What is "Hindutva"? The term is being very much bandied about in a very loose way. By people across the spectrum. So, it is necessary to have some clarity. The following is an attempt in that direction.
Hindutva is a political ideology - linking itself to Hinduism, which professes hatred and violence against the (adversial) "other", Muslims, in particular, among others, geared to the final goal of "Hindu Rashtra". Gandhi had popularised the Ram Dhun (ref.: < https://truehinduism.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/raghupati-raghav-raja-ram-explained/>), and it used to be sung in public prayer meetings conducted by him. Hardly any one charges him of "Hindutva", not even of the "soft" variety. In spite of his call for "Ram Rajya". For that matter, nor a staunch Gandhian Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan's volunteer force, "Khudai Khidmatgar" (Servants of Khuda?God), was ever deemed an illustration of soft "Islamism". In fact, "Khudai Khidmatgar" seemed to have had gelled only too well with Gandhi's very own imagery of "Ram Rajya". One complemented the other. So, affiliation with Hinduism is definitely a necessary but not even remotely sufficient condition for being qualified as "Hindutva". <<The politics of ‘Hindutva’ - a term first coined and popularised by V D Savarkar in 1923, and later identified with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - an organisation launched in 1925 on the Vijayaa Dashami Day by one Keshav Baliram Hedgewar to champion its cause, has a rather fascinating history. But before trying to plot the trajectory of Hindutva, it is imperative to keep in mind that the project of ’Hindutva’ is, in its essence, one of building up mass mobilisation, geared to the task of forging a new “Hindu” nation-state - out of the extant one through its appropriation and negation, around a core ’majority’, propelled by whipped up feelings of ’insecurity, paranoia, hatred and aggression’ against an array of ’adversarial and menacing others’, both internal and external, by making extensive and manipulative use of real and imaginary, past and contemporary ’history’ of fissures and conflicts. While religion is put to extensive and intensive instrumentalist use in this task of militant, exclusionist, majoritarian mobilisation, elements of (ultra)nationalism are also put to good use by borrowing and (mis)appropriating the idioms and icons of (widely accepted) mainstream (secular) nationalism, particularly (though not exclusively) of its rightwing variety.>> That's, btw, how I had tried to define "Hindutva". Ref.: 'Indian Nationalism, Hindutva and the Bomb' at < http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article10225>. Here're two revealing illustrations (from Golwalkar): I. <<To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.[47] Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening.>> II. <<The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights.>> (Source.: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._S._Golwalkar>.) And, for real time illustrations, one may like to look up: < https://www.facebook.com/Justice4Hindus/>. And, also relevant: 'Yogi Adityanath's Men Telling Hindus (with Adityanath Himself on Stage) To Rape Dead Muslim Women Is Beyond Shocking' at < https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/yogi-adityanaths-men-telling-hindus-to-rape-dead-muslim-women-is-beyond-shocking-230679.html> (3-mins. onward.). Sukla N.B.: Any feedback would be highly welcome. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: sanjeev kulkarni jeevkulka...@yahoo.com [issuesonline_worldwide] < issuesonline_worldw...@yahoogroups.com> Date: 4 February 2018 at 13:16 Subject: [issuesonline_worldwide] Re: [aryayouthgroup] ‘Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic’: Historian Romila Thapar To: "aryayouthgr...@yahoogroups.com" <aryayouthgr...@yahoogroups.com> Very good interview and correct observations. We rationalists and atheists including atheist Savarkar supported it precisely because it is departure from traditional hinduism and what passes for conventional wisdom and so called eternal truths, which ruined India and enslaved it for centuries. Unless we get rid of the things which resulted in great downfall, we will not make any progress. However, there is one misconception Romila Thapar has carried i.e. Hinduism is static and confined only to what was practised in the past when she observed " Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic as it is a departure from traditional Hinduism. " Philosophically the reason Hinduism has no single prophet, deity or holy book is because it is not intended to be confined only to one dogma. It was rightly understood that no single book or prophet can be treasure of all the wisdom for all times to come, no matter how resourceful. Anyone can contribute and if found acceptable, form part of Hinduism including atheists like Charvak and Kanad. So how can there be departure if it is only continuation of the tradition in the true spirit of Hinduism ? Hindutva is only continuation of the process and tradition of dynamism. This mistakes is committed by many who evaluate Hinduism anchoring it in their mind with Abrahamic religions. In that case they can talk about departure because nothing new can be added in those religions. But since Hinduism is a continuous process, there is no question of departure as there was no endpoint in the first place from where you can consider departure. Sanjeev ------------------------------ *From:* "Sukla Sen sukla....@gmail.com [aryayouthgroup]" < aryayouthgr...@yahoogroups.com> *To:* foil-l <foi...@insaf.net> *Sent:* Sunday, 4 February 2018 12:34 PM *Subject:* [aryayouthgroup] ‘Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic’: Historian Romila Thapar https://scroll.in/article/867440/hindutva-calling- itself-a-version-of-hinduism-is-problematic-historian-romila-thapar MEET THE WRITER ‘Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic’: Historian Romila Thapar An interview with the historian on her new book, history, Hindutva, and more. ‘Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic’: Historian Romila Thapar 2 hours ago Ruchika Sharma At the vanguard of present day studies of Indian history, Professor Romila Thapar has always recognised history as a dynamic discipline, a continuous dialogue between the past and present. The author of several insightful books, she is now the subject of a new book, Talking History, published by Oxford University Press. In the book Ramin Jahanbegloo and Neeladri Bhattacharya not only explore her personal journey from Punjab to London, but also interview her on a host of issues such as historical methodology, epic literature and Hindu nationalism. Her select writings have also been compiled into four volumes under the title The Historian and Her Craft: Collected Essays and Lectures. True to form as a leading public intellectual, Thapar spoke extensively to Scroll.in about her new book, history, Hindutva and more. Excerpts from the interview: ***In your book you speak about the need for public intellectuals in Indian society, who are needed more than ever in times like these. However, one does not get to see many academics, especially in the field of history, participating in public debates. Why do you think there’s so much reluctance?*** There are two reasons for this.. One is that researchers are not trained to think about the relevance of their research to the rest of society. This is not so prevalent among historians, although many historians also do not make that connection. It is more noticeable for example, among scientists who carry out their experiments, motivated largely by the concerns of their research, and seldom ask about what its effect will be on society. Whether we are scientists or non-scientists, we are not taught or encouraged to ask such a fundamental question. This is in part because education is still largely in the colonial mould, where such critical inquiry was not encouraged. And these days it is being reinforced by the official ideology that discourages asking questions. We still have not graduated to that level where college courses should begin with fundamental queries. Those who are aware of the importance of questioning remain quiet because academic institutions and the general public alike do not appreciate questioning existing knowledge. In today’s day and age, there’s the additional fear that if you openly oppose that which is conventional, you will have to face dire consequences, as has happened in universities. This is why many of us were so pleased when a group of scientists recently objected strongly to a Minister from the HRD Ministry trashing Darwin’s theory of evolution. ***Epic literature, you conclude, is not be taken as factual evidence. However, despite being a fictional character, Padmini of Jayasi’s Padmavat is constantly presented as a historical character. The Mahabharata and the Ramayana are considered part of history by many. How does a public intellectual combat such claims?*** By asking many questions. As historians, we need to know whether it’s historical if it’s being quoted as history. We have to investigate its role in the making of a society – does it determine social values, and can it be claimed as a source of social identities? Do people take it as a given truth about the past and do they determine their lives by it, claiming it as a source of their social status and identity? Or do they take it as great literature and an attractive fantasy about the past, but something they don’t have to lay down their lives to defend? Furthermore, what is the motivation behind converting that fantasy into a believed reality? This has much to do with the relationship of the present with the past, where the past has a lot of relevance today, especially in the area of social identity. In a society of such mixed identities, how can one find a single identity and declare that to be special? One of the ways to do this is to pick up a high status text, even if it is fictional, and to link one’s ancestry to it, insisting that it is historical. Such claims come more often from groups that are socially insecure. Today, ironically, some of these groups are dominant castes because the future is so uncertain. Their erstwhile dominance is under some shadow. Historians can point out all these different aspects. Equally important is to comment on the text being used not as epic literature from the past but as a political tool in the present. ***You pose serious concerns about using memory as a source of history. However, isn’t history largely a collection of memories of historical events committed to writing? Several historical texts that we consider valid sources of history today draw upon the chronicler’s memories. How would you explain such a conundrum?*** Let me begin by disagreeing with your formulation that memory is the major source of history. This was so in the days when history was largely a narrative about the past. But now that history draws on and analyses a large number of sources on the past and is an attempt to explain the past, memory plays a rather small role. Other forms of recording the past are much more central. There are public papers, official statements and archaeological evidence that are given more credence than memory. History derives from a variety of sources and in this interaction the reliability and value of different sources are assessed. Memory, therefore, is treated as a construction and subjected to critical inquiry. We don’t take it at face value. We analyse it, take it apart and compare it with other sources. I would like to underline that whatever the source, analysing it is absolutely crucial and central to the writing of history. ***Hindutva as an ideology today is fast gaining ground. Even though its proponents hark back to the Puranas, Hindutva’s idea of Hinduism is the polar opposite of the assimilation that characterises Puranic Hinduism. Do you think the current fashioning of an exclusive, almost Abrahamic Hinduism marks a paradigm shift in the history of the religion?*** We have to remember that all religions have a history. Religion is not static and changes with historical change. Religion is of two kinds: one is a personal religion comprising you and your relationship with the deity you worship; and then there is the public manifestation of religion where religion, as a social enterprise, tries to control society. This takes form after the religion becomes powerful and gains many followers.. It sets up organisations that participate in, and determine the direction of, social activities. Now Hindutva, constructed in the beginning of the 20th century, has had less impact on personal religion, and it does not attempt to redefine Hinduism as a religion per se. But it redefines the social controls exercised by the religion. So there is congregational worship, councils that lay down laws of social practices linked to Hindutva, belief in the historicity of the religion and its main figures as in the Abrahamic religions, etc.; in short the entire paraphernalia of an organisation comes into being which was not there earlier. Earlier, each sect had such concerns. But Hindutva is trying to make Hinduism uniform, by incorporating all the sects so that it becomes a monolithic religion. An interesting difference between Hinduism and other religions is that Hinduism expressed itself historically through the creation, existence and growth of different sects. This enriches the religion and makes it open and plural.. In the old days the openness of Hinduism was celebrated and the narrowness was limited to caste observances. Hindutva is trying to bring the narrowness into the religious observances too. The emphasis is on social organisation and political mobilisation through drills and Sunday Schools and such like. That is why I have referred to Hindutva as “Syndicated Hinduism”. Hindutva calling itself a version of Hinduism is problematic as it is a departure from traditional Hinduism. -- Peace Is Doable __._,_.___ ------------------------------ Posted by: sanjeev kulkarni <jeevkulka...@yahoo.com> ------------------------------ Reply via web post <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/issuesonline_worldwide/conversations/messages/188391;_ylc=X3oDMTJzdG45Y2Q0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEzNzEzMjcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAMxODgzOTEEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxNTE3NzMwNDEx?act=reply&messageNum=188391> • Reply to sender <jeevkulka...@yahoo.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Baryayouthgroup%5D%20%E2%80%98Hindutva%20calling%20itself%20a%20version%20of%20Hinduism%20is%20problematic%E2%80%99%3A%20Historian%20Romila%20Thapar> • Reply to group <issuesonline_worldw...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5Baryayouthgroup%5D%20%E2%80%98Hindutva%20calling%20itself%20a%20version%20of%20Hinduism%20is%20problematic%E2%80%99%3A%20Historian%20Romila%20Thapar> • Start a New Topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/issuesonline_worldwide/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNmw0Z3RyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEzNzEzMjcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzE1MTc3MzA0MTE-> • Messages in this topic <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/issuesonline_worldwide/conversations/topics/188389;_ylc=X3oDMTM5Ymk2ZDBlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEzNzEzMjcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRtc2dJZAMxODgzOTEEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxNTE3NzMwNDExBHRwY0lkAzE4ODM4OQ--> (2) ------------------------------ Have you tried the highest rated email app? <https://yho.com/1wwmgg> With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ------------------------------ Visit Your Group <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/issuesonline_worldwide/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaWsxMnBtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEzNzEzMjcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE1MTc3MzA0MTE-> [image: Yahoo! Groups] <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDQyc3E0BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzEzNzEzMjcxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2Mzk4NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTUxNzczMDQxMQ--> • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • Unsubscribe <issuesonline_worldwide-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> . __,_._,___ -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to greenyouth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
