck at the US and the West as
intensely as it began doing later, a leading strategic thinker in the US
wrote about a possible clash among civilisations driven by Christian,
Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu religions. This was written in the context
of Islamic fundamentalism emerging as the greatest threat to the West.
The author perceived a possible future scenario where the West might be
raged against all the Rest. He advised the West to come to terms with
the Rest in order to avoid large-scale violent clashes.
While
this particular scholar spoke of clashes among civilisations defined by
religion, another thinker felt that the clashes would indeed arise along
civilisational lines, but what defined civilisations was not religion,
but technology. According to him there would be clashes among
pre-modern, modern and post-modern civilisations, which are deeply
differentiated from each other by technology. Thus cultural divide,
whether the culture is defined by religion or technology, is
increasingly perceived as an important element, perhaps the most
important element, in forging and breaking global relationships and
alliances.
It is necessary – indeed it is a challenge – to
factor global perceptions and development in any socio-cultural or
socio-economic study of India. For, India driven by Hindu Dharma is
susceptible to global influences more than any other country. This is
for a host of reasons, some of which have been suggested by Dr Abdul
Kalam, the current President of India. Paraphrasing Dr. Kalam, the
reasons for the peculiar susceptibility of India to global influences
are: First, India has been a land that was repeatedly invaded and
totally colonised land for centuries, and so the colonial hangover
distorts its mind. Second, by faith and conviction it has an inclusive
and global mind, it believes in vasudhaiva kutumbakam,
and so, philosophically, it can never be insular. Third, it has no sense
of retaliation and so it cannot reject even those who have in the past
harmed it. Fourth, it has greater flexibility in accepting outsiders and
so it makes very little distinction between those who are its own and
those who are outsiders. [A most striking example of this phenomenon is
Sonia Gandhi’s acceptability to the Congress party.] Fifth, it has huge
Indian diasporas; the number of Indians outside India is as large as 30
million, with every one of them relating to at least three persons in
India as relatives and friends. Lastly, the Indian people account for
1/6th of global population and a country of that size and number cannot
remain isolated from the rest of the world. For all these reasons, India
is inevitably susceptible to global cultural influences.
India
cannot be insulated; therefore, unless India influences the world, the
world is bound to influence India. The only way India can neutralise
global influence on India is to influence the world and bend it towards
its way. This is a huge challenge. Today India’s actual capacity to
influence the world is unproven and its potential capacity is suspect.
While the world, which means the West, ceaselessly and comprehensively
influences Hindu India, there is hardly a matching Indian influence on
the world or the West. This is because the main vehicle of Western
influences on India in the last century was not the West outside India,
but the English-educated elite and the leftists within India. They do
the work of the West in India. They influence India towards the Western
views and ways. They make India believe that it has nothing worthwhile
with which to influence the world and it has every reason to be
influenced by the world. They continue to dominate the Indian debate
even now. This great challenge too needs to be met.
The response
to this challenge lies in establishing an acceptable language and style
of communication to get across to the important, vulnerable and
critical segment of Hindu society comprising of the English-educated
elite. The Hindu leadership must understand that the English-educated
population in Bharat is more than the total population of England. It is
this segment which controls and handles the levers of power and
influence in the society. Their influence over the Indian establishment,
including the government, business, finance, media, politics, academics
and public discourse in general, is totally disproportionate to their
numbers. Their understanding of the real Bharat, its history and
traditions, its values and culture, is minimal, and often wrong. Some
among them even detest all ideas and things Indian. Following the
Western view of gender relationships and under the influence of feminism
– which has nearly destroyed the institution of the family in the West –
some of them are even apologetic about being women in the normal sense
of the term.
These influences are gaining force, and even
legitimacy, in the Indian discourse. This has accentuated the tussle
between the modern and the tradition in India at various levels; it has
influenced everything from discourses in the public domain to quarrels
and disputes within families. So the Hindutva movement, that spans a
large canvas extending from the traditional mathas to the modern,
westernised and even Christianised versions of Hindu organisations like
the new spiritual orders, must specially target this English-educated
and the partially and fully Westernised. This requires detailed planning
and execution.
If the challenge of Westernisation and cultural
invasion – which is becoming an issue all over the world, and shall
probably be the principal reason for the emerging clash between Islam
and the West – can be handled, and even defied and defeated by any
society, it is only the Hindu society. Hindutva has the philosophical
flexibility and diversity of traditions that allows it to make tradition
a part of the present, a part of the immediate context of the
individual, without making traditional practices remote or distant. This
has been achieved by the Hindu society and the exponents of Hindutva by
locating Hindu traditions and beliefs deeply within the filial, local
and social contexts.
How to handle the English-educated segment
of the Hindus needs to be discussed in detail. But suffice it to say at
this stage that this issue is a challenge. It needs to be handled
deftly. But, let there be no doubt that it can indeed by handled;
Hindutva has the civilisational and cultural resources to handle this
challenge.
The main reason for the diffused and confused
Hindu identity among the English-educated: Even as we became free, we
allowed our minds to remain colonised
One of the
principal reasons why India is porous to foreign, to be precise,
Western, influences is that after Independence India never even
attempted to de-colonise itself. Instead of illegitimatising the
colonial rule and invasions and reinstalling the unconquered India, the
Indian leadership perpetuated a defeated and colonised India. Far from
distancing themselves from the colonial rule, personalities and
influences, the rulers of Independent India came to terms with and
perpetuated colonial institutions and personalities. Independent India
even adorned the last colonial ruler on the highest governmental
position of the land.
The Nehuruvian approach rationalised the
colonial influences as necessary for national development. When Indian
leaders set about rebuilding India after we attained freedom, the
Nehruvian approach prevailed over the Gandhian in re-shaping the
society, polity and economy of India. The conflict between the Nehruvian
and the Gandhian approaches was clearly articulated by the two
proponents themselves already in 1928. Pandit Nehru was clear that
western culture should dominate India and it could not be avoided. He
even charged that Gandhi had virtually kept the nation obsessed with
village and khadi. He asserted that Rama Rajya was no good even when
Rama reigned. Nor did he want it back. The extent of hostility Nehru
displayed had shocked Gandhiji. He found Nehru’s views diametrically
opposed to his own views about the future India, where native ways and
views of life would dominate and the modern Western ways would be
adopted extremely selectively only in unavoidable situations. Finally,
it was the Nehruvian views that prevailed, and the Gandhian way was
relegated to the margins.
One consequence of this dominance of
the Nehruvian approach was that our Independence turned out to be a mere
transfer of power, not freedom from the British; Independence came to
represent merely a change of the rulers with almost no change in the
character of the rule or the attitudes of the rulers to the people of
India and to the ideas and things Indian. The Anglo-Saxon values and
norms continued to be the soul of the Indian state that came into being
after Independence. There was little of indigenous ways in the polity of
India following Independence. Whatever was native was made the subject
matter of ridicule. Secular India virtually targeted the traditional and
religious India. To make matters worse, we took to the socialist form
of economy and so whatever tradition remained, that became a prey to the
leftist and socialist onslaught.
Thus, the divide between the
Indian establishment and the Indian people remained despite
Independence, and even widened as independent rule took roots.
Consequently the socio-cultural life of Bharat is to day stretched and
divided between the two extremes of Anglo-Saxon life-style, institutions
and norms on the one hand and the native lifestyle, institutions and
norms on the other. This divide is partly explicit and partly hidden.
While this struggle has been going on in India since Independence, with
the Nehru family directing the debate against the native ways of life,
the initiative has been partly wrested by two socio-political mass
movements in the late 1980s and early 1990s, namely the Mandal movement
and the Ayodhya movement.
Conclusion
What
follows from this discussion is that Hindutva is the kinetic form of
Hindu Dharma. This form is an evolution dictated by the absence of
organised strength in Hindu Dharma. Its evolution was necessitated by
the fact that Hindu Dharma had no conflict with other religions and
therefore it was non-combative in character. Since Hindu Dharma was
non-conflicting and non-combative in nature, it lacked the aggression
needed to face the aggressive Semitic faiths that had a global mission
to convert the whole world to their faiths. Since Hindu Dharma accepted
the validity of all faiths, it could not deny that validity and
legitimacy to the Semitic faiths also, despite the fact that they denied
not just validity to Hindu dharma, but also theologically denied it the
right to exist as a religion.
With these structural weaknesses
arising out of its inclusiveness, the adherents of Hindu Dharma evolved
over centuries a facet of Hindu Dharma that responded to the onslaught
of others; that is how the kinetic form of Hindu Dharma, namely
Hindutva, was born. The entire freedom movement was in substance powered
by the implicit kinetics of Hindutva.
But free and Independent
India, which was hijacked by those who believed in the secularism
practised in Christendom, turned the secular Indian allergic to Hindu
Dharma. This distortion confounded the mind and polity of India for over
four decades.
The Ayodhya movement evolved as a corrective to
this distortion and brought balance to the polity of India. Now the
kinetic form of Hindu Dharma, Hindutva, is the mainline thought despite
the fact that the political idiom of India remains secularist; but the
secularism that was practised for the first four decades is not the
secularism that is being practiced now. What was once understood as
‘dharmanirapekshata’ or neutrality of the state towards religious faith,
which approximated to the Christendom’s view of secularism, is now
recognised as ‘sarvapantha samabhava’ or equal protection to all
religions, which is the very essence of Hindu Dharma. So the kinetic
form of Hindu Dharma, that is Hindutva, has forced a reinterpretation of
secularism to make it consistent with the Hindu Dharma.
Any married person, whether he belongs to the mortal human beings or saints, or Gandharvas, Gods or even the Lords, undergoes the usual pathology of house-hold disputes, skirmishes and disquiets. Lord Shiva was no exception. One day, Narada, the non-stop mobile saint got audience with the Lord at Kailasa. Narayan…Narayan… Saluted the sage with humble reverence:“Lord and mother of the Universe…” he said aiming the couple, “I am the most blessed person among the whole creatures of the universe, for; I can have the rarest audience of you whenever I wish, if you are not otherwise engaged.”
