Hindutva: A word of suspense
The ideology that forms the basis of BJP’S sociopolitical initiatives is not an ideology at all
An ideology is defined as “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture” and “the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical programme”. Another definition is: “A set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organisation is based.”
What is the set of beliefs and what is the sociopolitical programme of Hindutva ideology? It is, of course, the ideology of the party that rules over us and is likely to do so for years and possibly decades. What does it seek to achieve? There is no unified answer to this.
Of its vision and mission, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS) quotes its founder K B Hedgewar: “The Hindu culture is the life-breath of Hindusthan. It is therefore clear that if Hindusthan is to be protected, we should first nourish the Hindu culture. If the Hindu culture perishes in Hindusthan itself, and if the Hindu society ceases to exist, it will hardly be appropriate to refer to the mere geographical entity that remains as Hindusthan.”
It was the RSS’S task to protect and nourish this life-breath of Hindustan. What is Hindu culture? Hedgewar does not offer a definition; he assumes all of us know what he’s talking about. This is similar to the writing of Veer Savarkar in his booklet, Essentials of Hindutva, and the four speeches made by Deendayal Upadhayaya collectively called “Integral Humanism”, which the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) says is its “basic philosophy”. Savarkar and Upadhyaya also refer to culture but do not tell us what it is.
The word “culture” occurs in Upadhyaya’s text 35 times and he says the RSS/JANA Sangh/bjp aim is not only to protect Indian culture but to revitalise it. But what is this culture that we have to protect and revitalise? That he does not reveal. In a 1952 speech he said: “There exists only one culture here. There are no separate cultures here for Muslims and Christians. Culture is not related to mode of worship or sect; it is related to the country.” Again he assumes that we know what he is talking about and it doesn’t require further elucidation.
None of the Sangh’s ideologues have made a single reference to art, architecture, science, theatre, music, astronomy, mathematics, food or clothing or anything else that can be thought of as being “culture”. One senses that they feel strongly and even a sort of burning passion, but about what exactly? That is difficult to say.
This vagueness extends to India’s Supreme Court’s justices who sent down a judgment allowing Hindutva to be used for canvassing. Their lordships said: “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”.
In its first manifesto in 1951, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh had three pages devoted to a United Bharat and the development of a single Bharatiya culture. It said the Congress approach was “Abharatiya” (unindian) and therefore unrealistic.
On the other hand, the Sangh would stress “Bharatiyata, Bharatiya Sanskriti, Maryada and national rejuvenation Yajna”, but it is unable to tell us what these things are. It doesn’t set out to explain how these words and concepts will look as law or policy either.
Anyone attempting to examine Hindutva as an ideology runs into trouble because there is no definition and even no direction. Under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in 1980, the BJP adopted “Gandhian socialism” as its “guiding philosophy”, while “integral humanism” would be its “basic philosophy”. But integral humanism is hardly philosophy of any sort at all.
The BJP constitution says the party “shall be committed to nationalism, national integration, democracy, Gandhian approach to socio-economic issues” and it will also “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy…”
What unites Gandhian socialism, integral humanism, socialism, secularism and nationalism? I do not know. Nobody does. Gandhian socialism is described in the booklet Hind Swaraj, in which Gandhi tells us he wants doctors and lawyers abolished, the railways and trams banned, modern education ended and modernity itself sent out of India. Towards the end of his life, 30 years after he wrote it, Gandhi said he saw nothing in Hind Swaraj that he disagreed with.
The BJP and Jana Sangh manifestos have flirted with this sort of thing. The Jana Sangh first called for mechanisation in agriculture but then immediately opposed it because tractors would replace bullocks, who would then be slaughtered, which they could not allow. Upadhyaya wanted Indian industrialists to calibrate mechanisation based on how many more people they could employ rather than how many fewer, without explaining why they would do so or how they could be made to. In 1957, the Jana Sangh manifesto announced it would introduce “revolutionary changes” to India’s economic order, which “will be in keeping with Bharatiya values of life”. However, once again, what their revolution was and what these Bharatiya values were was not elaborated on nor was this theme of revolutionary change picked up again in any future manifesto. For 20 years, from 1952 to 1973 under Vajpayee, the BJP consistently said it would limit the incomes of all Indians to ~2,000 per month. Everything earned over that would be acquired by the state. It would ensure minimum wage was ~100 for an optimal ratio of 20:1, which would be brought to 10:1 by increasing the minimum to ~200. If this is not remembered or written about today, the reason is that such things were never important to the BJP or formed part of its appeal. Today, the prime minister — once seen as the champion of laissez faire — can speak about Atmanirbhar Bharat and privatisation in the same tweet. He can triple allocation to MNREGA, which he called the United Progressive Alliance’s monument to failure, without fear or danger of being contradictory or inconsistent because such things are not the basis of his party’s appeal and have never been.
Its “ideology” was something else and this thing was not really an ideology at all. That is why Hindutva has been so resistant to definition — even by its own “ideologues”.