Hindu Nationalism. What is it?

The terms "Hindutva and Hindu Nationalism" are frequently used in most derogatory and condescending manner by left liberals when discussing Indian politics in both Indian and Global liberal media. Remember the “Dismantling Global Hindutva” conference sponsored by several Western liberal universities? As if Hindutva is an evil that need to be wiped out from the face of this earth. These individuals and groups fail to define the terms or explain why they use them. So, it is important to analyze the two terms to demystify and expose the propaganda tactics. Let us start with “Hindutva.”

To understand the term and phenomenon of "Hindutva" accurately, one must also understand the terms "Hindu" and "Hinduism" in depth. But, for the purposes of this article "Hindutva" can be defined briefly as a non-violent resistance against the assault of Abrahamic Religions, which has led to significant conversions and a decline in the Hindu population in the undivided geography of Bharat from 100% to almost 60%. Conversions were primarily conducted through force, threats, and violence in previous centuries of the 2nd millennium and in more surreptitious ways in the past century. Hindutva is not against Muslims or Christians or any other religion, but it is against mass proselytization and forced demographic shifts. Despite vilification, Hindutva has always chosen the path of public discussion and sought open debate on this matter.

The three incidents that the propaganda agents use to justify their derogatory and condescending representation of Hindutva are Gandhi’s assassination, Babri Masjid demolition and Gujarat riots. These were unfortunate incidents that should not have happened. But these were not a coordinated armed struggle by Hindutva but isolated incidents over a period of more than seven decades. And the cause of these incidents doesn’t lie in an aim to convert Hindutva into an armed or violent struggle, but the cause lies in an isolated temporary flare-up between ideologies or communities, since the so-called liberal groups wouldn’t allow any space for open debate and reconciliation between different communities. As historian Dr. Vikram Sampath said in a debate with senior Congress leader Dr. Sashi Tharoor, such incidents represent the lack of genuine efforts to build reconciliation. It won’t help if historians, politicians, and media try to sweep under the carpet, the excesses committed on the people of this land during the Islamic invasions and the sly tactics adopted by the Church during British Raj to expand Christianity in India. In the same debate Tharoor proudly stated that history was “pressed into service” by the Congress leadership for a particular objective. As Vikram Sampath mentioned, a genuine history and an open debate offers the space for reconciliation between different communities and healing of wounds. But when Congress tried to make historical narrative subservient to their political purposes, the rapprochement on the ground level became the casualty.

Moreover, the Supreme Court of India has absolved the Hindutva leadership of the allegations in all the above three incidents, that too during the regime of the so-called liberals. Despite this, the liberals continue to flog the dead horse on these issues because they can find nothing else in more than 100 years of existence of Hindutva. Compare this to the history of aggressive expansion of Abrahamic religions through bloodshed, where the consequence was either the complete annihilation of an existing pagan culture of the land as it happened through Europe, Americas, Africa and Middle East; or a complete reversal from one Abrahamic religion to another, as it happened in Spain or Turkey. India is the only land where the onslaught of Abrahamic religions could be held back, at least partially. This happened because of the inherent strength of Bharateeya Civilization. And India is the only land which did not pursue complete reversal of the altered demographic mix. This was because of the inherent liberal values of Bharateeya Civilization as described in the article "Bharat as a Civilizational State".

Given the merciless track record of aggressive expansionism of Abrahamic religions, Hindutva is the right of this land to protect the native civilization. And in the early 20^th century, Hindutva chose to execute this right through non-violent resistance and open debate. Since the liberal controlled media wouldn’t allow space for Hindutva, the tone of the Hindutva voice naturally had to be aggressive, but Hindutva itself never attempted to drive a violent or armed struggle to reverse the demographic mix. Media has a fetish for photographs of some random individuals wearing a tilak and brandishing a sword, to portray Hindutva as some aggressive violent movement. But Hindutva is not what the liberals portray, and a better understanding is needed, including among Muslims and Christians of India. Hindutva would modify the famous dialogue from the movie “The Great Debaters” and say to the liberals “I have a right, even a duty to resist. With violence or debate. I chose the latter and have been waiting for 100 years. Let us debate.”

More on Hindu, Hinduism, and Hindutva in a subsequent article. Now let us turn to “Hindu Nationalism.” What the liberals mean by this term is the Nationalism pursued by Hindutva. It is important to first understand what nationalism is and then understand the nature of nationalism pursued by Hindutva.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, nationalism refers to the act of supporting one's own nation and its interests, often at the expense of other nations. This definition highlights three essential components - the support for one's nation and its interests, the potential harm to other nations, and the likelihood of such harm occurring. Thus, it is possible to distinguish between two types of nationalism based on whether it harms other nations or not - constructive and destructive nationalism. However, the liberals, tend to view nationalism solely as a harmful concept that causes damage to other nations or damage some religions. They also associate nationalism with dictatorial figures such as Hitler and Mussolini, and thus limit the debate and discussion on the topic.

Let us first look at examples of destructive nationalism:

• Colonization by various European powers, such as the British, Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese from the 17th through 20th century, provides examples of destructive nationalism. These powers exploited their colonies to promote the interests of their own nations, resulting in millions of deaths in those colonies, destruction of local cultures and the plundering of vast wealth from the nations that they colonized.
• Hitler’s aims of "Lebensraum" and "Grossdeutschland" in the first of 20^th century. Lebensraum refers to the territory believed to be necessary for a group, state, or nation's natural development, while Grossdeutschland refers to a Greater Germany created through the unification of German-speaking lands. I always wonder how this was any different from the colonialism of European powers who occupied other nations to enrich their own nation while imposing their language and culture on the colony that they occupied. Except that in the case of Hitler, the colonialists themselves were on the receiving end of the stick.
• Mussolini's imperial aspirations, as encapsulated by the term "spazio vitale" (Vital Space), which aimed to encompass the entire Mediterranean region and North Africa.
• Creation and nurturing of Islamic terrorism by the NATO countries in the second half of the 20th century. NATO powers supported, funded and nurtured Islamist extremists and dictators to control Arab oil reserves and to counter Soviet Union, leading to destabilization and suffering in the Middle East.
• The destruction and abandonment of Afghanistan by the NATO powers: After destroying Afghanistan for their own benefit, NATO left millions of Afghan citizens at the mercy of Talibans.
• The Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) occupation of Tibet and its ongoing threat to Taiwan. And the debt-trap that CCP has laid for many countries.
• The behavior of the developed countries during the peak of Wuhan virus pandemic, when these developed nations were prioritizing the profits of their vaccine companies and were hoarding vaccines instead of sharing them with the rest of the world.

The list is endless. And these examples reveal a striking resemblance between the destructive nationalism pursued by the Western powers and Communist China and the destructive nationalism embraced by Hitler and Mussolini. And yet the liberals remain muted on these and keep peddling a nonsensical comparison between Hindu Nationalism and nationalism of Hitler and Mussolini.

So, what does this Hindu nationalism look like? Critics point out that “Hindu nationalism is the idea that the Hindu faith and culture should shape the state and its policies” and therefore it is evil. But none of these critics ever say the two naked truths –

i.                 That the state policies of Christian majority and Muslim majority nations evolved from their theological standpoint.

ii.               That the state policies of precolonial Bharat evolved not from a theological standpoint but from a cultural standpoint.

In the article "Bharat as a Civilizational State", I argued how the societal structures and state policies of Bharateeya civilization were always inherently liberal, in stark contrast to the totally illiberal medieval Europe and hypocritically liberal modern West. So, what Hindu nationalism truly asks for is an open debate on how the state policies should reflect the true liberal values of Bharateeya civilization. Hindu nationalists never attempted to overthrow the Indian government of the day through an armed struggle (unlike the armed struggle by the far left or emergency by the left leaning so called liberals) In their long period of existence, Hindu nationalists always adhered to the democratic process of discussion, debate, legislation and judiciary. And as Hindu nationalists say, this is not about a religion because Hinduism itself was never a religion. It comprised of multiple sects, sub sects, faiths, and theologies even before the advent of Christianity and Islam in this land. In fact the view of RSS (a key proponent of Hindu nationalism) about Christians and Muslims is “that the Christians and Muslims in Bharat have not come from some alien lands. They are all children of Mother Bharat. At some point of time in history their ancestors might have changed their religion and ways of worship. But that does not separate them from the Hindu society in the larger context”. So Hindu nationalism is not about imposing a “Hindu religion” because a Hindu religion never existed. It is about bringing the original civilizational thought into state policies, that too through discussion and debate.

Moreover, the pursuit of the Hindu nationalism isn’t just restricted to cultural aspect, but it has been along three broad dimensions – Economy, History & Culture, and Rightful place on the world stage

• The primary goal of Hindutva is to revive India's status as an economic powerhouse, which it held until the British Raj devastated it entirely. It is impossible for this country to provide prosperity to its large population and safeguard itself from potential invasions without becoming an economic powerhouse. The Indian economic period after independence can be categorized into different eras: the Nehruvian socialist era from 1951 to 1990 (during which secularists and liberals derisively labeled India's low GDP growth rate as the "Hindu Growth Rate"), the forced reforms era from 1991 to 1996 (when India was forced to implement certain reforms to avoid a balance of payments crisis), the accelerated reforms era from 1998 to 2004 (when the IT, telecommunications, banking, and infrastructure sectors were fast-tracked), the missed decade era from 2004 to 2014 (during which the policy paralysis deteriorated India’s status from shining India in 2004 to being one among the fragile five by 2014) and finally the post-2014 reform era (when India adopted large scale and a wider set of economic reforms). What is noteworthy from these periods is that the accelerated reforms era and the post-2014 reforms era were ushered in by the “Hindu Nationalists". Even during those periods economic prosperity was not restricted just for Hindus. And it is these reforms by the “Hindu Nationalists” that recently made IMF call India as “A Bright Spot-On Dark Horizon”.
• The second goal is to reclaim the narrative on the rich history, culture, and heritage of India. Regarding history, philosopher George Santayana once remarked, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The false information that has been disseminated under the disguise of history aims to make Indians forget the thousand years of atrocities that the people of this land had to endure. Therefore, the objective of Hindu nationalism is to bring the truth about history to the forefront and enable all people, irrespective of their religion, to come to terms with the past, learn from it, and strive towards a better future. With respect to culture and heritage, liberal and Marxist historians have always portrayed the Hindu way of life as oppressive, superstitious, and regressive. However, if this portrayal were even remotely true, this society would have collapsed a long time ago. Instead, it has thrived for thousands of years, with a continuous flow of civilization. Therefore, the people of this land have both the right and the duty to establish the narrative regarding their own culture and heritage.
• The third objective is to restore India's rightful place on the world stage. As the world's largest populated nation, with almost 20% of the world's population residing within its borders, it is natural for India to aspire to have a significant say in matters of global importance. Unlike in the case of the Western and the Communist powers, the motive for this goal is not mindless domination over other countries. Rather, it is based on the principle of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”, which has been demonstrated during a wider range of global challenges such as Operation Rahat to help citizens of more than 40 nations during the Yemeni crisis, assistance to quake hit Nepal, Vaccine Maitri (during Wuhan virus crisis) which helped more than 90 nations with vaccines, aid to Sri Lanka during their worst economic crisis, Operation Dosti for quake hit Turkey etc. And it is this Hindu nationalism that is driving the G20 presidency with the theme of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” when the world is reeling under multiple geo-political crises.

In summary, the aims of Hindutva & Hindu Nationalism can be captured in Four-Ps –

• Prevent any further damage to the native civilization.
• Provide economic prosperity to all the people of this land.
• Proudly embrace the rich history, culture, and heritage of this land.
• Present an alternative nationalism that contributes to global good.

So we can conclude that Hindu nationalism is vastly different from the destructive nationalism that has been exhibited by several nations. Furthermore, it is important to note that Hindutva’s aim is not harming any other religion but leading harmonious coexistence in the traditional liberal way of this land, while preventing any further harm to the native civilization. Notwithstanding the liberal propaganda, the world is beginning to recognize the constructive nationalism that the “Hindu Nationalism” demonstrates.