The first in the series of posts on Hindutva has generated quite a healthy debate. Teeing of that debate was the question of violence being justified in the name of Hindutva or for that matter any ideology.
As we?debate what Hindutva must come to mean it is important to establish a basic premise on the purpose of an ideology.
What role must ideology play ?
Ideology must play the role of a guide. A guide that you can turn to when presented with a situation to answer the moral questions of what is the “right” thing to do and what actions would be “wrong” in a given situation. In that sense ideology must play the role of a moral compass. With the help of a set of core principles that are both clear and unambiguous?such a moral compass must also provide a way by which the principles can be applied consistently across situations.
So?if Hindutva is an ideology that seeks inspiration from centuries of Hindu Thinking then?it must derive itself from Dharma for Dharma is the ultimate moral compass.
While Dharma is an all-encompassing notion of Justice for all aspects of human life, let us limit our interest in Dharma for the purpose of this discussion to Law Enforcement and the Rule of Law.
Some of the finest commentary on the nature of dharma is the Gita, it is little surprise that both Gandhi?and Golwalkar derived their sense of dharma from the notion of “desireless action” or “anaskata”.
Why is “desireless action” relevant here ?
Two reasons.
First reason?is in the role of the State in enforcing the laws. For the State to be seen to be discharging its Dharma it must enforce the laws impartially with no vested interest. In such desireless enforcement of the laws of the land lies the Dharma of the State. So a Government being run by a party that claims to be inspired by an ideology (Hindutva) based on centuries of Hindu thinking has to always enforce the laws of the hand impartially. Otherwise it will not just be guilty of not living up to its constitutional obligations it would also be guilty of not being true to that which it claims to be inspired by.
This is very important for it means two things. Firstly it means?that to adhere to Hindutva means to unambiguously and clearly adhere to enforcing the laws of the land at all times, impartially. Secondly it means that to adhere to Hindutva means no room for recourse or rationalization or justification for not enforcing the rule of law under any pretext.
The second reason why “desireless action” is relevant here is in respect for the rule of law. For any individual to be seen to be discharging his or her Dharma his or her actions must be desireless. Any action motivated by anger, conceit or deceit to violate the rule of law would not just be constitutionally illegal but would also amount to adharma. So if any individual or groups of individuals claim to be inspired by an ideology (Hindutva) based on centuries of Hindu thinking they have to be seen to be respecting and upholding the Rule of Law.
So to adhere to Hindutva means to unambiguously and clearly adhere to respecting and upholding the rule of law at all times with no room for recourse or rationalization or justification for violating the rule of law in the name of Hindutva. The exception however would be in fighting adharma when the rule of law enforced by the State is not “desireless” and is motivated?by an all-encompassing Adharma,?as was the case with the British rule and the freedom struggle.
So it must be unambiguous and clear that acts of violence such as the tearing down of the Babri Masjid, the murder and rape of innocents in Mob violence,?acts of vandalism?are not just illegal and unconstitutional but they also amount to adharma and hence cannot be morally sanctioned or justified by Hindutva.
It must also be unambiguous and clear that inaction by the State in responding to acts of Terrorism, reluctance of the State to enforce the rule of law against those who seek to threaten violence as in the Taslima Nasreen case and attempts to justify State sponsored violence as in Nandigram are also adharma.
As a corollary by standing for respect for the rule of law and enforcing the rule of law at all times, Hindutva would stand for protecting individual freedoms and hence would be liberal in its outlook. What then of restrictions on freedom of speech and incidents like Vadodara. Well those are subjects for the next post, however …..
Offstumped Bottomline: There is no escape from the moral certitude of Dharma and Adharma for adherents of Hindutva. Hindutva must come to unambiguously and clearly stand for enforcing the rule of law. Such a Hindutva would be serving National Interest as it would stand as a moral guard against our country becoming a Soft Nation. Hindutva must also come to unambiguosly and clearly stand for respecting and upholding the rule of law. Such a Hindutva would stand for protecting individual freedoms and hence is liberal in its outlook.
Filed under: Flat World Hindutva, Uncategorized
Yossarian,
You make a good point and I see where you’re coming from on this.
There’s a case for making the Gita the constitution. But it cannot become one as long as its identified with one religion alone. It has to be linked with Indic civilization and that must be the basis of defining our nationhood and nationalism.
Using any religious text as inspiration for law is a Major Major Catch 22 (pun intended). Admittedly the Gita is complete, compassionate, dispassionate and consistent (unlike some other scriptures I can think of). But what is to stop someone from picking up and picking apart obscure texts, claim religious sanction and create mayhem?
Just wondering is all. Haven’t yet crystallised insight worth posting in detail yet.
Jai Hind
Lets see the facets of Hindutva over the years,
1. Vouching for untouchability. (Manu Smriti anyone?)
2. Waging wars against hetrodox Hindu schools like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism thereby isolating and humiliating their followers. Killing ‘heretics’ and taking over their places of worship.
3. Forcing monothoist abrahamic gods like Krishna and Rama on a religion which simultaneously supports monist, monothiest, polythiest, animist, atheist and pantheist ideas. (“Tribals were blessed by Rama”, “Village gods are Shiva’s forms” etc.)
4. Bringing Babri Masjid dowm, burning Graham Staines, Baba Budangiri, Ram setu etc.
But there is also a thing called Sanatana Dharma (aka Hinduism) which lives upto its definition – ‘eternal religion’ of the people of India. It is this eternal religion which accepts the best of all schools and goes on for ever. In this religion beef eating brahmins turn veggies, a vivekananda honestly affirms “that Krishna was a human philosopher and that Sankara was a fanatic”.
I can go on forever, but the distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism is crucial. Hindutva is a political movement. It always has been. Hindutva’s ‘dharma’ has always been lopsided infavor of the orthodoxy. A party which vouches for Hindutva puts minorities on eternal notice. And such a party serving national interest is only incidental.
A Hindutva party may be needed to counter appeasement politics. But an ideal government or polity will well do without Hindutva.
Sud – not calling for constitution to be based on any religious text. Merely saying that if ur ideology is dervied from hindu thinking and if u swear by that ideology then there is no escaping dharma. U cannot justify breaking the law in the name of ideology nor can u justify not enforcing the rule of law in the name of ideology.that wud be a deviation from the moral prescription of such an ideology.
Balaji – oh boy is that a flight of fantasy or what, facts pls no sweeping generalisations. And where did u come up with abrahamic gods for crying out loud, ur last point on acts of violence is perhaps the only germane one worthy of debate.
abrahamic gods – thats a long story. Perhaps it will distract the discussion here. Can do offline. For now lets just say monotheist gods. Considering that Ram-Ramayan combo happened in response to Allah-Quran, the definition makes sense even with out going into the details.
Considering that Ram-Ramayan combo happened in response to Allah-Quran, the definition makes sense even with out going into the details.
How exciting. Pls elaborate.
Yoss, where’s the flabbergastedly sprawled on the floor icon just when you need one??
Yossarin,
[As usual, good points. In the past, one of your excellent posts on Gandhi and Gita led me to read that particular book. This also had the great side effect that I got hooked to your blog.]
I have to point out that Gita is a philosophical text for God/Self-realization. Not much for dealing with the world of Maya. (I am just restating the conclusions of great people like Shri R.D. Ranade.) Someone can interpret it in that way, bit they have to be very very careful. it may not be possible for a state!
The state certainly cannot actively practice anasakta-yoga, if that is what you mean to say. It has a duty of taking the citizens and the country forward, in a material way. For a country that is surrounded by malignant forces, like India is, the state cannot use an ordinary interpretation of Gita. A purely mystic interpretation of Gita (with antinomies resolved) would be excellent, but seems far from possible in the current vitiated atmosphere. anasakta-yoga is a conclusion for personal upliftment, in the sense of God/Self-realization.
anasakta-yoga also manifests as sama-bhava, equanimity in daily personal life. That sama-bhava can be the guiding force for a state, as it very clearly translates into dharma. The vital aspect of sama-bhava as explicitly stated in many place in the Gita (end of chapters 2, 12 and 14 for example. Also in some verses of chapter 18) can and should lead to a clear rules of governance in the sense of laws and rules.
I wish if India does such a thing! If the word sama-bhava reminds you of the way “secuuular” (sarva-dharma samabhava) has been misinterpreted in modern India, then the politicians are to blame.
I think the people interested in defining the governance should look more at Chanakya, rather than Gita. Bhatruhari too would be very useful (Sandeep was doing a series on that some time back).
Just my opinion!
Balaji, No offense meant in saying so bluntly, but there in no sense in your posts (either of them) and they are more of trying to fit the conclusions to the data, rather than the other way around.
Amar – thanks for following the blog feels good to know that it made a difference. You make some interesting points. Will reflect on them and comment. Again the intention here is to not box the thought process to one source or to hold one text as the ultimate truth. The point merely is that one cannot flout the rule of law and justify it through ideology. The rule of law is synonymous with dharma and flouting it would be a deviation from ideology.
It is an ancient Indian tradition : being contrarian and “original” for the sake of being contrarian and “original”.
Well, I don’t know what I should be replying to. My comment says the Dharma in Hindutva as argued by Yossarin simply does not exist. Hindutva has a long history of oppression and antagonism which make it unsuitable for a modern secular democratic state. Hindutva is cultural nationalism where as Hinduism is an accommodative religion. The former shud not influence governance while the second is personal.
Instead of just Gita – look at the schools of philosophy
A recent Supreme Court Judgement
Mimansa Rules still relevant, says court
Mimansa Rules of Interpretation (MRI) were still relevant and could be effectively used in courts whenever there was difficulty or ambiguity in interpreting a principle or to understand the meaning of a word, the Supreme Court has held.
“It may be mentioned that the MRI were our traditional principles of interpretation laid down by Jaimini whose Sutras were explained by Shabar, Kumarila Bhatta, Prabhakar, etc. These Mimansa Principles were regularly used by our great jurists such as Vijnaneshwar [author of Mitakshara], Jimutvahana [author of Dayabhaga], Nanda Pandit [author of Dattak Mimansa] etc. whenever they found any conflict between the various Smritis or any ambiguity or incongruity therein. There is no reason why we cannot use these principles on appropriate occasions,” said a Bench consisting of Justices A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju
I think we all are forgetting that M.K Gandhi’s Independence movement and all the associated ideological trappings and methodologies were – ‘Hindutva’. Something that frightened Jinnah to the Core.
In short, the Indian Independence Movement was the pinnacle example of the Hindutva call to Freedom.
And that post was for you balaji. You seem to be taking MSM too seriously for your own good.
Amit,
We can give all the spin to “Hindutva” but it won’t wash. The latest version of ‘Hindutva’ during the Independence movement was more interested in protecting the interests of Hindus and not Indians. And you are right. Hindutva did frighten Muslims so much so that they didn’t buy the argument that we could be a single country. Indian Independence Movement was the Hindu/Indian call to Freedom and not Hindutva’s.
Yossarin seems to have forgotten a small matter of the ‘constitution of India’ when he wrote this post. That document borne doubtless from the knowledge of several centuries of Hindu living as well as accommodation for the minorities is the one that should influence our ‘rule of law’.
Most (ignorant) people would get a fit of rage if its mentioned to them that the constitution calls for a uniform civil code, abrogation of article 370 in ten years, mentions the Gita etc.
Hindutva as a socio-cultural phenomenon to reform Hinduism and its caste and superstition rid society is all very welcome. When it rallies Hindus to protect their interests (say against Buddhists, Mughals, Muslim League, congress appeasement of Muslims etc ), its acceptable. And when it rallies Hindus to serve their spiritual and cultural homeland, its great.
But this is governance, dharma and the rule of the law that we are talking about. If one can throw Gita someone else can throw the Shramanic teachings of Buddha, Mahavira etc, Hadith, the Ten Commandments, Guru Nanak’s principles and so on. Please do not underestimate the ‘Hindu’ intelligence of the people who wrote the constitution.
Please do not underestimate the ‘Hindu’ intelligence of the people who wrote the constitution
Err….that would be one Mr. Ambedkar????? And if you read his writings on ‘Mussalmans’ even Singhal or Tagodia would seem like a garden lilly liberal.
Balaji, No offense meant in saying so bluntly, but there in no sense in your posts (either of them) and they are more of trying to fit the conclusions to the data, rather than the other way around.
Well said Amar. No point responding it rest of trash.
Balaji – man what about “this is not about the constitution” dont you get ? This is about political ideology. As far as my views on the constitution read my many posts on the constituent assembly debates including some on those muslim stalwarts who were “right” in their thinking.
Amit – You bring up a very important. Gandhi’s leadership by example through desireless action inspired by the Gita was absolutely the pinnacle. More on the other issue of Jinnah being scared in subsequent posts.
@balaji
I’ve to agree with you on certain points of your argument that the Gita cannot be used to influence the governance of India, or the constitution. Hindutva, i agree, is a political hindu movement.
But the ‘facets’ of hindutva that you argue for, smell of a deep anti-hindu bias or just lack of really understanding the hindutva movement.
1. Vouching for untouchability. (Manu Smriti anyone?)
If anything, the current leaders of hindutva, Modi, uma bharti, being from lower castes are acting as brand ambassadors of hindutva, in order to enlist support of the lower castes to bring about cultural unity in hindus. Arya Samaj, or old school hindutva, ditto.
It serves the purpose of anti-hindutva squad to divide hindus, so refine your argument please =)
“2. Waging wars against hetrodox Hindu schools like Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism thereby isolating and humiliating their followers.”
that’s a little far fetched by any ‘delusional’ standards.
“Killing ‘heretics’ and taking over their places of worship.”
I’d like to find the word for ‘heretic’ or ‘kafir’ in hindutva. it DOESNT exist. Besides if you are talking about riots, they happen, this is india, temples get destroyed just like masjids, so please spare hindus the ‘exclusive’ guilt, unless one wants to address the root cause of lack of law and order.
3. Forcing monothoist abrahamic gods like Krishna and Rama on a religion which simultaneously supports monist, monothiest, polythiest, animist, atheist and pantheist ideas. (”Tribals were blessed by Rama”, “Village gods are Shiva’s forms” etc.)
What’s wrong with that ? It’s again, a re-branding of hinduism, to unite hindus and to combat missionaries and hindu-dividers, just like destroying the caste system.
“But there is also a thing called Sanatana Dharma (aka Hinduism) which lives upto its definition – ‘eternal religion’ of the people of India. It is this eternal religion which accepts the best of all schools and goes on for ever.”
This particular open-ness to ‘best of all schools’ approach has put hindus in the current condition, where they have lost land from kandahar to bali, and have to fight to assert themselves in their last bastion.
what’s wrong with re-branding hinduism, to One God, One People, One temple ? If christians, can consolidate themselves, 1700 years ago, under emporer constantine, why cant hindus do the same to defend themselves.
Yossarin,
Writing under the title, “Flat World Hindutva – Uphold the Rule of Law as Dharma” and talking about a political idealogy, if you insist I should only comment on how great Gita is, you have simply lost your mind. Or just indulging in some Hindutva propaganda. If you are talking about ancient Indian laws – manu smriti, examples set by Rama, Harichandra, Pandavas, Ashoka in upholding Dharma, ArthaShastra, Thirukural etc it might make a lot more sense.
Aryan,
1. Untouchability. Its good that Modi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan, Govindacharya, Bangaru etc have emerged. But the unease they have created in the Brahmanical setup of the parivar and the fact that some are in the doghouse is reminiscent of the discontinuity between Hinduism influenced Indian way of life and Hindutva.
2. Nastika, Shudra, Asura etc are words used to demonize people not toeing the ‘mainstream’ Hindu religion. Ask the RSS why it was hell bent on calling Sikhism the sword arm of Hinduism. (Hint: Hindutva has always been doing this sword wielding for Hinduism.)
3. Rebranding Hinduism along the lines of Christianity and Islam is what I called “forcing Abrhamic monothiest Gods on Hinduism”. Hinduism is a mixture of many ideas. Vedas – Polytheist/naturist, Upanishad/Advaita – Monist, Pithru worship – animist, Gita – Monotheist/Monist, Karma, rebirth – Shramanic, Shiva – tombstone worship, Puri Jaganath, Mariamman etc – Folk gods.
But Hindutva tries to convert this multi-dimensional religion into a monotheist abrahamic religion so that Brahmins can control access to Gods. Just like Maggies in Zorastrinism, Rabbies in Judaism and Priests in Christianity.
I guess we have digressed from the original topic. Lets leave it to others now.
Balaji –
as usual my friend you jump the gun, nobody is insisting on what you should comment or not comment. The debate here is merely about what the ideology ought to be and ought not to be. So yes you are welcome to derive and distill moral pointers from all those texts you quoted to make your case on why the moral compass must point in a different direction on a given issue. The problem is you have not done that. So ….
ok. Lets talk of Dharma from the scriptures.
1. Half the Hindu religion (not Hindutva) is influenced by Shramanic/Jain policy of non-violence and respect for life. (Wanna me quote from Thirukkural?) But people who recommend mercy for Afzal Guru are anti-Hindu, anti-national, muslim bootlickers, is it? A ‘dharmic’ nation allows the death penalty?
2. Hinduism whether by design or mistake has rendered a significant portion of Indians as untouchables or oppressed classes. But the Shudras done in by the Varna system weren’t just the scheduled classes but the OBCs as well. When people try to address that with mandal, you wield the kamandal, is it? Did Rama embrace Hanuman as brother or as slave?
3. In a country where zillions go to sleep empty stomach, how difficult will it be for a government to provide food (prasad?) in all places of worship? Langar anyone? Did Magadha starve Buddha and other monks to death?
4. In a religion obsessed with women’s power of creation (early vedas anyone?), where one of the Manus’ called himself Shraddhadeva after his wife, do I see the stree shakti fighting for 33%?
Balaji – some ground rules before this debate goes all over the place. We are not debating scripture. We are trying to derive or distill some rules that can be consistently applied across situations to guide private individuals, local communities (via democratic consensus), individual governments on making a moral distinction to choose a course of action from a set of constitutionally available options. That guide is the ideology which in this case is referred to as hindutva. Frame ur arguments thus.
Well, I just did. I listed issues where had the government or the people been influenced by Hindu way of life, could have made the “moral distinction to choose a course of action from a set of constitutionally available options”. I want to see the ‘Dharmic Hindu’ who justifies the death penalty and opposes reservation or a ‘Dharmic government’ which should “stop interfering in religious institutions” to perpetuate untouchabilty and corruption.
Addresses these philosophically in the latest postwhy don’t u read it and continue the debate there
to add, I see why you and I are in different frequencies. When you talk of violence you only have Babri Masjid or Taslima in mind. I’m reminded of the violence unleashed by Hindutva on indigenous religious minorities, outcastes and women as well. Your definition “That guide is the ideology which in this case is referred to as hindutva” is a joke. You are trying to use lofty ideals to gain legitimacy for Hindutva.
Balaji – you are one angry young man
you don’t get off the hook though will adress al of the issues raised in ur last comment in the latest post.
Very nice post yossarin. No arguments from me here.
Balaji – Huh. You are all over the place. Pick a point and argue on it. Preferably related to the post.
This is an example of unmitigated bullshit (sorry, but bullshit is the correct word for it):
Its good that Modi, Uma Bharati, Kalyan, Govindacharya, Bangaru etc have emerged. But the unease they have created in the Brahmanical setup of the parivar and the fact that some are in the doghouse is reminiscent of the discontinuity between Hinduism influenced Indian way of life and Hindutva.
Fact: Most of the leading lights of Hindutva are from the so called “backward” castes.
Consequence: The commie propaganda that the Sangh is casteist gets hit for a six.
This is countered by the chewbacca defence.
Verbose nonsense follows:
But the unease they have created in the Brahmanical setup of the parivar and the fact that some are in the doghouse is reminiscent of the discontinuity between Hinduism influenced Indian way of life and Hindutva.
Now that is some fancy shmancy sentence.
If you are desperately looking for Brahmanical domination, the entire Politburo of both the CPI and CPM are filled with upper middle class Hindu Brahmin MALES (they made such a big Hungama when Brinda Karat was admitted). Please learn to look past the propaganda.
Sorry for the somewhat long message
“what’s wrong with re-branding hinduism, to One God, One People, One temple ? If christians, can consolidate themselves, 1700 years ago, under emporer constantine, why cant hindus do the same to defend themselves.”
To some extent I sympathise with the current viewpoint, and I can see where this is coming from and I’m pretty Hindutva myself, but just hear me out – I’ll try not to be obnoxious;)
I think that the Council of Nicaea and Constantine’s Sword pushed Europe into the Dark Ages for a thousand years.
I believe that when we compete using terms and beliefs called “religion” and “ideology” we are fighting on the enemy’s home ground. (to borrow a contemporary term – It is like playing cricket in Australia). We must first and foremost realize that out forte is PHILOSOPHY. Hinduism consisted of six streams of philosophy, Jainism and Buddhism were primarily philosophies. For example the Mahayana and Hinayana Buddhists do not fight over whether Buddha’s son-in-law should have been appointed the next Buddha.
Our intellectual ability at a cultural level has been severely stunted because of our unfortunate history. But remember India is “The land of Damned Philosophers” – even the paan wala and the cobbler will sit around spouting Philosophy if you talk to them.
The right thing to look at is the renaissance. During this time the Europeans looked past their Christian heritage (with history starting at 1AD) and picked up he pieces of their Roman and Greek past. If we have to have a Hindu renaissance it will be when we connect back to how we used to be (admittedly we will not be exactly able to match). Just as there is an Ayn Rand Institute, there has to be a Sankhya institute, a Mimansa institute, an Vedanta institute, a Mahayana institute etc. and all of then should be going hammer and tongs at each other. Any new “ideology” coming in has to be examined in the light of the existing philosophies. This might appear “disunited” but the intellectual exertion required will help us in dealing with adharmic and asuric forces.
This will also keep the “intellectuals” busy and keep them from creating trouble for the rest of the country;)
Of course the mandir/setu etc. must be used to win elections and keep the dark forces out of power.
[...] established how it can stand for a Minimalist Secular State and serve National Interest while being unambiguosly for the rule of law. We also debated which way the moral compass may point on taking offence in the context of [...]
[...] An Offstumped re-rerun from Flat Hindutva on why the rule of law must be respected as Dharma. [...]
An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.
But the monster does not understand this. If he takes out your one eye and you dont react then he will take out your second and you will go blind.
[...] this from Tarun echoing what Offstumped had articulated on upholding the rule of law as Dharma (also see Flat World Hindutva) Yes, defend your dharma, never pardon the unrepentant wicked, but [...]
[...] So thank you Sanghvi and Ghose for labeling us Internet Hindus, we will wear it on our shoulders with pride to remind you of the Center Right movement that shall end the psuedo-progressive monopoly on politics and policy drawing inspiration from Dharma and Constitutionality. [...]