Youth Presentations
Gagan Bedi
The soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance
These
words spoken by Jawaharlal Nehru on the eve of India's Independence
was of great significance for the nation as it represented the
successful culmination of a long and hard struggle. This quote
has new meaning in India today as it can be applied to the potent
Hindu Nationalist movement. One may argue that these Nationalists
see themselves as a nation whose soul has been 'long suppressed'
and are fighting a battle against the minorities of India. Only
through an organized effort, on all fronts, ideological, political,
and social, can they find 'utterance' and therefore retribution
for their Hindu rashtra or nation. With Hindus being the majority
in India and the continuing popularity of Hindu Nationalist organizations
such as the RSS and VHP, this movement evidently poses grave concerns
for the future of India. The Nationalists view themselves as fighting
their own independence struggle, one against the reigning political
model. It is a battle against what they perceive as the injustices
and inappropriateness of a Western and foreign based secular model,
one imposed by a select number of individuals at the expense of
the majority community. Not only has India's secular and Western
based democratic system been challenged by the rising tide of
Hindu Nationalism but there may be grave consequences for the
rights of India's minorities.
It is without a doubt that Hindu Nationalism has risen in popularity
over the decades. A major reason for the rising tide of Hindu
Nationalism may be attributed to the disillusionment of Hindus
towards the government's response to minority demands. Despite
Nehru's overwhelming attempts and fair deal of theoretical success
at establishing India as a secular state within an overwhelmingly
multiethnic and plural society, cultural pluralism has risen as
a potent and fragmenting phenomena within India. Hence, examination
of the Nehruvian model of secularism and its application towards
managing the nation's plural composition as well as its shortcomings
are essential to understanding the rising popularity of Hindu
Nationalism. Only then can one can identify the Hindu Nationalist
ideology and strategy towards managing India's multiethnic society.
Hence, the purpose of this paper will be to identify the terms
of contention between Indian and Hindu Nationalism, and how these
differences have expressed themselves in the establishment of
two opposing theoretical approaches to the management of India's
cultural pluralism.
The charismatic leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and other well
know Congress members such as Jawaharlal Nehru, propelled the
National Congress Party in the limelight as being the champions
of India's Independence. Gandhi's tolerance of the various ethnicities
and religions in India helped associate the party as being truly
national, and received widespread support from all of India's
ethnic and religious groups. Although there were alternative political
parties, the NCP maintained its popularity thereby allowing Nehru
and his followers to impose a (theoretical) framework of the Indian
nation. Nehru had a fundamental belief in the supreme authority
of science and reason thereby rejecting the notion of religion
or spirituality as a primary source of authority. From this also
arose his appreciation of (western) secularism as a promising
tool to remedy the pluralistic composition of India. The realization
of Nehru's secular vision was somewhat facilitated by Gandhi's
legacy. According to Donald Smith, "Gandhi's leadership of
the Indian National Congress gave it a somewhat Hinduized appearance,
but his constant emphasis on the religious, social, and political
unity of the various communities helped to lay the foundation
of the secular state". Gandhi's secularism however was non-modern
and actively advocated the inclusion of religion in politics.
His model of secularism was based on the premise that in order
to battle communal politics it is imperative that one equally
respect all religions. Gandhian secularism can therefore be defined
as an Area in which the Government, the political parties and
the people will work together to find a happy balance between
religious beliefs and conscience on the one hand and the demands
of modern society on the other.
However, it was Nehru's vision of secularism which was adopted
as the guiding political philosophy of India. Modern secularism
is defined as "a state which guarantees individual and corporate
freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective
of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular
religion nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with
religion". Hence, Nehru believed that identities based on
religion and ethnicity would be diminished and replaced with class
identification due to the effects of modernization and industrialization.
Unfortunately Nehru miscalculated the potency of religious and
ethnic loyalties of Indians, as a result it is arguably the case
that these loyalties have continued to persist despite the industrialization
of the country.
The 1960's and 1970's witnessed a rise in regional, ethnic and
religious demands from all corners of India, and as a result Nehru
was compelled to devise a framework for dealing with the realities
of a multiethnic state. According to Paul Brass, an accommodationalist
strategy was devised which comprised of four components.
1) The accommodation of linguistic and regional demands provided
they do not lead to an assertion of secession. This first rule
was written into the constitution in 1963 as a response to the
rise of the Kashmir and Tamil Nadu secessionist movements. Those
demands which lead to an expression of secessionism, it is stated
will be suppressed, with the use of arms of necessary. This case
was witnessed in the Punjab in response to the Khalistan movement
of the Sikhs, when Indira Gandhi sent the army to quash the rebel
movement in 1984, ultimately leading to her demise. Additionally,
after 1963 with the advent of this provision, the DMK in Tamil
Nadu gave up its demands for secession and is now the governing
party of the state.
2) Linguistic and cultural based regional demands will be considered
provided that these regional demands are not explicitly based
on religious differences.
3) Regional demands will not be frivolously granted. The movement
will not only have to prove to be legitimate but would also require
broad popular support in the region.
4) Demands for the division of multi-lingual states must have
some support from different linguistic groups. Such a case was
the division of the state of Punjab into a separate state of Haryana.
According to Brass, there is no evidence that this strategy of
accommodation has weakened Indian unity or economic growth. He
asserts however, that there have been three main consequences
of this strategy; "reduction of conflicts directed against
the central government; regionalization of politics; and increased
political participation and, in some cases, increased political
organization in several states".
The Hindu Nationalist movement feels threatened by the rules
and policies of Congress and its emulation of Nehruvian ideology.
According to Spitz, RSS literature has identified five major sources
of weakness confronting post independence India. The first source
of concern is that Hindu society is still not united which can
be attributed to the adherence to "un-Indian philosophies"
which are based on western models of modernity and perpetuate
a "hedonistic material culture". Thereby providing little
room for the superior, moral and spiritual dimensions of Hindu
culture. Secondly, they identify that minority activities are
becoming increasingly anti-national through their constant demand
for special treatment. There is a lack of activism in reintroducing
their Hindu roots and in contrast there is a tendency to tolerate
missions of conversion by these groups, thereby further weakening
the Hindu rashtra. Third, they identify the Communist parties
as promoting caste and communal conflicts and therefore encouraging
separatist movements. The Hindu Nationalists also identify the
National Congress as manipulating the masses to believe in a false
and immoral system based on Western values. A system, which has
they believe has provided minorities a legitimate means of expressing
their treasonous demands. Lastly, they identify foreign security
threats and the danger of India's economic dependency on the US
and USSR.
As previously mentioned, much of the contention of Hindu Nationalists
with Congress has been in regards to the approach towards minorities.
It has been contended that the accommodationalist policy towards
minorities has only exasperated the 5 points of weaknesses identified.
The Hindu nationalists have asserted that; Rightly or wrongly,
the Congress in fact robbed the Hindu majority of its legal right
to succeed the British Raj. With Hinduism as its religion, India
could have been a truly secular state… Intentionally or otherwise
the move of Nehru's reduced the Hindu majority to an impotent
political nonentity, a game that has been played by successive
Congress regimes to perpetuate its rule-and that too on the strength
of Hindu vote.
There is a very strong contention within the Hindu Nationalist
movement that the Indian government as it has been dominated by
the Congress has played too large a role in appeasing minorities.
In order to combat this, the Hindu Nationalists have emphasized
what Jaffrelot terms as the "Threat of the 'Other'. Hindu
Nationalists use tactics such as the perversion of historical
facts in order to appeal to xenophobic sentiments. By such means,
Hindu Nationalist organizations have increased their membership
base.
Theorists such as Gellner and Nairn argue that uneven development
is a cause for Nationalism. However, in the case of Hindu Nationalism,
I propose that uneven development has been expanded. So that,
Hindu Nationalists feed and create a perception of fear by emphasizing
absolute uneven development or the threat of regressive development.
Hindu Nationalists assert that the competitive forces of modernity
has a greater impact on Hindus due to the government's policy
of appeasing minorities. Absolute uneven development may be defined
as the unequal access to opportunities in absolute terms, or in
all relevant aspects of life, that being the political, economic
and social spheres. For example, Hindu Nationalists feel that
the adoption of Western ideals and values as a blueprint for national
governance has continued to undermine their traditional lifestyle
thereby maintaining foreign domination of India. Hence politically,
Hindus are barred from self governance based on indigenous values
and beliefs. Economically, Nairn's theory continues to apply on
the international level whereby nationalism is derived from the
unequal encounter between centre and periphery. However, on the
domestic scene uneven economic development may be perceived through
the policies of appeasing minorities. So that it may be argued
that by giving into linguistic and regional demands the greater
national Hindus population is losing its economic competitiveness.
Unable to compete due to language barriers and perhaps even employment
regulations favouring the dominant regional group can lead to
diminished economic opportunities for the Hindu population. On
the social sphere, one may argue that the recognition of minorities
and the failure to make religious conversion illegal has led to
an uneven social development.
In the case of regressive uneven development, Hindu Nationalists
may point to areas where they feel they have had sufficient opportunities
at expressing themselves and maintaining or perpetuating growth
but due to the accommodation of minority demands these rights
have been or will be diminished or worse, taken away completely.
It is important to note that it is not whether this trend of absolute
uneven development or regressive development is accurate but that
a perception of such trends exist. Hence, threat perception is
the key and has been very effective in mobilizing the masses.
Naturally, the Hindu Nationalist movement has adopted a different
theoretic approach to managing India's plural society. Their strategy
is non-tolerationalist and seeks to pursue the realization of
establishing a Hindu rashtra. Hence, the ideal is of a "unitary
state based on the assimilation of Indians into a national Bharatiya
culture" which "flatly rejects the concept of India
as a multinational state. As a result this would lead, theoretically,
to the reversal or abolition of the trends established by the
Nehruvian ideology, that is a restructuring of the policies on
religion, language, regionalism and political separatism. In regard
to religion, Hindu Nationalists would permit freedom of religion,
but abolish 'special privileges' for Muslims and Christians. In
the case of linguistic plurality, the Hindu Nationalists would
allow the promotion of regional languages at the lowest local
levels of administration, however, this policy would discriminate
against Urdu which is regarded as a 'foreign language'. Additionally,
Regionalism would be battled, as it is viewed as a "Balkanization"
of India. Hence, Hindu Nationalists would seek to eliminate state
governments, and the decentralization of authority and legislative
powers to the lowest homogenous dialectic units. In respect to
political separatist, there would be absolutely no room for tolerance,
thereby allowing for state armed resistance wherever it is deemed
necessary. Hence unsurprisingly, the Hindu Nationalist agenda
maintains a lack of accommodation regarding India's plural society.
The goal is to establish a Hindu rashtra and to allow no room
for multi-ethnic assertion.
Theoretically this may look like an ideal and realistic approach
for Hindu nationals, however having witnessed the BJP in power
and the realities of governing a plural society, it is apparent
that reality is vastly different from the assumptions of a theoretical
framework. The BJP government itself came to power on the back
of an extensive coalition, comprising of 17 parties. This coalition
included separatist or minority based political parties which
have gained electoral votes on the very linguistic and regional
demands that Hindu Nationalist organizations, such as the BJP,
wish to battle and abolish. Although an ironic situation, such
developments indicate that in order for the BJP or any Nationalist
party to survive, it incorporate secular ideals and allow for
the inclusion of minority based parties. Although the BJP could
not secure a majority, it did have a chance to govern but has
failed miserably to provide fair governance. Not only has it mismanaged
national affairs but has also been unable to respond to the needs
of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious masses. This failure has
come in spite of its own belief in ``justice for all and discrimination
against none''. The BJP's failure has shown that a right-wing
party with a majoritarian bias cannot govern a pluralist society.
According to Ashghar Ali Engineer: It is in pluralist societies
that the ideology of majoritarianism arises and again it is in
the same pluralist societies that it miserably fails. It is high
time the BJP assessed the situation objectively and dispassionately.
It can gain only temporarily by working up the religious frenzy.
For long-term survival, it will have to accept India's composite
culture and its bewildering diversity. The secular parties, by
and large, have accepted this and therein lies their strength.
Hence despite the rising tide of Hindu Nationalism, reality discerns
that cultural pluralism must be adopted and to some degree nurtured
in order to successfully govern India. Appeals to threat perception
based on absolute uneven development or regressive development
may work to some degree but in terms of acquiring political power
these tactics can only sustain a party for a short period of time.
The people need good governance in dealing with broad national
issues such as economic management rather than largely directing
the states' energy towards stigmatizing and emulating the threat
of the 'Other'. Hence, effective governance requires national
unity not a false sense of national integration based on Hindu
Nationalism.
