Term paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the course on Sociology

Hindutva: A fascist ideology

Pranav Mani Chinnaswamy
B.A./LLB.- 2014
Sociology
Section D
20141169

Introduction:
Hindutva, a term coined by V. D. Savarkar, literally translates to Hindu-ness. Savarkar defined it as a coherent pattern of concepts that applied only to Hindus. Hinduism and nationalism simultaneously developed and progressed throughout 19th and 20th century India. Towards the end of the British era, Indians were confused about their national identity and it was this identity crisis that gave birth to the concept of Hindutva. This was also the time during which Indians wanted to stick to their indigenous culture, but continued to do everything ‘English’ to uplift themselves and their status in the society. It was one of the many attempts to define an “Indian” identity. Savarkar, along with others, called for the killing of the Muslims and other minorities, who did not accept this ideology. Hindutva is essentially a political consciousness, which does not embody or promote respect for other faiths. Hindutva is not about religion or faith, but rather about something embedded in the cultural politics of exclusion. It is not about religion or philosophy, as it initially does come across, but more of a violent theocracy. Hindutva is a caricature, an attempted perversion, of Hinduism and hence cannot be equated with the latter. The entire concept of Hindutva, has metamorphosed under the belief that all the ancestors of Indians are Hindus. In this paper, I will show the distinction between a putative Hinduism and Hindutva, critiquing the latter as a fascist ideology that distorts Hinduism.
The definition that luminaries like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru offered for Hindutva, as an ideology, is essentially in opposition to that which has been offered by Savarkar. Nehru firmly believed that all Indians, regardless of their religion, caste or sex, were inheritors of a deeply diverse yet common historical tradition. This historical tradition included a common culture and lineage (Nehru, J. (1961) The Discovery of India, Bombay: Asia Publishing House) Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in his speech in Aligarh Muslim University, in 1948 said, “You are Muslim and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none; but that does not take away from that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mine. The past holds us together; why should the present or the future divide us in spirit” ("Secular Outlook." - Mainstream Weekly. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.) Gandhi did not believe in segregation of an individual’s life into the different realms of religion and politics. He advocated politics that was inclusive of religious ethics and was stringently opposed to the idea of conforming religious communities in accordance to political ideology (Gandhi, M.K. (1980) The Spirit of Hinduism, New Delhi: Pankaj Publications).
Savarkar seems to profess Hindutva as an ideology with an extremely narrow purview. It limits the ambit of the ideology and permits it to include allegiance to a common native land only by adhering to some strict conditions. One must be cautious and not confuse native land with land that is considered to be pious (Savarkar, V.D. (1989) ‘Hindutva’ from Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?, 6th edn, Delhi, Bhartia Sahitya Sadan,)

Today, violent communalism is taking to the forefront. It coerces people to choose between the perspectives of Hinduism as mentioned above. The choice, then, is between their communal and national identity.
Although Savarkar’s vision of Hindutva might seem at first to be contemporary and nationalist, it is, in reality, authoritarian, militant and chauvinistic. It is the opposite of Gandhi’s version of Hinduism, which allows different forms of Hinduism to coexist. Gandhi envisages the synthesis of unity through a thread of common nationality and citizenship. He pictures the Indian as an individual capable of developing a supra-regional and supra-religious identity, i.e., an identity that can, then, be shared by a cocktail of the Indian populace of various regions and religions not sharing a common language, but only an overlapping culture and common nationality. Hindutva groups, on the other hand, define India as a Hindu nation that must comprise only Hindus. One cannot term Hinduism, which is a way of life, as an orthodox religion, yet Hindutva groups do precisely that.
Gandhi’s version of Hindutva ideology exists in contradiction to that which Savarkar propagates. Hindutva ideologues like Savarkar and Modi are staunch supporters of nationalism that is devoid of religiosity in any form whatsoever. This form of religious fundamentalism poses a threat to the idea of an India that is plural, inclusive and democratic. It betrays the fundamental idea of unity in diversity which forms the basis of the Indian polity.
Principles of Hindutva:
The first basic principle of liberal-democratic political philosophy is the primacy of national interest. This principle states that national interest lies in safeguarding the freedom and wellbeing of citizens and must be the propelling force behind every decision taken by the State. Hindutva ideology, on the other hand, promotes the desire for a singular India. It is fascist at a principled level, advocating the idea of ‘ek pradhan, ek nishan aur ek vidhan’ (one institution, one goal – establishing a Hindu State, and one rule).
This leads to me another key principle of a democracy - freedom. Liberal democracies promote individual freedom and liberty. They focus on the individual rather than the collective. Hindutva thought holds that the government must limit itself to the realm of law and order, justice and security. Regulation of everything else is left in the hands of society. In doing so, it keeps the tradition of Hinduism alive. Hindutva is generally linked to a uniform civil code, which was the very foundation or building block of the Hindutva movement. Hindutva activists have been using this demand for a uniform civil code as a basis to find a political space for their movement. The concept of a uniform civil code has been controversial since the era of colonialism.
Another principle of democracy is ‘Rule of law’. This principle maintains that all individuals must be subjected to the same law and treated as equals under it. There is an interesting quote in the Mahabharata that illustrates how the rule of law is in fact promoted by Hinduism. When Bhishma is dying, he gives Yudhishtra a discourse about Raj Dharma. He says, “A King who performs raj dharma selflessly, reaches the highest position of a sanyasi”. Raj Dharma is essentially the concept of treating the subjects even-handedly and this is essentially the principle of rule of law. This quote is quite interesting because one could make a strong case that Hinduism is essentially about rule of law; and that, in many ways is the ultimate dharma, as dharma is all about upholding the law. However, Hindutva philosophy is majoritarian in its outlook. It holds that the needs and demands of the Hindu must be viewed as paramount by the Indian State. It is not inclusive of minority religious or cultural groups and suggests that different groups can be held to different standards by the Indian State.
This leads us to the last principle I will be discussing in this paper - ‘economic prosperity.’ This is a controversial topic because traditional Hindu writers have always rallied against capitalism, as they believe that it is an evil force. The reality, however, is that Hindutva is actually against socialism, not capitalism. It supports individual economic freedom and celebrates the idea of wealth accumulation – two primarily capitalist ideas. What this means in the context of the modern Indian economy is that Hindutva would be pro-capitalist, pro-big business and pro-corporate – everything that is the anti-thesis of socialism. This goes against the entire idea of India as envisaged by the constitution, which clearly states that India is socialist. This is stated in the preamble of the constitution, which is a part of the basic structure and is therefore vital to its structure and principles.
Incidents that occurred because of the Hindutva movement
The first real demonstration of large-scale, violent, militant Hindu nationalism was the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhumi movement. Various Hindu groups like the RSS and BJP claimed that the spot on which Babri Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya was, was the same that Lord Rama was born and that there existed a Hindu temple there, before it was torn down by Muslims and replaced with a mosque. This movement led to the demolition of Babri Masjid in December 1992. This resulted in widespread riots all over the country, with more than 3000 lives lost and numerous people being displaced from their homes.
Another incident of Hindutva violence was the Godhra riots in Gujrat. In 2002, four coaches of the Sabarmati Express, which was returning from Ayodhya, caught fire, killing 59 people. Most of the passengers were Hindu pilgrims, who were returning from Ayodhya. Hindutva groups held that the perpetrators of this fire were Muslims. The Sangh Parivar called a strike following this episode. This strike led to wide-spread communal riots and violence in Gujrat. A lot of rumours spread during this time, linking Pakistan and the local Muslims to planning and carrying out various attacks on Hindus, which intensified the already horrific massacre.
Hindu Nationalism and Present-day Indian Politics
"I am nationalist. I'm patriotic. Nothing is wrong. I am born Hindu. Nothing is wrong. So I'm a Hindu nationalist. So yes, you can say I'm a Hindu nationalist because I' m a born Hindu”. – Narendra Modi
Holding the tag of a Hindu nationalist with pride, India’s dynamic Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has often been accused of being a Hindu extremist. He defends his ideology by defining ‘Hinduism’ as less of a religion, and more of a way of life- as established above. However, this is a problematic idea, keeping in mind that the Preamble of our Constitution speaks of the secularity of our nation, keeping away any boundaries and chains of religion and lifestyle. Building upon this foundation one must also note that BJP, the party in power at the centre, as well as in a majority of the states, bases its ideologies on Hindu Fundamentalism.
The debate lies in the heart of secularism versus communalism. This debate has been a burning fire, which has been kindled by the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections, where Modi’s spectacular governing in Gujarat for three long terms, and his thought-provoking speeches, over-powered the allegedly corrupt Congress. Before throwing light on this debate of contemporary politics, it is important to clarify the real meaning of both these terms, and understand the direct or inverse relationship they share with Hindutva.
“Communalism is a divisive force that identifies people in distinct, often in conflict, religious groups but secularism tends to unify communities on the principles of equity and mutual respect. Empathy, humanism and philanthropy remain basic traits of any secularist person who always advocates for common welfare and well-being of all. Secularism, in true sense, involves rising above the religious considerations to ensure the justice and fair play to all citizens. Hence it is of paramount importance in any democratic country that citizens imbibe the true secular values and ethics for a meaningful democracy and a better social order in the state.” (Jaipal Singh)

Hindutva has a direct relationship with communalism. It clearly distinguishes those who hold this lifestyle in high regard, with those who prefer leading their life without chains and conditions. However, secularism, fundamentally, remains in conflict with the idea of Hindutva. Secularism embraces all religions in an equitable manner, and attempts to keep religious symbolism divorced from political life.
Conclusion:

The Hindutva movement is viewed by many as fascist because it is steeped in the idea of a homogenised Hindu populous, supports only a particular privileged class and propagates a specific Hindu cultural hegemony. Hindutva activists claim that this discourse comes from leftists. However, Hindutva does display many characteristics that are classic ingredients of fascism. It attempts to create a homogenous Hindu identity, it is steeped in the idea of a common past injustice and interprets history in this narrow manner. It establishes a sense of cultural superiority by asserting that Hindus are superior to all other religious groups that live within India. The Hindutva brigade also rejects all rational arguments that defy its teleological representation of history. Its main appeal is steeped in race, religion and purity. The masculine identity is viewed as superior and the Hindu is always masculine. It is paramount that Indians understand that this Hindutva force supports a regressive form of nationalism and communal enmity. Encouraging this fascist ideology will make India a hotbed of communal animosity and extremism, and eventually, cultural genocide. India is in danger of becoming a totalitarian Hindu State if this dangerous ideology continues to subsist.