The Debate over Hindutva

Abstract

In India, the debate over the concept of Hindutva—indigenous Indian culture—is essentially a debate over the viability of cultural nationalism. In the United States, the concept of fundamentalism stirs similar debates, and for that reason some writers—mistakenly, I think—regard Hindutva as fundamentalist. What Hindutva is and how it is related to international patterns are not just academic questions. They are of practical, political importance, because in India religious nationalism is still a potent force. The emergence of the Hindu-oriented Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a major political player in the 1991 elections and the spectacular destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu nationalist mobs in 1992 has been followed by the stabilization of BJP as an important opposition party. Recent elections in December 1994 and February 1995 show persistent gains by the BJP and indicate that Hindu politics will be a factor on the Indian scene for some time to come. How should one respond to this rise of religious politics in India? Is it a relatively benign force or a demonic one? Does it have legitimate roots in Indian tradition or is it a virus imported from some sort of world-wide fundamentalist plague? Is it a symptom of social and economic problems or is it purely a religious aberration? Is it a cynical use of religion by politicians or a corruption of politics by religious activists? Is it a matter for only Indians to be concerned about, or should it also alarm foreigners—including Americans—concerned about human rights around the world? These questions are subjects of lively debate in India—not only on the streets and in the press, but in academic quarters—and they cause controversy in Europe and America as well. Articles in this issue of Religionexemplify aspects of the debate. For the purposes of this essay, I have looked at the arguments posed by the authors of two of these articles, James Lochtefeld and Brian Smith, and compared them with each other, and with those of others who have recently written on the topic. I have looked at the observations posed by scholars of Euro-American origin, including Lochtefeld, Smith, Peter van der Veer, Daniel Gold, Stanley Wolpert and myself. 1I have also looked at the anlayses posed by scholars of Indian origin, including Tapan Raychaudhuri and Vinay Lal, Ashis Nandy, T. N. Madan and Partha Chatterjee. 2 What I want to suggest from all this is that the debate over Hindu nationalism is itself historically and socially located. Indians tend to emphasize issues specific to the Indian subcontinent and their own colonial past, whereas non-Indians often look at global issues, especially those similar or related to Euro-American concerns. Within the Indian perspective there is a split between the secularist and non-secularist camps, and within the Euro-American points of view there are differences between classic liberal and relativist positions. The arguments have been especially heated over the following issues.