Hindutva is (political) Hindu modernity- that’s both its strength and a severe limitation
Abhinav Prakash had a thought provoking column titled “Hindutva is Hindu modernity” I would recommend that you read the column in full for a very thoughtful and largely accurate characterization of the Hindutva political movement.
In this blog, I will not repeat many of the arguments of Abhinav that I agree with, rather focus on what I see as a couple of inaccuracies IMO(the focus on individual rights; and the appellation of “proto modernity” as the supposed inspiration for Hindutva) in what is otherwise a largely accurate characterisation; and rather outline one major limitation- which is the lack of philosophical depth that arises because of this framing of “Hindutva is Hindu modernity”; which then ends up being purely about political reactionary mobilisation, to the detriment sometimes of even intellectual and policy depth as a consequence.
Firstly, the column rightly argues that Hindutva is very comfortable with democracy and the current Indian constitutional structure. Actually as Vinay Sitapati outlines in his fine book- Jugalbandi, both Hindutva, and modern Islamism and the Pakistan movement, can be understood as modern responses to the progressive democratisation of India under the British Raj. Hindutvavadis saw democracy as an opportunity- to weld Hindus into a political community, and in contrast most Muslims saw democracy as a threat (where a demographic minority could become a political minority), the anxiety with which in part led to the Pakistan movement.
That, coupled with the fact that democracy does have roots in India and is consistent with the Indian temperament (as the column also argues), meant that democracy has been quite enthusiastically embraced by the Hindutva movement, contrary to what most caricatures of the movement as “anti-democratic” would have you believe.
Hindutva did arise due to a diagnosis that Savarkar and the Sangh had of Hindu India, that it was colonised (both by Muslims and later by the British & Europeans) because it was not cohesive and organised. So the welding of Hindus into a corporate body, with a clear political shared consciousness, was its method. All barriers that came in the way of such a shared consciousness were sought to be overcome- whether it was caste (where the response ranged from the radicalism of a Savarkar to the more cautious and conservative but still reformist impulses of the RSS) or language (hence the initial enthusiastic championing of Hindi as a unifier, which the BJP has now shed, though even now it erupts occasionally).
I think the association of Hindutva that the column makes with what it calls proto-modernity is rather forced. Evolution has always been a part of Hinduism, and it has always had a sense of change with continuity- what one of my gurus Shivkumar GV calls Saatatya. The demarcation of a particular era as “proto modernity”, and then associating that with modern Hindutva- which arose only in the 20th century in the last decades of the British Raj, both seem tenuous and force fitting a framework onto India.
But I think the bigger inaccuracy is to portray Hindutva as a liberal movement that has some deep concern for individual rights, and freedom of expression. Hindutva is democratic, but it is not liberal. Individual rights and things like freedom of expression are not areas where Hindutva has a good track record in practice, neither does it really claim to stand for it beyond “reasonable restrictions” — many of which it is ok to use expediently.
I agree Hindutva is no worse than say the Congress party or regional parties, but neither is individual rights something that is seen as a deep philosophical commitment, leave alone one that is adhered to in practice. At best one can say Hindutva is as patchy on liberalism, just as any other political movement in India, and at a philosophical level that it is ambivalent to liberalism- as in it sees it as necessary BUT with other values to balance.
That is Hindutva, as well as all other political movements in India, have a mix of pragmatic acceptance of liberalism (that is liberalism BUT balanced by other considerations) and a cynical misuse or partial adherence in practice.
A party or movement that sees individual rights as some primary value to uphold will not be restricting cow slaughter, consumption of non vegetarian food and alcohol in Mathura, passing so called Love Jihad laws etc. , to wide acclaim from their base.
The limitation: Hindutva is NOT Hinduism. It is ONLY Political, that too reactionary so far
But that brings me to the biggest limitation of this “Hindutva is Hindu modernity” framing- which is that its anxieties, context, goals and techniques are entirely political. There is very little, if any, philosophical grounding in general, leave alone a grounding in the rich philosophical heritage of Hinduism.
So Hindutva is NOT Hinduism -a religion whose defining feature, as Pavan Varma argues in his excellent book “The Great Hindu Civilisation”- is that it was an overwhelmingly cerebral one, and was founded most of all on the “audacity of thought”.
It isn’t a coincidence that even Savarkar’s book is titled “Who is a Hindu” and not “What is Hinduism”. The concern was the in group vs. outgroup definition of the people who needed to be politically mobilised, not the civilisation- its philosophy, cultural practices and traditions etc.
Not only is Hindutva NOT Hinduism, neither is it “Hinduism that resists” (the other phrase that is often used). At best it is “Hindus that resist” NOT “Hinduism that resists” because it is more about the political mobilisation of the people (Hindus), rather than any major cogitation of the philosophy. This may seem like a semantic quibble, but it is not, because I think it accurately captures why there is relative low knowledge or concern or engagement with Hindu philosophy itself in the Hindutva movement, even if some individual leaders involved may personally be devout or even knowledgeable.
The limitation of Hindutva in the philosophical, cultural, intellectual and even policy realm is a direct consequence of that framing as Political Hindu modernity. It starts and also ends with the welding of Hindus into a corporate body in order to capture state power, as a way to prevent a potential domination by Muslims or even liberals (as a stand in for Anglo American domination). Beyond Hindu-Muslim relationship, and some issues of state structure, the Hindutva movement has not really developed a strong point of view on many issues, and that’s by design. This pragmatism, to be fair, is also a strength, it has allowed the movement to “go with the flow” on the national consensus on many issues — say economics, foreign policy, education etc.- while being distinctive specifically on Hindu political mobilisation and its implications.
Swapan Dasgupta has also noted that Hindutva has actually not had a deep engagement with economics- its concerns have been social and political alone. I would extend that to a broad range of policy areas. But not just policy areas- policy is ultimately downstream from philosophy and an active intellectual ecosystem.
The famous Andrew Breitbart quote is “Politics is downstream from culture”, and it is that culture, civilisation and philosophy that any movement that wants to have sustained impact on politics and policy needs to shape.
Now, of course there was a structural barrier to develop an alternative intellectual ecosystem, given the left liberal domination of academia and media, that too with state patronage. So in one sense one can understand why the criticism that the BJP and the Indian right has not produced a lot of intellectuals is unfair, given the zealous gatekeeping. That there are several people who have produced high quality intellectual output that is civilisationally rooted DESPITE that, is a testament to their personal grit.
So one should not be dismissive, as many liberals are, in sneering at the Hindutva movement as “unintellectual” or even “anti intellectual”, there IS intellectual content there, but addressing the most pressing concerns- that of social and political issues. If it has to go beyond that, and it should, we should also recognise that this is a wounded civilisation that is rejuvenating.
But it is striking to note that this intellectual flowering is not an area that the BJP has prioritised even over the last 7 years, in fact they had an education minister who took pride in not having changed a single thing!
Unless there is clarity on what a cultural or civilisational renaissance will look like, why would even state power lead to it? At best, it can only prevent any further assaults on our culture, but it doesn’t by itself lead to a revival.
Fortunately recently the government does seem to have started to focus upon education, and also seem to want to build the climate for Indian knowledge systems, one hopes that continues.
Why has the whole intellectual and philosophical aspect been so neglected? It is because Hindutva has focused only on the necessary condition- that political subjugation will lead to cultural suppression, and has hence sought to politically mobilise in order capture state power. BUT, at least thus far, it hasn’t coherently articulated what it will use such state power FOR? What is the cultural or civilisational revival of India? Is it urbanisation and economic growth and social equality alone, as the column articulates? That is — is it the mere adoption of a standard definition of modernity BY Hindus? Or is there something beyond that?
Going from this purely defensive articulation (“Hindus that resist”) to a constructive one — “Hindutva is the enabler of Hindu civilisational renaissance”, is the key task that the movement has to graduate to. The BJP, as the political party of the movement, is no more the fringe opposition, it is the principal pole of Indian politics and power. As the natural party of governance now, it is high time it doesn’t stay intellectually derivative -merely aping “modernity” by copy pasting ideas from either the west or the east, but creates an intellectual and cultural ecosystem that does the task of synthesis.
Synthesis, that is build upon the foundations of Indic knowledge systems, but also learn from the rest of the world, and our current state, to build a blend that is rooted but also pragmatic.
This is NOT a return to the past- rather it builds upon the present, and is open to ideas from everywhere in the world, BUT is guided by a vision and a knowledge base that is Indian and informed by the values, philosophy, norms, institutions and traditions of our civilisation.
Hindutva 2.0- going from resistance to renaissance
India is a wounded civilisation, that was grievously wounded by two waves of brutal colonialism- Islamic and European. It is understandable that any movement first focused on political mobilisation as an end in itself. That was necessary. It used the constitutional tools of democratic mobilisation to build such a resistance. Resistance by definition is reactionary- it reacts to a fear of being under siege.
However, now is the time for a renewed Hindutva- call it Hindutva 2.0, if you will. And that has to be a constructive movement, not a reactionary one. That has to go from overcoming the biggest weakness of Hindu society — its lack of a sense of unity based on a shared sense of identity, to building on its biggest strength- a civilisation that has the audacity of thought. That will go from what is necessary- political power, to what is sufficient- a rooted intellectual ecosystem, in order to achieve a true civilisational renewal.
The first step to that is to use the state power to support and create the right environment for an intellectual ecosystem to emerge. To revive and develop Indic Knowledge Systems.
Our knowledge systems have deep wisdom. Rediscovering that wisdom is valuable. Building upon that and developing that wisdom is even more valuable. And using that and synthesising that with what we know from the rest of the world to address contemporary concerns is MOST valuable- we get the best of ALL worlds with that, while being true to our authentic self, and being rooted in the genius that was our civilisational inheritance.
That will be a true “Hindu modernity”, not just modernity ADOPTED by Hindus, but modernity SHAPED by Hindus, and rooted in Hindu thought. (not getting into the semantic debate about whether we should call that modernity or just contemporary thought)
That is the key tasks of our times, that not just the political movement of Hindutva, but also wider society (with the support of the state) should undertake- a task of civilisational renewal, informed by developing and building upon Indic Knowledge Systems, through a creative process of synthesis.
What will a “Hindu modernity” look like? Neither rejection, nor adoption, but synthesis
Conspicuous by its absence in the current articulation of “Hindutva is Hindu modernity” is Hinduism itself! This would like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark! A truly “Hindu modernity” would give Hinduism an important, even central role in how modernity will be defined.
A Hindu modernity, that is actively *shaped* by Hindus, and not merely *adopted* passively by Hindus, would look to revive our knowledge systems and address contemporary challenges with a synthesis. That is neither would it reject modernity and aim to turn the clock back or freeze in time; neither would it be a thin veneer of Hindu culture on a skeleton that is fully adopted as THE ONLY definition of “modern”.
This would mean interrogating modernity as it exists, but reconceptualising it with a synthesis. This is a huge intellectual, cultural, social and political task- a comprehensive civilisational renaissance.
Just a few illustrative examples of the questions the intellectual ecosystem will grapple with:
How can we undertake the necessary task of an industrial transformation, while maintaining a balance with ecology and nature- which our civilisation has always valued? Which economic and environmental policies will get us there?
How do we urbanise- which we absolutely should, but still retain the family structure that has served us so well, where, as many of us have experienced, grandmothers act as the basis of knowledge transmission- of values, traditions and norms? Which social norms should we emphasise to ensure this family structure and knowledge transmission?
How do we build equality, and opportunity for all, while ensuring that we don’t homogenise and standardise, and rather retain the cultural diversity of traditions- which is the hallmark of the Hindu civilisation? How can institutions of the state, especially the judiciary, build this empathy and understanding of our diversity?
How do we go from a framing of atomistic individualism and YOLO hedonism as the basis of “modernity”, which has led to ennui, mental health issues, social issues in many societies, to one of the Purusharthas- where an individual is free to pursue desire, and prosperity and security (Kama and Artha) BUT balanced by a sense of Dharma and Moksha? What should we do in our cultural artefacts to instill these values?
How do we go from a notion of a “social contract”- that we are bound together by a legal contract (so called “constitutional patriotism) to one of a trusteeship- where we center the notions of Rina, Tapas and Yagna, where we inherit an obligation by our very birth, which among other things enjoins us to preserve the civilisation that we have inherited from our ancestors, to develop it further and pass it on to our descendants? How should our sense of nationalism be communicated to nurture this?
How do we revisit “modern” ontology- what “religion” is (NOT the same as Dharma), what our religious institutions are such as temples and mathas- sources of knowledge and divine energy, not just “places of worship”? How can law reflect this shift in ontology?
How do we go from seeing our darshanas, our traditions, rituals and practices- as “explainables” that have to derived from some other axiomatic principles, to one where they are seen as “learnables”? How do we retain the intellectual humility to view them that way?
And relatedly, how is an intellectual ecosystem to be constructed that addresses contemporary or “modern’ challenges, but informed by a civilisational ethos? How can our education systems and curricula create “bilingual” people, equally adept at understanding our civilisation, and the needs of “modernity” as defined today, and have the creative impulse to build solutions?
Some of these may seem abstract. But the genius of our civilisation is that it has always had a dialectic between thought and action- where esoteric philosophy translates to a practical ritual, or cultural practice or artefact. The deep philosophy of an Upanishadic text can translate to a Carnatic song. The practical statecraft of an Arthashastra is still recognisably rooted in the knowledge traditions of Vedic texts.
So a civilisational renewal is not an abstraction, it translates to practical ways of everyday life. That will truly be a Hindu modernity with equal emphasis to both parts of that term, where the adjective Hindu does a lot of work and is not just a placeholder!- in that it defines and shapes modernity by the audacity of thought, and is not just a passive recipient of it.
