Hindutv(a)
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Contents |
Origin of the concept
Bhanu Dhamija, Not Hindutva But Bhartiyata, September 22, 2017: The Times of India
The writer is Chairman, Divya Himachal Prakashan
Building a greater Bharat requires a more inspiring and practical approach than Hindutva currently offers
Hindutva, the notion of a common national cultural identity promulgated by VD Savarkar in the 1920s, was aimed at unifying Indians and building a greater Bharat.Thus far it has failed to do both. Instead, it is deepening divisions, inflaming religious extremism, and removing any hope that the country's different religions can come together to build a great nation.
There is no need to revile Savarkar however. Uniting Indians is a worthy cause. And India does need a rallying cry that brings together the majority Hindus. Where Savarkar goes wrong is in asking Hindus to think parochially , rather than being broadminded and lofty in their aims.
He also fails to offer a practical system of government where minorities can share power with the majority and thus become true partners in building our nation. And his plan lacks a visionary blueprint for Bharat to expand in size and global influence.
Hindutva is too intertwined with the majority's religion. This failing was evident from before the country's partition.One could assign blame, but the fact remains that Savarkar's grand strategy that “Hindusthan must ever remain one and indivisible“ didn't succeed. Rather than provide the glue to keep a culturally diverse people together, Hindutva pushed Hindus and Muslims apart. It also drove wedges between those wise and amiable leaders, Gandhi, Nehru, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Deendayal Upadhyaya, and of course, Savarkar himself. These differences have kept Hindus divided now for nearly a century .
Savarkar's plan proposed just the opposite. He set out to remove differences among the various Hindu sects and castes, so they would unite against the British and think of themselves as a single nation.He coined the term Hindutva to offer an organising principle different from Hinduism, which he thought was “essentially sectarian“. “Hindutva refers not only to the religious aspect of the Hindu people as the word Hinduism does,“ said Savarkar, “but comprehends even their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects as well.“ His Hindutva was an instrument of political mobilisation.
But since Savarkar's Hindutva was indistinguishable from Hinduism, and a political movement, it was quickly seen as an attempt at establishing Hindu hegemony . Under his plan the minorities were to be given equal rights and protection, but no share in power.
Hindus are tough to unite. The religion is not based on a single belief, or an organised church, or on one book. So whenever an attempt is made to impose one way of being Hindu, Hindus revolt.Also, Hinduism's fundamental philosophy that one must not hurt or harm others goes against any plan to oppose others because of their religion.
This is why Savarkar's Hindutva was always rejected by most Hindus. Even today , presumably at its peak, Hindutva doesn't garner its flag bearer, BJP, anywhere near full Hindu support. Modi became prime minister in 2014, but BJP received only 32% of the vote in a country that is 80% Hindu. Similarly in 2017, Yogi Adityanath rode history's biggest Hindutva wave in UP but obtained less than 40% of the vote in an 80% Hindu state.
Hindus do wish to be united, but it will take a more uplifting concept than Hindutva. It will require an idea that proclaims Hinduism's all-embracing universalism, rather than one that makes it an organised religion. Hindus want to be big-hearted, they will gladly follow a call for unity that is true to their philosophy of serving all mankind regardless of religious differences.
The first challenge in revamping Hindutva is the name itself. It breaks the general principle that a name is most effective when it doesn't need explanation. Savarkar took thousands of words to describe it, just to say that it is not Hinduism. Current explanations are also almost apologetic, that Hindutva is synonymous with Indianness, or Bhartiyata, but not Hinduism. Renaming Hindutva as Bhartiyata makes the most sense provided the concept also adopts other principles described here.
Supreme Court and Hindutv(a)
How SC has viewed the words ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ & ‘Hindutva’
Dhananjay Mahapatra, February 5, 2018: The Times of India
How SC viewed words ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ & ‘Hindutva’ in rulings
In the past, a section of politicians compulsively approached imams on the eve of elections. It was considered an acceptable practice given the hold of religious heads over god-fearing masses. In the recent past, political leaders have made visits to temples an inseparable part of their election campaign itinerary and strategy.
Framers of the Constitution kept religion and politics separate. The Constitution mandates secularism as the cardinal principle of governance. But ground level politics has always tried to mix the two to form a potent vote catching chemistry.
With the chasm between communities widening, thanks to competing sectarian politics, there is a section of the intelligentsia which advises politicians to adopt a soft Hinduism line rather than advocate Hindutva, mistaking it for fanatic Hinduism, especially after the advent of cow vigilante groups. It is another matter that moststatesenactedlawsbanning cow slaughter in the1960s when ‘cow and calf’ was theelection symbol of a political party.
Over the years, the SC has made several attempts to explain the meaning of ‘Hindu’, ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’ in different contexts — from pure religious point of view to use of religion in elections. In no judgment has the SC even remotely identified Hindutva as the militant or fanatic version of Hinduism.
Half a century ago, a five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice P B Gajendragadkar, K N Wanchoo, M Hidayatullah, V Ramaswami and P Satyanarayanaraju in ‘Sastri Yagnapurushadji’ case [1966 SCR (3) 242] had attempted to narrate historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu’.
Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Gajendragadkar had said, “The historical and etymological genesis of the word ‘Hindu' has given rise to a controversy amongst Indologists; but the view generally accepted by scholars appears to be that the word ‘Hindu’ is derived from the river Sindhu, otherwise known as Indus which flows from the Punjab.
“When we think of the Hindu religion, we find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. Unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet, it does not worship any one god, it does not subscribe to any one dogma, it does not believe in any one philosophic concept, it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances, in fact, it does not appear tosatisfy the narrowtraditional featuresof any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.”
The difficulty faced by the SC in 1966 to define ‘Hindu’ was reflected in its judgement in ‘Commissioner Wealth Tax, Madras vs Late R Sridharan’ [1976 (Sup) SCR 478], in which it said, “Itis a matter of common knowledge that Hinduism embraces within self so many diverse forms of beliefs, faiths, practices and worships that itisdifficulttodefine term‘Hindu’ with precision.”
With passage of time, as a reaction to perceived appeasement of a certain community by a section of politicians, counter political forces attemptedtowage ‘save Hinduism’ election campaigns, which appeared to clash with the Constitution’s ‘secularism’ theme.
Seeking of votes by a candidate on the basis of his religion has been prohibited by the Representation of the People Act. A series of ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’ themed speeches by then Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray in 1987, while campaigning for a candidate, came to be questioned in the SC.
The SC dealt with the question: whether use of ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’ in an election campaign fell afoulof theRPAct? A threejudge bench headed by Justice J S Verma in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo case [1996 SCC (1) 130] said, “The words ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confinedonly tothestrict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India, depicting the way of life of the Indian people.
“Considering the terms ‘Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva' per se as depicting hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism, proceeds form an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier judgments of this court.
“Misuse of these expressions to promote communalism cannot alter the true meaning of these terms. The mischief resulting from the misuseof theterms by anyone in hisspeech has to be checked and not its permissible use.”
The SC had concluded, “It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any referencetoHindutvaor Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on the Hindu religion as opposed to other religions or that theuseof words ‘Hindutva' or ‘Hinduism' per sedepicts an attitudehostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion.”
If the decisions of the SC over the years tell us that Hinduism referred to a way of life, the proponents and self-appointed guardians of Hinduism must make a conscious attempt to assimilate and reflect the cultures and customs in India in their speeches. It cannot be a particular way of life dictated by a section of politicians or self-appointed guardians ofHinduism. It also cannot be what a section of intelligentsia projects ‘Hindutva’ to be in the present political context.
B
Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 22, 2022: The Times of India
Three days back, Congress primo uomo leader Rahul Gandhi, continuing with his attack on Hindutvavadis perceiving them as communal, tweeted “‘Hindutvavadis’ have been spreading hatred in the cyber world because cowards only attack while hiding. Had they mustered enough courage, they would have come forward. We need to be strong and keep tackling this hatred — the country needs to be saved!” Who is a Hindutvavadi? The simple answer is one who follows, practices and professes Hindutva. To understand Hindutva, one probably needs to delve into ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ and the safest place to venture in this issue is the Supreme Court which in its annals has a vast interpretative jurisprudential reservoir on these three words — Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva.
One of India’s greatest educationists and its first VicePresident S Radhakrishnan in his book ‘The Hindu View of Life’ defined Hindus thus—“The people on the Indian side of the Sindhu were called Hindu by the Persian and the later western invaders. . . That is the genesis of the word “Hindu”. When we think of the Hindu religion. We find it difficult, if not impossible, to define Hindu religion or even adequately describe it. . . It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more. ”
On Hinduism, celebrated British academician and historian Monier Williams in his book, ‘Religious Thought and Life in India’, has observed that “it must be borne in mind that Hinduism is far more than a mere form of theism resting on Brahmanism. It presents for our investigation a complex congeries of creeds and doctrines which is its gradual accumulation may be compared to the gathering together of the mighty volume of the Ganges, swollen by a continual influx of tributary rivers and rivulets, . . . . The Hindu religion is a reflection of the composite character of the Hindus, who are not one people but many. It is based on the idea of universal receptivity. It has ever aimed at accommodating itself to circumstances, and has carried on the process of adaptation through more than three thousand years. ”
The first reference to ‘Hindutva’ was recorded by the Supreme Court in its judgment [1994 (6) SCC 360] in the case ‘Is- mail Faruqi’, who had challenged the validity of the 1993 central law acquiring the disputed area in Ayodhya and large tracts of land around it. Justice S P Bharucha, who was part of the three judge bench which upheld the acquisition, said, “Ordinarily, Hin- dutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and it is not to be equated with, or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. ”
The nascent interpretation by Justice Bharucha in Ismail Faruqi, engaged deeper scrutiny analysis at the hands of a three-judge bench headed by renowned Justice J S Verma in Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte [1996 SCC (1) 130]. The case witnessed a see-saw battle between two heavyweights— Ram Jethmalani for Shiv Sena and Ashok Desai for the opposite side, both quoting scriptures and historians liberally.
Justice Verma relied on numerous past constitution bench judgments and said those decisions “indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms ‘Hindu’, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated that the term ‘Hindutva’ is related more to the way of life of the people in the subcontinent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry. . . ”.
The SC ruled that mere use of the word ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Hinduism’ or mention of any other religion in an election speech does not bring it within the net of sub-section (3) and/or subsection (3A) of Section 123, (to constitute corrupt practices which could disqualify the candidate) unless the further elements indicated are also present in that speech.
The SC also dispelled the notion, being given currency by politicians of different creeds, that terms’Hinduism’ or ‘Hindutva’ per se cannot be construed to depict hostility, enmity or intolerance towards other religious faiths or professing communalism. Such an apprehension, the SC said, proceeded from an improper appreciation and perception of the true meaning of these expressions emerging from the detailed discussion in earlier authorities of this Court.
However, the court had warned against possible politically beneficial misuse of the terms and advised strong measures to curb such tendencies. “Misuse of these expressions to promote communalism cannot alter the true meaning of these terms. The mischief resulting from the misuse of the terms by anyone in his speech has to be checked and not its permissible use. It is indeed very unfortunate, if in spite of the liberal and tolerant features of ‘Hinduism’ recognised in judicial decisions, these terms are misused by anyone during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage. Fundamentalism of any colour or kind must be curbed with a heavy hand to preserve and promote the secular creed of the nation. Any misuse of these terms must, therefore, be dealt with strictly. ”
Would giving a narrow meaning to Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva, which is akin to trying a blunt political scissor on an ocean-sized fabric to suit a narrower political agenda, cut ice with the electorate? Results will tell us in March.
The philosophy and world- view
‘Hinduism Is Inclusive, Hindutva Is Exclusive’
Ashok Vohra, June 26, 2018: The Times of India
Hinduism, while keeping itself pegged to the Vedas, is a poignant and dynamic religion that adapts itself to the changing social, cultural, economic, scientific, and technological advancements. It shows us the way to creative living and efficient ways of life fulfillment.
While some religions may claim that they are exclusive repositories of truth, “the key to understanding Hinduism is that it is one faith that claims no monopoly on the Truth.” Followers of Hinduism understand that the path adopted by them for salvation may not necessarily be the only path. Tolerance other viewpoints is a cardinal virtue of Hinduism.
V D Savarkar was the first to use the term ‘Hindutva’ – ‘Hinduness’ or ‘Hindudom’ - the essence of Hinduism, in his ‘Hindutva – Or Who Is a Hindu?’ According to him, Hindutva is not only a history of the spiritual or religious life of the Indian people but a history of entire civilisation. Hindutva “embraces all departments of thought and activity of the whole being of our Hindu race.” It is more ‘comprehensive, inflexible, concrete, and well defined than the malleable and amorphous Hinduism’.
Savarkar was not happy with his use of the term Hindutva. Left to himself, and constrained by limitations of grammar of the English language he would have preferred the use of the term ‘Hinduness’. Savarkar rejected the use of ‘ism’ as in ‘Hinduism’ because by “an 'ism' it was generally meant a theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or system.”
According to Savarkar, Hindutva’s aim is to “reacquire territory, rehabilitate religion, preserve Vedas and Shastras, protect cows and Brahmins, and establish suzerainty and diffusion of Hindu fame and glory.”
The first requisite of a follower of Hindutva is citizenship of Hindustan either by himself or through his forefathers. Savarkar says every person was a Hindu who regarded this land as his ‘Fatherland’ as well as his 'Holy land' – the cradle land, that is, the land of the origin of his religion.
Adherence to a religion of Hindustani origin, for example, “Vedicism, Sanatanism, Jainism, Buddhism, Lingaitism, Sikhism, Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Dev Samaj, Prarthana Samaj” is its second perquisite. Unquestioning faith in the scriptural authority upon which these are based, and a firm faith in the basic religious tenet(s) that they espouse, is its third prerequisite. Allegiance to any religion whose origin is not Indian -- for example Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- cannot be the constituent of Hindutva. Geographical criterion according to Savarkar is the sole criterion of comprehending Hindutva and its others.
Savarkar held that Hindus were bound together not only by ‘the tie of the love they bore to a common ‘Fatherland’, but also by the tie of the common homage they paid to their great civilisation’ -- loyalty to Hindu civilisation and culture, represented by ‘a common history, heroes, literature, art, law and a common jurisprudence, fairs and festivals, rites and rituals, ceremonies and sacraments and language (Sanskrit)’.
Believers of the doctrine of Hindutva adhere to Hinduism but all those who adhere to Hinduism do not necessarily believe in the doctrine of Hindutva. Only those who trust in the political power aspect of religion trust this doctrine. This shows that contrary to Savarkar’s belief that ‘Hindutva is much wider than Hinduism’, it is the other way round. Whereas Hinduism is inclusive, Hindutva is exclusive. (The author is professor of philosophy).
