Hindu Nationalism versus Indian Nationalism
Ram Puniyani
The debate around Hindu Nationalism and Indian
Nationalism is not a new one. During colonial period, when the rising freedom
movement was articulating the concept and values of Indian nationalism, the
section of Hindus, keeping aloof from freedom movement asserted the concept of
Hindu Nationalism. The debate has resurfaced again due to the one who is trying
to project himself as the Prime-Ministerial candidate of BJP-NDA, Narendra
Modi. In an interview recently (July 2013) said very ‘simply’ that he was born
a Hindu, he is a nationalist, so he is a Hindu Nationalist! His Party President
Rajnath Singh also buttressed the point and took it further to say that Muslims
are Muslim nationalists, Christians are Christian Nationalists. So one has a
variety of nationalisms to choose from!
Modi’s putting 2+2 together and claiming to be a
Nationalist and a Hindu and so a Hindu nationalist is like putting the wool in
others eyes. Hindu nationalism is a politics and a category with a specific
meaning and agenda. This is the part of the ideology and practice of Modi’s
parent organizations, BJP-RSS. During colonial period the rising classes of
industrialists, businessmen, workers and educated classes came together and
formed different organizations, Madras Mahajan Sabha, Pune Sarvajanik Sabha,
Bombay Association etc.. These organizations felt for the need for an over
arching political organization so went in to form Indian National Congress in
1885. The declining sections of society, Muslim and Hindu landlords and kings
also decided to came together to oppose the all inclusive politics of Congress,
which in due course became the major vehicle of the values of freedom movement.
These declining sections were feeling threatened due to the social changes. To
hide their social decline they projected as if their religion is in danger.
They also did not like the standing up to the colonial masters by Congress,
which had started putting forward the demands for different rising social groups
and thereby for India.
Congress saw this country as ‘India
is a Nation in the making’.
As per declining sections of landlords and kings;
standing up to, not bowing in front of the ruler is against the teachings of
‘our’ religion so what is needed according to them is to promote the loyalty to
the British. They, Hindu and Muslim feudal elements, came together and formed United
India Patriotic Association in 1888. The lead was taken by Nawab of Dhaka and
Raja of Kashi. Later due to British machinations the Muslim elite from this
association separated and formed Muslim league in 1906, while in parallel to
this the Hindu elite first formed Punjab Hindu Sabha in 1909 and then Hindu
Mahasabha in 1915. These communal formations argued for Muslim Nationalism and
Hindu nationalism. Hindu nationalists also developed the political ideology of
Hindutva, articulated particularly by Savarkar in 1923 in his book ‘Hindutva or
Who is a Hindu?’ This was an enviable situation for British as such groups
would weaken the rising national movement. On one side they quietly supported
the Muslim League and parallel to this they handled Hindu Mahasabha with velvet
gloves.
Taking a cue from the ideology of Hindutva, RSS came up
in 1925, with the path of Hindu Nationalism and goal of Hindu Nation. The
values of rising classes embodied in the persona of Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar,
Gandhi, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and many others mainly revolved around Indian
Nationalism, built around the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
The ideology of Muslim League selectively drew from some Muslim traditions to
assert the caste and gender hierarchy of feudal society. While Hindu Mahasabha
and RSS had tomes like Manusmriti to talk about similar graded hierarchies of
caste and gender. Muslim and Hindu communalists were not part of freedom
movement as freedom movement was all inclusive and aimed at secular democratic
values. Muslim and Hindu communalists drew from glories of respective Kings of
the past and kept aloof from anti British struggle, some exceptions are always
there to show the evidence of their participation in the freedom struggle.
Gandhi’s attempt to draw the masses in to anti British
struggle was the major point due to which the Constitutionalists like Jinnah;
traditionalists of Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha further drifted away and
consolidated themselves after 1920s. The trajectory of Hindu Nationalism from
the decade of 1920 becomes very clear, to be on the side of British to oppose
the Muslim Nationalists. Same applies to Muslim League, as it regarded Congress
as a Hindu party. The Freedom of the country and tragic partition led to Muslim
Leaguers going to Pakistan
while leaving sufficient backlog to sustain Muslim communalism here. Hindu
Nationalists in the form of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS gradually started asserting
themselves, beginning with murder of Mahatma Gandhi, who surely was amongst the
best of the Hindus of that century and probably of many a centuries put
together. Hindu Nationalists formed first Jan Sangh and later present BJP. The
major issue taken up by these nationalists was opposition to cooperative
farming, public sector and undertook a program called ‘Indianization of
Muslims’.
The identity related issues have been the staple diet for
religious nationalist tendencies. ‘Cow as our mother’, Ram Temple Ram Setu,
Abolition of article 370 and Uniform civil code has been the foundation around
which emotive hysterical movements have been built. While they keep bringing to
our notice as to under whose rule more riots have taken place, one forgets that
the root of communal violence lies in ‘Hate other’ ideology spread by communal
streams. And most of the communal violence led to coming to power of communal
party. Its major offshoot is polarization of communities along religious lines.
Modi’s claim the democracy leads to polarization is misplaced wrong as in
democratic politics the polarization is along social issues, like
Republican-Democrat in America.
Polarization around social policies-political issues is part of the process of
democracy. The polarization brought about by the politics of Hindu nationalism
or Muslim nationalism is around identity of religions. This is not comparable
to the processes in US or UK.
The polarization along religious lines is against the spirit of democracy,
against Indian Constitutions’. Major pillar of democracy is Fraternity, cutting
across identities of religion caste and region.
Modi himself, a dedicated RSS swayamsevak has been steeped
in the ideology of Hindu nationalism. He glosses over the fact that the large
masses of Indian people, Hindus never called and do not call themselves Hindu
nationalists. Gandhi was not a Hindu nationalist despite being a Hindu in the
moral and social sense. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was not a Muslim nationalist,
despite being a devout Muslim, being a Muslim scholar of highest caliber.
During freedom movement also most of the people of all religions’ identified
with Indian Nationalism and not with religious nationalism as being projected
by Modi and company. Even today people of different religions identify with
Indian nationalism and not with religious Nationalism on the lines of Modi and
his ilk.
Hindu nationalism will require a Ram Temple;
Indian nationalism requires schools, universities and factories for employing
the youth. Hindu nationalism is exclusive and divisive, Indian Nationalism is
inclusive; rooted in the issues of this world, and not the identity related
ones. Unfortunately Hindu nationalists have been raising the pitch around
identity issues undermining the issues of the poor and marginalized. The Indian
Nationalism, the product of our freedom movement is being challenged by the
Hindu nationalism in India,
Buddhist Nationalism in Myanmar
and Sri Lanka and is a major
threat to the process of democratization in those countries, Muslim
Nationalism has wrecked havoc in Pakistan, and many other places.
This is the dark tunnel of History, where such
invocations of religion in the arena of politics take a semi respectful place,
as being witnessed in many parts of the World and more so over in India. One
hopes the distinction between religious nationalism and Indian nationalism will
not be lost focus of!
Hindu nationalism, does not subscribe to the affirmative
action, so the term appeasement of minorities has been floated. For Hindu
nationalists, the proactive supportive action for vulnerable religious
minorities is a strict no, while for democratic nationalism, this is the norm.
One has to see the clever ploy of the Prime Minister aspirant, to call himself
a Hindu nationalist. This is one more attempt to indulge in dividing the Indian
society along religious lines.
--
Response only to