prasad1
Active member
Rise of right-wing Hindus
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of origin of this brand of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism. But the first half of the 1920s is usually considered the beginning. In the early 1920s Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote Essentials of Hindutva. He differentiated between Hinduism and Hindutva – Hinduism according to him, was only a part of Hindutva. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was set up in 1925. Historians have written of how in the 1920s and 1930s Hindu nationalists projected those different from themselves as enemies. While some present-day Hindu nationalists have at times claimed to use the term Hindu to “denote all people who believe in, respect or follow the eternal values of life that have sprung up in Bharat” rather than a religion, they contradict that claim when those ‘eternal values’ are given a religious slant.
“Hindutva has nothing to do with Hinduism as a faith or a religion, but rather as a badge of cultural identity and an instrument of political mobilisation,” says author and Member of Parliament, Shashi Tharoor. “Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals – no founder or prophet, no organised Church, no compulsory beliefs or rites of worship, no single sacred book…What we see today as Hindutva is part of an attempt to ‘semitise’ the faith – to make Hinduism more like the ‘better-organised’ religions like Christianity and Islam, the better to resist their encroachments.”
The accuracy of Tharoor’s statement is reflected in an article on the website of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). “The Hindu nation as a mere community… was equated with the Muslims and Christians who came here as invaders and aggressors and the Parsis and Jews who came here as refugees being driven away from their respective homelands,” rues the article.
Another article on the website declares, “Hindu interest is national interest. Hence the honour of Hindutva and Hindu interests should be protected at all costs.” A similar mission is espoused by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on its website: “Expressed in the simplest terms, the ideal of the Sangh is to carry the nation to the pinnacle of glory through organizing the entire society and ensuring the protection of Hindu Dharma.”
In recent times, that “protection” of dharma has translated into gau raksha or the protection of the holy cow, a severe ban on beef consumption in many states and a demand for a Ram temple in Ayodhya. In some cases it also means a celebration of Shiva or Krishna or other mainstream gods and goddess. But there is a complete neglect of both local faiths and the deeper philosophies of Hinduism. “Hindutva has no use for Hindu thought or philosophy of religion, for that would go against it,” says historian Harbans Mukhia. “All it needs is a few symbols of Hinduism which can be mobilised to create tension vis-à-vis minorities. The cow is that symbol.”
The last couple of years have seen an almost insane veneration of the cow. In an interview last year, Shankar Lal, pradhan of the Akhil Bhartiya Gau Seva Sangh, reportedly said that they “make pregnant women eat cow dung and urine paste to ensure a normal delivery.”
“Hinduism is a conglomeration of a number of religious beliefs and practices,” says historian DN Jha, author of the book The Myth of the Holy Cow. “Beef-eaters in Kerala or the North-East are Hindus, but such people may be ostracised in the Hindi belt. Brahmins in most parts of the country are vegetarians but in Bengal and Mithila (in Bihar) they are non-vegetarians – our ancestors (sage Yajnavalkya for instance) even fattened themselves on sacrificed beef.” Sociologist Ashis Nandy agrees that “one of the Sanskrit synonyms for Brahmins in some parts of India was goghanas, or those who ate beef”.
[FONT="]Most scholars feel that far from protecting Hinduism, a structured Hindutva movement is a blow to the very essence of the religion. “Hinduism embraces an eclectic range of doctrines and practices, from pantheism to agnosticism and from faith in reincarnation to belief in the caste system. But none of these constitutes an obligatory credo for a Hindu... Hindutva seeks to impose a narrow set of beliefs, doctrines and practices on an eclectic and loosely-knit faith, in denial of the considerable latitude traditionally available to believers,” says Tharoor.
[/FONT][FONT="]
But the Hindutva narrative, “in order to achieve its larger goal of Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan, has no appetite for multiple voices, schools of philosophy and even traditions from within the Hindu religion,” says Mukul, a thought that is shared by Tharoor. “They also do not recognise the resistance of lower-caste Hindus and adivasis against the dominant Brahmanical tradition,” adds Mukul. “The idea of Hindutva is to Hinduise everyone and make them read one history that glorifies the ancient Hindu past...”
[/FONT][FONT="]
The way forward, feels sociologist Dipankar Gupta is to decide “what is democratic and what is not.” He says, “To argue that certain political practices are against the essence of Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or Christianity is certainly not the way to argue for democratic rights. Religion should not be brought in when one discusses issues of citizenship.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Not everyone will agree. In an unsigned online article Hindutva: The Great Nationalist Ideology, the writer declares – “The future of Bharat is set. Hindutva is here to stay. It is up to the Muslims whether they will be included in the new nationalistic spirit of Bharat...” But what of Hindus who don’t identify with the Hindutva movement?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/hinduism-versus-hindutva/story-SYB9a5bwKPqBJxbM4fPg2O.html[/FONT]
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of origin of this brand of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism. But the first half of the 1920s is usually considered the beginning. In the early 1920s Vinayak Damodar Savarkar wrote Essentials of Hindutva. He differentiated between Hinduism and Hindutva – Hinduism according to him, was only a part of Hindutva. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) was set up in 1925. Historians have written of how in the 1920s and 1930s Hindu nationalists projected those different from themselves as enemies. While some present-day Hindu nationalists have at times claimed to use the term Hindu to “denote all people who believe in, respect or follow the eternal values of life that have sprung up in Bharat” rather than a religion, they contradict that claim when those ‘eternal values’ are given a religious slant.
“Hindutva has nothing to do with Hinduism as a faith or a religion, but rather as a badge of cultural identity and an instrument of political mobilisation,” says author and Member of Parliament, Shashi Tharoor. “Hinduism is a religion without fundamentals – no founder or prophet, no organised Church, no compulsory beliefs or rites of worship, no single sacred book…What we see today as Hindutva is part of an attempt to ‘semitise’ the faith – to make Hinduism more like the ‘better-organised’ religions like Christianity and Islam, the better to resist their encroachments.”
The accuracy of Tharoor’s statement is reflected in an article on the website of the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). “The Hindu nation as a mere community… was equated with the Muslims and Christians who came here as invaders and aggressors and the Parsis and Jews who came here as refugees being driven away from their respective homelands,” rues the article.
Another article on the website declares, “Hindu interest is national interest. Hence the honour of Hindutva and Hindu interests should be protected at all costs.” A similar mission is espoused by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) on its website: “Expressed in the simplest terms, the ideal of the Sangh is to carry the nation to the pinnacle of glory through organizing the entire society and ensuring the protection of Hindu Dharma.”
In recent times, that “protection” of dharma has translated into gau raksha or the protection of the holy cow, a severe ban on beef consumption in many states and a demand for a Ram temple in Ayodhya. In some cases it also means a celebration of Shiva or Krishna or other mainstream gods and goddess. But there is a complete neglect of both local faiths and the deeper philosophies of Hinduism. “Hindutva has no use for Hindu thought or philosophy of religion, for that would go against it,” says historian Harbans Mukhia. “All it needs is a few symbols of Hinduism which can be mobilised to create tension vis-à-vis minorities. The cow is that symbol.”
The last couple of years have seen an almost insane veneration of the cow. In an interview last year, Shankar Lal, pradhan of the Akhil Bhartiya Gau Seva Sangh, reportedly said that they “make pregnant women eat cow dung and urine paste to ensure a normal delivery.”
“Hinduism is a conglomeration of a number of religious beliefs and practices,” says historian DN Jha, author of the book The Myth of the Holy Cow. “Beef-eaters in Kerala or the North-East are Hindus, but such people may be ostracised in the Hindi belt. Brahmins in most parts of the country are vegetarians but in Bengal and Mithila (in Bihar) they are non-vegetarians – our ancestors (sage Yajnavalkya for instance) even fattened themselves on sacrificed beef.” Sociologist Ashis Nandy agrees that “one of the Sanskrit synonyms for Brahmins in some parts of India was goghanas, or those who ate beef”.
[FONT="]Most scholars feel that far from protecting Hinduism, a structured Hindutva movement is a blow to the very essence of the religion. “Hinduism embraces an eclectic range of doctrines and practices, from pantheism to agnosticism and from faith in reincarnation to belief in the caste system. But none of these constitutes an obligatory credo for a Hindu... Hindutva seeks to impose a narrow set of beliefs, doctrines and practices on an eclectic and loosely-knit faith, in denial of the considerable latitude traditionally available to believers,” says Tharoor.
[/FONT][FONT="]
But the Hindutva narrative, “in order to achieve its larger goal of Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan, has no appetite for multiple voices, schools of philosophy and even traditions from within the Hindu religion,” says Mukul, a thought that is shared by Tharoor. “They also do not recognise the resistance of lower-caste Hindus and adivasis against the dominant Brahmanical tradition,” adds Mukul. “The idea of Hindutva is to Hinduise everyone and make them read one history that glorifies the ancient Hindu past...”
[/FONT][FONT="]
The way forward, feels sociologist Dipankar Gupta is to decide “what is democratic and what is not.” He says, “To argue that certain political practices are against the essence of Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam or Christianity is certainly not the way to argue for democratic rights. Religion should not be brought in when one discusses issues of citizenship.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Not everyone will agree. In an unsigned online article Hindutva: The Great Nationalist Ideology, the writer declares – “The future of Bharat is set. Hindutva is here to stay. It is up to the Muslims whether they will be included in the new nationalistic spirit of Bharat...” But what of Hindus who don’t identify with the Hindutva movement?
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/hinduism-versus-hindutva/story-SYB9a5bwKPqBJxbM4fPg2O.html[/FONT]
Last edited:
