Decoding ‘Hindu Rashtra’
STRIPPED OF MYTH AND POPULAR MISCONCEPTION, THE FORMULATION IS NOT AT ODDS WITH THE IDEA OF A DIVERSELY EXPRESSIVE INDIA
IT MAY SURPRISE MANY that the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) prayer invokes ‘Hindu Rashtra’ only once. It says: “vayam Hindu rashtraanga bhoota (we are all part of ‘Hindu Rashtra’)”. The RSS does not say we will create a new Hindu Rashtra. Nor does it say we will amend the Constitution of India and declare this country a Hindu Rashtra. Yet, the Sangh’s commitment to a Hindu Rashtra evokes everything from fear to anger to dismay. Opprobrium is heaped on the RSS even as an overwhelming majority praise and welcome the ‘creation’ of Hindu Rashtra. There is ignorance or lack of clarity on both sides. Where the mention of Hindu Rashtra causes any apprehension or a sense of unease, it is really a fear of the unknown—an unknown that also unites and gives a false sense of pride and security.
The Sangh, in fact, believes that there is no need to create
a Hindu Rashtra as India, that is Bharat, is already one. It is important to understand the ‘idea of Hindu’ as also the ‘idea of
rashtra’ just as one hears about the ‘idea of India’. To ridicule and dismiss the idea of Hindu Rashtra as communal, divisive and ultra vires the Constitution is as patently wrong as it would be to dismiss the ‘idea of India’ as a mistaken identity. In fact, on closer analysis, these ideas are seen to converge, with little or no difference between them.
The RSS has repeatedly iterated its faith in—and allegiance to—the Indian Constitution, which incidentally is not a commandment set in stone; it has been amended from time to time. So, it is intellectually dishonest to portray the RSS as anti-Constitution. However, the RSS would certainly welcome a sociopolitical system that more truly reflects the Indian ethos, or
‘bharatiyata’, than the present institutional framework does. It By Seshadri Chari
is, therefore, all the more necessary for the RSS to clear doubts in the minds of people, to clarify that ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is not the antithesis of what is understood as India today. If the idea of India is inclusive, so is the idea of Hindu Rashtra; it encompasses each and every identity that constitutes the conglomeration called Hindu. The caste, class and linguistic divisions are but superficial. The adage ‘unity in diversity’ sits well with the Hindu way of life, albeit in its original form. Centuries of marauding aggression by outsiders, the colonial interlude and the selfrestricting, knee-jerk, survival-reflex reactions of Hindu society have severely affected the practice of some of its core principles, thereby creating multiple, apparently adversarial identities. Multiple identities, though, are in a way congenitally related to the core Hindu belief and ‘way of life’. They may appear superficially different, which also makes them suspicious of the enveloping aspect of ‘Hindutva’ and see it as a threat. It is here that the proponents of Hindu Rashtra will have to step up their approach through inclusive, affirmative programmes rather than brashly creating an us-versus-them narrative.
The words Hindu, Hindutva and Hinduism have defied definition for long. The word dharma, as in ‘Hindu dharma’, cannot be equated with the Western concept of religion, which has a more recent origin. In fact, the term ‘Hindu dharma’ itself is a misnomer. In its essence, ‘Hindu’ refers to a society, a group of people with a distinct cultural and civilisational character, a core set of beliefs, traditions, practices—and, yes, prejudices too. In the Indian context, dharma forms the very basis of everyday life, it is about ethics, values and social mores, not religion, it refers loosely to the right station of people and things in a larger social order.
The debate since Independence about religion, faith, secularism, nation, state et cetera has been conducted without really trying to understand them in the Indian context. The fact that dharma is not religion and secularism has no Indian equivalent have to be accepted as ground rules in this discourse. It is necessary to see these ideas both in their historical context and in relation to each other. The words Hindu and Rashtra are multi-dimensional and have historical antecedents. The idea of nationalism and its attributes have to be explained with reference to the freedom struggle, its various strands, and its culmination in Independence and Partition.
‘Hindu rashtravaad ’ is the expression of a certain socio-political thought, based on the indigenous cultural traditions and spiritual experiences of the larger geography of the Orient. Some scholars have argued that the use of the term ‘Hindu nationalism’ to refer to ‘Hindu rashtravaad’ is simplistic and misleading; for them, ‘Hindu polity’ is a better alternative. This understanding was disrupted by the colonial intervention, which broke this cultural continuity, neutralised civilisational gains, and led to ignorance and misconceptions about Hindutva and its influence on nationhood.
India’s idea of society and nationhood was never theocratic; it was a unique ‘secularism’ based on respect going far beyond tolerance. Multiple forms of worship held complex evidence of overlapping, co-existing faiths. Unlike the Western and Semitic religious traditions, a single institution at the head of a command structure
WHERE THE MENTION OF HINDU RASHTRA CAUSES ANY APPREHENSION OR A SENSE OF UNEASE, IT IS REALLY A FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN
or a single holy book of doctrinal orders were the very antithesis of Hindu thought. India, therefore, didn’t need a Constitution to learn the virtues of secularism or coexistence, or to frame different rules for citizens and non-citizens. Our world view is guided by the mantra: ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam (The world is but one family)’.
Its capacity to adjust, accommodate, assimilate made Hindutva responsive to growth and modernity, dynamic yet rooted in tradition. We flourished as a civilisation for centuries without a uniform political structure to govern, and without having to resort to crusades or jihad. It is this capacity to make room for a multiplicity of perspectives that lies at the heart of the philosophy of ekatma vishwa darshan (literally, an ‘integrated world view’). The original 1950 Constitution of India, in keeping with this tradition, did not deem it necessary to use the word ‘secularism’. It was in 1976, during the Emergency, that Indira Gandhi’s government moved the 42nd amendment, which, among other far-reaching changes, inserted the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble—India was no longer just a ‘sovereign, democratic republic’; it was a ‘sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic’! But was India any less secular between 1947 and 1976, or are we more secular now because the Constitution says so? India’s secularism has been an integral part of its polity for ages. The freedom to profess any faith and the State’s assurance of non-interference—a guarantee enshrined in the Constitution, and euphemistically called ‘secularism’—has effectively existed in India from ancient times.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, the constitutional guarantee to religious minorities has become a tool in the hands of political parties to polarise opinion and create vote banks. Abject poverty, unemployment, the lack of opportunities and a modern education—often self-imposed—and the partisan attitude of elected governments deepen fears of majoritarian tyranny among minorities.
Serious efforts have to be made to bridge the trust divide between people of different religious persuasions, which sadly have become mere identity tags rather than different pathways to spiritual progress, like so many pathways to the same goal. The Sangh alone cannot build that bridge; it is a collective responsibility, though as the world’s largest volunteer organisation and the torchbearer of Hindu Rashtra, the onus is certainly on the Sangh.
Low-level aberrations like vigilantism and lynching, abhorrent as they are, should not be laid at the door of Hinduism to score political brownie points. For sure, there is a certain political awakening among the Hindus today. Large sections of the particularly vulnerable Dalits and OBCs have, in fact, rallied behind the ruling party, in their ceaseless quest for legitimacy and socioeconomic mobility. Just as Muslims became a ready vote bank for the Congress at one time, the many economically backward sections among Hindus seem to have hitched their fate to the BJP today. Incidentally, their guiding spirit Babasaheb Ambedkar had underlined the role of ‘shikshan, sangathan evam sangharsh (education, unity and agitation)’ as the means of gaining economic mobility for a socially awakened—if still marginalised—community within the larger Hindu fold.
Ambedkar also wrote of the futility of aping the western notion of secularism in India and, explaining the link between religion and politics, said that political change everywhere was preceded by social awakening built on a religious template. For illustration, he cites the Reformation under Martin Luther, Puritanism, the rise of Buddhism, religious and social reforms by saints in Maharashtra before Shivaji’s reign, the social and religious ballast of the Sikh empire… to make the larger point that political mobility follows an emancipation of the mind.
But any such empowerment or political expansion will be counterproductive if it merely shifts victimhood. The ideal, of course, is an egalitarian society, where there is equal opportunity for all and recognition and reward for merit. For the Sangh, the overarching unity of the Hindu fold respects the diversity of caste, class and religion but also transcends it. For the Sangh, the ‘creation’ of a Hindu Rashtra is only the anticipated dawn of an understanding that its embrace does not threaten diversity.
THE WORD ‘DHARMA’ IS NOT RELIGION AS IN THE WESTERN SENSE. IN INDIA, IT IS THE BASIS OF EVERYDAY LIFE, IT IS ABOUT ETHICS, VALUES