At the recent “Howdy, Modi” event in Houston in the United States, among several banners and signs on display, were some with prominent messaging that sought to make a distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. One such banner read: “Hinduism is Real, Hindutva is Fake.” Another read, “We are not against Hindus but against Hindutva.” The banners had attributions to the organizers, Alliance for Justice and Accountability (AJA) and Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR).

While the presence of some “official” Hindu representatives among the protestors has been welcomed on social media and met approvingly in general, the message and the messaging, as encapsulated in some of the banners referenced here, are ones that have been assailed in their various forms on several occasions. The critique of the distinction sought to be highlighted in them has been most frequently made by Dalit-Bahujans, who have maintained that the distinction is meaningless for them. Hindutva is a relatively recent entrant as a narrow nationalistic strain, emerging out of Hinduism. But what is known as Hinduism today has been a cause of a system of caste inequality almost ever since the beginning of recognizable belief system that Hindus of today trace their faith origins back to. So it is Hinduism that has oppressed them and continues to do so today, with or without the accentuation and special quality of Hindutva.

The representatives of Hindus for Human Rights, who joined the protests against Modi in Houston, in an online piece, bemoaned the fact that “their faith has been hijacked by those who have completely rejected its inclusive and egalitarian heart.” They further state that they “imbibed the notion of ahimsa (non-violence) from a very early age, even as [they] listened to the idea of Rama Rajya (a just and egalitarian society) at the feet of [their] parents and grandparents.”

While not trying to discredit the good intentions of the people who form groups such as HfHR and also not trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it must be stated that, for starters, the process of “othering” Hindutva from Hinduism is fraught with too many pitfalls.

While one narrowly ascribes the notions of Hindutva to V.D. Savarkar, who also was at pains to distinguish between Hindutva and Hinduism (but for slightly different reasons), one must realize that the nationalistic strains that Hindutva espouses had many subscribers and proponents even before Hindutva became a creed. While historians like Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar have characterized the earlier forms of nationalism against Bristish rule as “inclusive,” yet, even in the run up to the formulation of Hindutva by Savarkar, several other thinkers and so-called patriots had been examining and giving voice to a nationalism that rested upon a Hindu world-view (Dayanand Saraswati, Bankim Chandra, Vivekananda, Aurobindo et al engaged with glories of the nation using broad Hindu themes).

One can also not pretend naivete regarding the reasons behind the faith having been “hijacked.” The hijacking that the authors of the pieces foreground could not have happened without the connivance, in one way or another, of a majority of Hindus. In fact, the authors themselves draw attention to the fact the Hindu religious heads have been largely silent on various issues of injustice in the name of Hinduism: “[M]ost regrettably, Hindu seers and acharyas, who are supposed to be the moral compass of the majority religion, are largely missing in action, as violence against minorities goes on unabated and the state is determined to look the other way.” If, then, the religion is hijacked on their watch, who is to blame if not the Hindus, their pontiffs and mutt-seers, and their church?

By extension, one must spread the blame onto the Hindu public, at least those who could have known better. The Babri Masjid was demolished in full sight of the nation – why, people from all over India sent in bricks for building a Ram temple on its spot. There were the horrific Gujarat riots after that when Narendra Modi was chief minister of the state – and many Hindus today want us to move past that tragedy.

Dalits have been continually victimized and oppressed through Indian history – the differential treatments, the dismissive and contemptuous references in Hindu literature of them and even the targeting of some Dalit-Bahujan historical figures such as Shambuka, Eklavya and the Nishadas have not gone unnoticed by the Dalits. In more recent history, instances of various injustices abound and even Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was constrained to list some representative examples of discrimination against the Dalits (Section 2, “Why social reform is necessary for political reform,” Annihilation of Caste (AoC)).

Speaking of AoC, Dr. Ambedkar’s speech was not acceptable to the organization that had invited him, the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal (formed by a Dalit, Sant Ram B.A, by the way, though overrun by Arya Samajis) on grounds that Babasaheb’s suggestions for Hindus to jettison their scriptural bases of Hinduism upset several members of the Mandal. So, how serious have Hindus been in critically examining the foundations of their own faith-system and cutting off connections with those parts that are damaging and unjust?

By transferring the blame for all of the recent ills to Hindutva, the act of transfer achieves the following convenient aims:

a) It tries to preserve a “core.” unsullied Hinduism, the Hindusim which enshrines principles such as Ahimsa and Ram Rajya (which translates as “a just and egalitarian society,” we are told). Never mind the fact the ever since the earliest “sacred” books of the Hindus, there is mention of constant wars and battles – and one of the most revered heroes in one of those books seems to be some kind of a rampaging strongman, smashing settlements and wreaking general havoc on supposed enemies. Not to mention the mega-war called the Mahabharata. And the fact, as pointed out by many Dalit-Bahujan intellectuals, including Kancha Illaiah Shepherd, that almost all Hindu gods and goddesses are armed with various weapons. One amongst them, Durga, who will be celebrated shortly, is depicted spearing a so-called demon, Mahishasur, who is considered an eminent personality and founder of a people by many Bahujans in India. As to Ram Rajya encapsulating the idea of a just and egalitarian society, the so-called actual/mythical Ram Rajya of the Ramayana is riddled with instances of pettiness (Rama banishing Sita on some hearsay), distrust of women (Sita’s pariksha) – and the killing of Shambuka at the behest of priests.

b) It plays the “Good Hindu, Bad Hindu” game, which absolves Hinduism at large and does not make it incumbent upon Hindus to do some kind of serious reflection and rectification of the faith. There is no guarantee that all the 50,000 people who attended the “Howdy, Modi” event in Houston were Hindutva-vadis. Many of those would describe themselves as “Good Hindus,” with no formal knowledge of Hindutva. So, how does one deal with those self-described “Good Hindus” amongst the so-called “Bad Hindus,” the Hindutva-vadis? Now we have an example of Hindutva and Hinduism mixing freely. And that is how most of Indian society is: a lot of so-called average-Joe Hindus who might never have heard of Savarkar and Hindutva but still support varnashrama, untouchability, traditional patriarchy, contempt towards Dalits-Bahujans, sneering at reservations, and Modi. How will a binary of Hindutva and Hinduism deal with such people?

c) Thirdly, since this kind of a dichotomy and transfer of blame to something called Hindutva does not recognize the enemy within, it makes itself vulnerable to easy “hijacking” of the faith. Maybe the moral compass is all rusted and centuries of conspiratorial silence over the inequities in society have left no inner voice. It is plain disingenuous to seem surprised when Hindus have perpetrators of the worst atrocities till the current day. One has to recognize that this is nothing new. It is the historical banality of violence in a supposedly ahimsa-vadi society.

Thus, it is important that the so-called progressive groups are clear, honest and accurate in their messaging – they need not bend over backwards with statements with promoting conciliatory messages. Also, it is incumbent upon them to educate themselves on deeper, broader causes of oppression and not fall into the trap of seeking quick and shortcut targets to lay the blame on. They have to listen to what Dalit-Bahujans have been saying for a long time and not gratuitously promote and perpetuate the feel-good myths of ahimsa, vasudaiva kutumbakam, Ram Rajya etc without critical engagement. In any fight, a deep and intimate understanding of the “enemy” is crucial. Aiming to strike at the root of the problem is essential. Otherwise, like the Indian National Congress, which told Dr. Ambedkar that political emancipation is more urgent than social emancipation, the progressive groups might only achieve some superficial victories – the task of social emancipation and justice will once again be consigned to the backburner.

—

Author – Ananda Maitreya is a Delhi-based writer and a student of social movements. He has been involved in various struggles of the marginalized people, including Dalit and Adivasi movements and the Palestinian struggle.