“If you are not with us, you are against us.”
Though I cannot challenge a scholar like Guha, particularly regarding his deep knowledge of contemporary Indian history and politics. He conducts his work through thorough research and is able to present his views with authentic information and authority. Still, as a student of history, when I read such a rhetorical statement about Hindutva with a ‘Modi-phobic’ tone, it confuses me. Though there are three generally accepted political groups—Right, Left, and Center—is there any place for another, a fourth, for someone like me who wants to support the good cause of everyone, even though we may not accept all their ideologies and approaches to implementation? Though many might consider my stance centrist, I am not sure about it. I stand with one when I support their view and stand with another when I criticize it. But I don’t want to sit on the fence only waiting for the right opportunity to jump from one ship to another.
Here, I cannot say anything to defend Hindutva as there is no need for it, because they themselves have and are still promoting and defending their ideology in their own way, as everyone does. I don’t want to enter into that kind of debate as I am not qualified to speak for any one of them. But I find it difficult to digest the view that ‘If you are not with us then you are against us,’ even against the nation.
Though Guha never makes sweeping generalizations about every Hindu, when I read the following words of Guha in the Epilogue, this question came to my mind:
In my country, the rise of nativism and xenophobia in recent decades has been both immense and intense. National, and especially religious, parochialism is rife. ‘Garv se kaho Hindu ho’—Proclaim with Pride that you are a Hindu—such is the leitmotif that has accompanied the rise to power of the political movement known as Hindutva. Hindus, it is now said, are destined to be the world’s Vishwa Guru, teachers to the rest of humanity. They apparently have nothing to learn from or gain from the world in return.1
Of course, considering the context, Guha never claims that every Hindu in India or in the entire world is saying that ‘we have nothing to learn from or gain from the world in return’. If I understood the context, he clearly says that according to the Hindutva agenda and interpretation, as a pride Hindus ‘we have nothing to learn from or gain from the world in return’. I respect his personal freedom to interpret Hindutva in this way, not knowing whether any Hindutva person directly or indirectly hinted at such a view that they have nothing to learn or gain from others. Of course, Modi insists that now India will become the World Guru openly. But I am not sure whether he ever said that this means that we or they have ‘nothing to learn or gain’ from others. I think this comes from the spirit of Modi-phobia.
Before coming to this point, I have to point out that with my elementary or even pre-KG knowledge about Hinduism, it has always remained and will remain a ‘melting pot’ or a mosaic or tapestry accommodating all kinds of thoughts and views in every field of life. It even began from the Veda as Rig Veda says: “Let noble thoughts come from everywhere.”2
Of course, while welcoming every other noble thought from every corner of the world, it upheld one unique principle or mark of its civilization: LIVE AND LET LIVE, never allowing one view to dominate the other or erase it completely from the history and memory of India. Some disappeared on their own due to weakness, but our civilization never tried to cannibalize other views in any field just to keep only any so-called original or indigenous view—about which no one has any idea. It never remained a black hole sucking in anything that comes into its proximity but remains as a sponge, observing and trying to make it a part of its civilizational view, retaining it within it, even safeguarding it. However, if some of them disappeared, it is due to their inherent nature, as even a sponge cannot stop some of the liquid it has absorbed, like water, from evaporating. However, any oil or ghee remains in it unless it is cleaned with some detergent. Of course, this is only an illustration, and we should not stretch it beyond its central point—accommodating every kind of faith expression and allowing it to coexist with others. Unity in diversity, agreeing to disagree, being dogmatic in core beliefs, accommodating in peripheral beliefs, and maintaining charity in all—is the hallmark of our civilization.
Even the very word ‘Hindutva’ is borrowed from others, as it is derived from a Persian word: Indu>Sindu>Hindu. If they want to remain purely Indian or Bharat, then they should call it ‘Bharatva,’ not ‘Hindutva.’ But now it is too late even for them, as the word ‘Hindutva’ has become universal. Modi can rightly use ‘Bharat’ for ‘India,’ but he cannot replace ‘Hindutva’ with ‘Bharatva.’ Leaving this childish interpretation aside, their very ideology of ultranationalism or any other term you want to use—such as ‘religious nationalism,’ ‘national chauvinism,’ or ‘xenophobia’—still has not emerged from the ethos of Bharat.
Even if the Hindutva camp argues that the spirit of their Hindu nationalism is not a foreign idea borrowed from the fascism of Italy or Germany, but it is the core values of Indian civilization,3 still, nationalism as such is a strange concept to India.4 There never existed a politically united India or Hindu country before British rule. Even patriotism was local and regional, not pan-Indian. At the same time, no one can deny the fact that, in spite of internal divisions and wars against each other, there existed an overall ‘Pan-Indian unity’ both in culture and religious/spiritual ethos throughout India from time immemorial. Even Gandhi not only admitted this but also strongly insisted on it in his writings on Swarajya.5
So it depends on how you view Hindu nationalism or Hindutva, whether it is indigenous as claimed by Hindutva or derived from fascism as claimed by Hindutva critics. A fourth view is that, though there existed pan-Indian core values which Hinduism always promoted, like ahimsa, Sarvodaya, dharma, tolerance, etc., the spirit of nationalism in its current interpretation is alien to India.6 In this sense, even if anyone blames Hindutva as xenophobic and fascist, then this also came from outside India. So there is no point in blaming them for not being ready to learn or gain from anyone outside India.
Of course, their exclusivism and the idea of India only for Hindus is not acceptable to most Indians, even many among the Sangh Parivar. Now they have changed their original stand of its founding fathers and adopted it according to the need and mood of the time, as Modiji’s slogan echoes: Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas (Together with everyone, development for everyone). The original idea was that India is the Fatherland of Hindus and that the rest of the religious minorities, if they wanted to continue to live here, should be treated or accept treatment as second-class citizens, denied all the fundamental rights assured only to Hindus. But as India never became a religious state, like Pakistan where several fundamental rights are denied to religious minorities, it never happened in India and never could happen in the future as long as India remains a secular country. At the same time, in a secular country, when appeasement politics and policy threaten the security of the so-called majority, then emerging extreme nationalism becomes a reality, as it happens in several European countries now.
In a democracy, even any exclusivism cannot dominate the overall life of everyone, as electoral politics put checks and balances on such exclusivism and authoritarianism, as the result of the recent parliament election [2024] again proved. Unlike in other small countries, capturing power with the army’s help is impossible and unthinkable in a federal country like India, where the army has its own regional regiments based on ethnic identity. At the same time, temporary success in electoral politics may blind some political parties, making them arrogant and say ‘Congress Mukt Bharat,’ but after licking their wounds, now they realize that even if that is their agenda, they should keep it within themselves and work towards that end, for which there is no need according to me. The Sonia family will take care of it. Even their slight temporary recovery from the past two election defeats gave new life, but still, Congress is in the ICU with ventilator support. And more than the BJP, Congress needs the Sonia family not only to glue it together but also to do the final rites to its party, as it is the longing of every Indian elder that their own progeny should perform the final rites for them. Rahul might faithfully do it in the near or distant future, as dynastic politics cannot control regional aspirations even within its own party.
After his grandmother split the original Congress and created Indira Congress [Congress I], it became a family property. But after the failure of the kichadi government after the emergency led by the then Janata Party, Indira managed to return with a vengeance, resolutely working and adjusting even with her adversaries during the emergency with a spirit of resilience. For example, the DMK government led by the late Karunanidhi was dissolved during the emergency on charges of corruption and misgovernance, and some of its leaders, including the current Chief Minister Stalin, were put in jail. But the same Karunanidhi welcomed back Indira with the famous slogan, “Daughter of Nehru, come back and give a stable government.” [Neruvin Mahale Varuha; Nilayana achi tharuha], in the post-Janata Party coalition government collapsed two years in power (1977-199) during the election in 1980 in which Indira again came back to power with absolute majority.
Though Rahul has shown some of the same resilient spirit, none of his regional alliances will welcome him back to remove the BJP and give a stable government under his leadership, knowing well that it will face the same fate as every other coalition government that India has witnessed so far. Though I have nothing personal against the Sonia family and particularly against Rahul as an individual, still, as long as he allows dynastic legacy to control Congress, in the near future he or his niece or nephew might perform the final rites for Indira Congress, paving the way to emerge a new national-level alternative to BJP to provide a stable government—keeping the same name Congress but under non-Gandhi family leadership.
Because dynastic politics is equally and sometimes more dangerous to internal democracy in a party. In a vibrant democracy like India, most common people (or rural people) do not vote for any ideology but only for their survival. When it is threatened, they won’t hesitate to change the government, even if they agree with a particular party’s ideology. Therefore, no ideology or the personality of any individual leader is a guarantee to win an election in India. And the Shah-Modi pair tried to run their party like this, after the recent debacle in the parliamentary election, they realized that no party can survive in India like a one-man operated corporation [or two-man in the case of present BJP]. But as this happens in Congress, though just for eyewash they elected one puppet president [Kargil] till remotely controlled by the Gandhi family. After the post-parliament election, again it is mostly Rahul addressing every press meeting regarding issues and hardly anyone hears other voices from Congress. Now for the first time, he is the opposition leader, again proving the slave and survival mentality of Congress. There are more eligible and talented, even young Congress Leaders who can do that job better than him. They may say that it is their internal matter and prerogative. Yes, I agree, provided if it remains a private institute or media fighting for the value of free democracy. But in a democracy, not only who is the Prime Minister but, more importantly, who is the Opposition Leader is not their internal matter as it affects the whole nation. Unless Congress also changes such a ‘one-man operated corporation’ by a family, there is every possibility for its demise in the near future, with Rahul or other family members performing the final rites. So to create a ‘Congress-less India,’ BJP need not work that much hard, as Congress sooner or later will face its own funeral. But if BJP fails to learn from this, then, if not the party, such hegemonic attitude by Shah-Modi will learn a good lesson in democracy.
Notes
1 Ramachandra Guha, Rebels Against the Raj: Western Fighters for India’s Freedom, Gurugram, Penguin Random House India Pvt. Ltd. 2022.
2. आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः।
ā no bhadraḥ kratuvo yantu viśvataḥ.
Let noble thoughts come to us from every direction.– Rigveda 1.89.1.
This verse emphasizes the Vedic aspiration for wisdom and goodness to come from all quarters, reflecting the inclusive and universal outlook of ancient Vedic philosophy.—Chatgbt
3. See Appendix One: Fascism. summary given by Chatgpt, accessed on 24-6-2024
4. ‘Although “nationalist” historiographical agenda is believed to have been set in motion by challenging Orientalist notions, the nationalists themselves adopted the essential Orientalist premises and methods for writing about their country’s past….’—Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya, Representing The Other: Sanskrit Source and the Muslims, Eighth to Fourteenth Century, Delhi, Primus Books, 2017, notes 5, p. 3
5. See Appendix : Pan Indian Unity by Gandhiji. summary given by Chatgpt, accessed on 24-6-2024
6. See Appendix Four: Nationalism versus Patriotism summary given by Chatgpt, accessed on 24-6-2024
Appendix
One : Fascism. summary given by Chatgpt, accessed on 24-6-2024
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy. Here are the key elements of fascism:
1. Authoritarianism: Centralized control by a single leader or a small group, often with a dictatorial ruler.
2. Nationalism: Extreme devotion to the nation, often at the expense of individual freedoms and rights.
3. Militarism: Emphasis on military strength and values, with aggressive foreign policies.
4. Anti-Communism and Anti-Socialism: Strong opposition to communist and socialist ideologies.
5. Suppression of Opposition: Use of violence, intimidation, and censorship to eliminate political rivals and dissent.
6. Propaganda: Extensive use of propaganda to control public opinion and maintain the regime’s power.
7. Regimentation of Society: Strict control over many aspects of life, including education, culture, and the economy.
8. Economic Control: While allowing private property and businesses, the state often directs and controls economic activities to serve its goals.
9. Cult of Personality: Idolization of the leader, who is portrayed as a savior and a symbol of the nation’s strength.
Historically, fascism is most closely associated with the regimes of Benito Mussolini in Italy and Adolf Hitler in Germany during the early to mid-20th century. These regimes led to significant human rights abuses, aggressive wars, and genocides, most notably the Holocaust.
Two: Pan Indian Unity by Gandhiji. summary given by Chatgpt, accessed on 24-6-2024
Though I read and even take notes on this point from the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, as it is time consuming the collect and edit them for the purpose of this article, I asked Chatgpt to give a brief summary about this. And this is what I got from it:
Mahatma Gandhi wrote extensively about the idea of India’s unity, often emphasizing its foundation in ancient Hindu philosophy and practices. His thoughts on this subject can be summarized as follows:
Summary
1. Cultural Unity: Gandhi believed that India’s cultural and spiritual heritage, deeply rooted in Hinduism, provided a unifying thread that transcended regional, linguistic, and religious differences. He viewed Hindu philosophy, particularly concepts like ahimsa (non-violence) and sarvodaya (welfare of all), as universal principles that fostered a sense of oneness among diverse communities.
2. Religious Tolerance: Gandhi highlighted the inclusive nature of Hinduism, which historically embraced diverse beliefs and practices. This inclusivity, he argued, laid the groundwork for a pluralistic society where different religions could coexist harmoniously.
3. Historical Continuity: He asserted that the subcontinent’s history of interconnectedness through trade, culture, and spirituality underpinned its unity. Ancient Indian texts and traditions reflected a civilization with a coherent identity, even though it was marked by regional variations.
4. Philosophy of Dharma: Central to Gandhi’s vision was the Hindu concept of dharma (righteous duty), which he saw as a moral framework binding the individual to the community and the larger cosmos. This moral and ethical outlook promoted social harmony and collective well-being.
5. Non-violence and Truth: Gandhi emphasized the Hindu ideals of satya (truth) and ahimsa as cornerstones of India’s unity. He believed that a commitment to these principles could guide the nation toward peaceful coexistence and collective progress.
Reference
Gandhi elaborated on these views in various writings and speeches, particularly in his works such as:
– Hind Swaraj (1909): In this seminal text, Gandhi discusses the spiritual and cultural unity of India and criticizes Western civilization’s materialism. He underscores the need for India to reclaim its ancient values and moral principles.
– Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth: Gandhi’s reflections on his personal and political journey include insights into how Hindu philosophy shaped his vision for a unified India.
– Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi: Various volumes of his writings and speeches provide a comprehensive view of his thoughts on Indian unity and the role of Hindu philosophy in fostering it.
These sources offer a detailed understanding of how Gandhi envisioned the unity of India, drawing on its rich and diverse spiritual heritage.
Leave a Reply