Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?

[Atri]

they very identity of "Hindu" came into existence as opposition to abrahmic monotheistic marauders. Before that there was no such identity - there was shaiva, vaishnava bauddha, jaina etc. and there were jaati based identities.

Atri, klnmurthy said this

My political thought inspired by your political question is: it is spoken of in a pejorative sense because Indians don't own and control the discourse, and the owners have chosen to make it pejorative.

There is a big difference between what he says and what you have said.

klnmurthy says that the terms ("Hindu" and "nationalism") are not owned by Indians and the owners are doing what they want

You are saying that the term Hindu was coined specifically as a reaction to invaders.

In klnmurthy's viewpoint "hindu nationalist" is pejorative because others choose to describe in in whatever way they like

But according to you, Hindu nationalism is anti-Muslim/Christian and this corresponds, for example, to Wendy Doniger's viewpoint

The implication from both meanings is that you cannot be a Hindu and a nationalist without admitting to be anti-minority. For example we dissect statements from Muslims and ask if they say "I am an Indian" first or whether they say "I am a Muslim first" A similar choice is being offered to the Hindu. If he says that he is Hindu first, then he is anti-minority. He has to say "i am Indian" first unless he does not object to the anti-minority tag.

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavours for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

शिव जी,

May this be the time and you be the medium through which I will manage to utter what I have been thinking subconsciously for years and was not able to (or not allowed to by saraswati) regurgitate those thoughts with certain degree of coherence.

First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra).

They very construct of westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me. It was designed to stop wars from ravaging europe, but in fact, westphalian nation-state has ravaged Europe much more. In fact, lasting peace of in Europe was achieved when post WW2, the seeds of European Union were sowed and with Yugoslavian war and fall of Berlin war, we now have a peace in Europe which seems to be organic, sustainable and lasting. Last 70 years have been most peaceful for Europe and this they achieved by moving away from west-phalian nation-state's rigidity.

However while they did this post WW2, they already had shaped the world in their image. Hence creation of nation-states all over the world.

Now this construct is diametrically opposed to very nature of human societies to naturally expand and shrink in geography. What is a citizen? All german citizens are equal, as per German constitution - irrespective of his race, religion, creed and background. In exchange, all german citizens are expected to owe allegiance to germany (which in weird way refers to a book with words "german constitution" written on its cover). While this is technical expectation from a german citizen, the expectations from ethnic germans are however very human and basal - all german citizens should consider themselves german. But an arab immigrant or a paki does not feel that way. He has german passport alright, but he openly says he is not german and will never be a german. Thus the very construct is fundamentally flawed which will soon reveal itself in ugly manner in peaceful Europe.

More or less, this is the fate of all other so called "nation-states".

In dharmik civilization, raashtra is separate from raajya which is also separate from desha. Dharma is not limited to geography (desha) of Indian subcontinent - Dharma is universal. Raashtra in our narrative is linked with geography (desha) - hence the Rigvedik Richa that I quoted above. Our narrative acknowledges existence of other raashtras (varshas) on earth. The varsha or rashtra which we live in is called "bhaarat-varsha". Raajya or state on the other hand is not liked with rashtra, nor necessarily with desha. the raajya of Saatavaahana-VaakaaTaka-chaalukya-raashTrakuTa-Kakatiya-hoysaala-yaadava-vijaynagar-marathas-maharashtra/AP/Karnataka - all have existed on same "desha", belong to same "raashtra" (which ran as per dictats of dharma), but were/are vastly different "Raajyas".

Thus raashtra-raajya-desha segregation and interlinkage in dharmik (in post islamic times, Hindu) polity is understood and inherent. This is not the case in Abrahmic polity and its successor westphalian nation-state based polity.

IN Abrahmic polity, deen and daulat (religion and state) cannot be separated. In westphalian nation-state model, while they separated state from religion to an extent, they linked it to geography and identity (vaguely - rashtra). To make things complicated, they froze the borders.

This is so much different from our way of organizing the polity. But we were overcome post 1805 and our attempt to revert back to pre-1805 polity in 1857 was crushed by English. Thus we were forced to swallow this pill of formatting our identity (raashtra), our way of organizing polity (raajya) and our desha (geography in form of partition) in British occupation.

This was tried all over the world.

Islamic world has Quran which preserves its "deen-daulat" model and since it is word of god (same god as European christians worship), it was safeguarded. Look what happened to non-abrahmic cultures and their world-view. Look at China - they have given up (or so it seems, I hope they too have preserved the core in some form) that. We had to adapt to this. The era of nation-state had arrived and no matter how conflicting it is to our understanding, we had to find a way to preserve our core while preventing further loss of raashtra-raaajya-desha and dharma. This is where the theory of Hindutva arose.

It has its origins in Hindavi-swarajya of maraThas (which was an Indian or Indic response to Islamism) which in turn had origins in Vijaynagara movement and Early rajputs. Hindavi swaraya of Marathas (for sake of simplicity, we must understand that all non-islamic, non-christian political entities which existed in India in past 1000 years are "hindavi swarajya") was a socio-politico-economic rebellion of those native brown skinned Indians against Islamism and its socio-politico-economic dominance on people and geography of India. In other words, it was a dharmaarthik response.

now as far as the word "Hindu" goes, as I said earlier, it was a collective umbrella term for all brown, Indian origin people following Indian adhyatmik paths. So it has an ethnic undertones to it. As I said in my article, Julia Roberts is a VaishNava woman, but she is not a Hindu. APJ Abdul Kalam is a Hindu.

Hindu has always been a socio-judicio-politico-economic (dharmaarthik) term. British fused it with alien concept of "religion" and gave this term "religions" connotations. I do not even understand what religion means, anymore - thankfully. I have managed to detoxify myself to some extent.

So, in summary, we have terms Hindu and Hindutva. Hindu is an identity based term (raashtra) and Hindutva is dharmaarthik theory which deals with Hindu-polity in era of nation-state.

Imagine for a while a time when this very edifice of nation-state has collapsed. Hindutva will collapse with it. It is a survival adaptation of Hindus. After few years/decades or collapse of Hindutva, when the very concept of "religion" collapses (or becomes irrelevant or non-interfering), the term "hindu" too will drop off.

I do not know what Wendy Doniger agrees with this or not. But this has preserved our way of life in past 1000 years. Without this, in my opinion, dharma would have been relegated to museums like zoroastrians and egyptians. And since this adaptation, although uncomfortable, is a protective shield it is hated by those who wish to homogenize the world. Hence all this conflict.

shubham astu..

[vishvak]

What are the international standards of minority idea? I think we need this first thing. In countries where Hindus are in minority, there is no majority-minority politics at all, not standards that majority has to follow.

Correspondingly, what are the minority communities we talk about? There are communities in India who do not care for majority-minority politics and therefore do not pass value judgements against majority because these communities never see such lopsided behavior from Hindus. Parsees are one example of such a community, Bahaai are another. For sake such communities also, we need to find standards of majority-minority political ideas since we don't want a few communities to hijack any discourse at cost of all other minorities.

[SwamyG]

Now this construct is diametrically opposed to very nature of human societies to naturally expand and shrink in geography. What is a citizen? All german citizens are equal, as per German constitution - irrespective of his race, religion, creed and background. In exchange, all german citizens are expected to owe allegiance to germany (which in weird way refers to a book with words "german constitution" written on its cover). While this is technical expectation from a german citizen, the expectations from ethnic germans are however very human and basal - all german citizens should consider themselves german. But an arab immigrant or a paki does not feel that way. He has german passport alright, but he openly says he is not german and will never be a german. Thus the very construct is fundamentally flawed which will soon reveal itself in ugly manner in peaceful Europe.

You could make that argument with Indian-Americans as well, at least the first generation Indian-Americans who gain citizenship in America (this might hold good in other places too).

[svenkat]

Atriji,
An excellent post.Perhaps it is only fair that it should come from a marathi speaking brahmana.For inspite of the peshwa-maratha differences,the marathas infused a degree of nationalism missing in the Vijayanagara Kingdom.

Perhaps the difference arose because Vidyaranya was a brahmana sage of the traditional type while the roots of Maratha regeneration were in the noble varkari sampradaya of Jnanadeva,Eknath,Tukaram who distilled the essence of Vedas in the marathi language.

[RajeshA]

In other words, for Indians, nationalism has to come in different flavours for different people. But the choice of being Hindu and nationalist is removed for all Hindus unless they admit to being anti-minority.

What is the meaning of "anti-minority", or for that matter "anti-Muslim" or even "anti-Christian"?

Which thoughts and actions on the part of Hindus does this attitude entail?

[Atri]

The next part is very disturbing (at least for me). For it has implications on collapse of Indian constitution as this nation-state unravels. Coupled by massive internal migrations which will test the robustness of Hindu mind to stick together. It will require a much stronger glue and ISIS (and rapidly radicalizing muslims in India) will present that glue to hold Hindus together.

I do not see bright prognosis for this constitution as it exists today. which in turn means, I see bleak prognosis for RoI. This transitory flux will have to be managed very very carefully and ruthlessly. I expect Modi and BJP to show that ruthlessness.

But that perhaps will be OT here.

[shiv]

First, when we say "nationalism" or "nationalist" or "Hindu-nationalist" etc, we have to ask one basic question - what is this "nation" thingy? Does nation here means Republic of India - a westphalian nation-state which emerged on world-stage on 26th January 1950? Or do we mean raashtra of Bhaarata which Vedas proclaim पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra).

They very construct of westphalian nation-state is very illogical according to me.

It is my argument that "Hindu nationalism" is respect and loyalty that Indians show to what you describe as the raashtra because that raashtra encompasses most of their history and a continuing way of life from 3000 BC till today.

Elsewhere in the world (Europe, Africa, far east) In a land area the size of India the concept of Westphalian nation state has introduced borders and artificial constructs that often go completely against the natural human tendency to migrate or travel. I do agree that the Westphalian nation state has arisen out of the concept of the "possession of a sovereign" (could be a "sovereign" state) where the things that the sovereign holds "in his right hand" are his right and he can do what he likes. This exact concept extends to Islamic states as well - and Pakis have convinced themselves that their rapine ancestors held India in their right hand but they are now simply left holding a limp piece of flesh in their own right hands. But I digress.

I think the closest analogy I can get is that "westphalian nation state" corresponds to Rajya with insane border controls of the "Sovereign right hand ownership". The sovereign owns the people as well in the nation state. In the past in India - free migration and movement from Rajya to Rajya was possible for pilgrimages or for any other reason. In other words strict border controls, passports and visas etc were not required for a person traveling say from Mysore to Kashi, or for that matter to Kedarnath despite having to pass though more than one Rajya en route.

The people of India have had, in my view, a sense of "ownership" and "freedom of travel" and "freedom to migrate" anywhere within the raashtra. It is another matter that the "raashtra" as described by you :"पृथिव्यै समुद्र पर्यन्तया एकराळिति (this land until the oceans is one raashtra) is not exactly the same as the Westphalian Repubic of India with its set borders. But the borders of Westphalian nation state India coincide to a great extent with the ancient raashtra. Hence I posit that Hindu nationalism - or Hindu allegiance to their "nation" is also an ancient and traditional Hindu allegiance to their millennia old raashtra. Whether they hate or love "minorities" has nothing to do with it.

It is an insult to all Hindus to simply club the sense of nationalism (love/loyalty to raashtra) they display with the concept of "hating someone". The Hindu identity has no concept of a society existing simply by hating and setting themselves apart from some other people based on the god they worship. That egregious tendency from Abrahamic religions is being "painted" on to Hindus in the idiotic construct which they term as undesirable and hateful Hindu nationalism.

[shiv]

What is the meaning of "anti-minority", or for that matter "anti-Muslim" or even "anti-Christian"?

Which thoughts and actions on the part of Hindus does this attitude entail?

Valid question

You need to read this definition of "projection" from psychology.com
http://psychology.about.com/od/theories ... mech_7.htm

Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people. For example, if you have a strong dislike for someone, you might instead believe that he or she does not like you. Projection works by allowing the expression of the desire or impulse, but in a way that the ego cannot recognize, therefore reducing anxiety

The smearing of Hindus as "haters of minorities" (minorities==non-Hindu usually Muslim/Christian) is a "projection" that the ideological leaders of Abrahamic religions make on Hindus. Just because they think that way and see followers of another religion as hated enemies, they anticipate and accuse Hindus of harbouring a mirror image feeling. It makes them feel better. For example "Why should I cause pain to a Kafir? Because he hates me"

This entire business of accusing Hindus of going about hating others is a projection of Abrahamic behaviour on Hindus. Hindu nationalism is not about hating someone. It is about loyalty to our land. Why should Hindu nationalism be accused of being hateful?

[shiv]

What are the international standards of minority idea? I think we need this first thing. In countries where Hindus are in minority, there is no majority-minority politics at all, not standards that majority has to follow.

Correspondingly, what are the minority communities we talk about? There are communities in India who do not care for majority-minority politics and therefore do not pass value judgements against majority because these communities never see such lopsided behavior from Hindus. Parsees are one example of such a community, Bahaai are another. For sake such communities also, we need to find standards of majority-minority political ideas since we don't want a few communities to hijack any discourse at cost of all other minorities.

Exactly right. There are no "international standards" for anything let alone this question. It's every group makes its own rules to screw the next guy. This whole business of making "Hindu Nationalism" into something undesirable is simply a smearing of all Hindus as bigots. if you are a Hindu, you cannot seek anything in your history, your folklore, or your past to feel allegiance to your nation. You are supposed to find "something else" and no one tells you what that "something else" might be. It is just a form of shaming your identity.

If you are a Hindu with absolutely no feeling of ill will towards people of other faiths and in fact take pride in that trait and display nationalism on those grounds, you will get a nasty surprise when you find out that being a Hindu nationalist means you are a hateful little bugger. Millions of Hindus are forced to go though this cognitive dissonance and are forced to admit shame and regret at their being Hindu simply because some assholes from outside India, with some support from those within India, choose to project their own sectarian traits on you.

[Shreeman]

^^^^ I am not a smart man. I just believe what the newspapers tell me. They say hinduism is bad, and I should feel bad.

[Manny]

LET’S ALL BE HINDU FUNDAMENTALISTS

http://mariawirthblog.wordpress.com/201 ... entalists/

[Arjun]

The smearing of Hindus as "haters of minorities" (minorities==non-Hindu usually Muslim/Christian) is a "projection" that the ideological leaders of Abrahamic religions make on Hindus.

Hindus owe it to themselves and to the world, to make their ideological preferences crystal clear. There should not be any scope for confusion.

Hinduism is NOT against minorities - in fact it is probably one of the most minority-friendly religions in the world. Hindus definitely do not 'hate' Parsis (in spite of the fact that Parsis, like Jews, are not indigenous and yet among the elite of India). They do not 'hate' any of the other Dharmic religions - Jains, Buddhists or Sikhs.

They are positively disposed towards the Jews - who tend to be the 'bete noire' of both Christians & Muslims.

They also do not have any ill-feeling towards non-proseletyzing sects of Christianity - eg the Syrian Christians. All of the above have found succour in India when faced with persecution overseas.

The ONLY two religions that Hindus tend to be ideologically ill-disposed to are Islam and evangelical Christianity. This needs to be made crystal-clear not only by so-called 'internet Hindus, but also more subtly by RSS and Modi. Modi has already made his ideological affinity for all the Dharmic religions amply clear. He needs to go further and also openly acknowledge the Parsis as a 'model minority' for their ability to integrate well into India despite being a religion with roots overseas. Perhaps he can do the same for Syrian Christians. The implication of such statements would hopefully not be lost on anyone.

[vishvak]

If there are no international standards, that is one strong reason to not pass value judgements against Hindu nationalism.

More importantly, why are there no international standards even with many international movements trying for global dominance? The lack of international standards need to get more attention than value judgements against Hindu nationalism - just so that there is clarity on meaning of morality by all such international movements that go on and on for hundreds and thousands of years.

[SwamyG]

Hindus are neutral about Jews, and not positively disposed because Jews do not really matter in the Indian or Hindu scheme. Judaism has its own share of problem. It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics. To an average Ram, Kumar or Vijay Judaism is as same as a Jaina.

[RajeshA]

Hindus are neutral about Jews, and not positively disposed because Jews do not really matter in the Indian or Hindu scheme. Judaism has its own share of problem. It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics. To an average Ram, Kumar or Vijay Judaism is as same as a Jaina.

How can one be a Hindu and not a Hindu nationalist?

[shiv]

If there are no international standards, that is one strong reason to not pass value judgements against Hindu nationalism.

More importantly, why are there no international standards even with many international movements trying for global dominance? The lack of international standards need to get more attention than value judgements against Hindu nationalism - just so that there is clarity on meaning of morality by all such international movements that go on and on for hundreds and thousands of years.

Vishvak, let me tell you what I think about "international standards". Some countries set standards other follow them Powerful nations set the standards. Follower nations follow them. We have to decide what we are going to be. Every poweful nation (especially the US) regularly breaks what are called internnational standards while demanding that everyone else should follow them So "international standards" like "universalism" are a joke. They are a function of power and influence.

[Comer]

I think it also got to do with aberration factor, being outside Abrahamic constructs. Tomorrow if there is a Aztec nationalist movement it would be sneered at.

[shiv]

I think it also got to do with aberration factor, being outside Abrahamic constructs. Tomorrow if there is a Aztec nationalist movement it would be sneered at.

You are right about Abrahamic constructs. They are "combative". They set up conflict by actively asserting that the "other" belief is offensive to their "right way" of God. They never says "Yes your way may be right, but we have our way too". They say, "Your way is wrong" And anyone who disagrees them becomes "against God". There is no scope for avoiding conflict unless one bows one's head and accepts that the accusers are right. If you don't do that you are then accepting the challenge for conflict - which then makes you an enemy "who wants to fight"

Hindus have adjusted to two sets of Abrahamic religions that came with militarily superior conquerors. We bowed our heads, accepted our inferiority but did not convert wholesale. The inferiority complex remains. And when we suddenly wake up and say "Duh - I don't need to feel inferior" - you start seeing that the memes, literature and discourse is loaded against you. Everything that your culture represents has already been declared offensive. Only apology and diffidence is praised. Or else you are a troublemaker. And extremist. A bigot. That is the fate of Hindus. Even in India, let alone outside.

[SwamyG]

Hindus are neutral about Jews, and not positively disposed because Jews do not really matter in the Indian or Hindu scheme. Judaism has its own share of problem. It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics. To an average Ram, Kumar or Vijay Judaism is as same as a Jaina.

How can one be a Hindu and not a Hindu nationalist?

When one cares for just Hinduism and not a nation. There are several paths in Hinduism, and some of the paths do not encourage nationalism.

[RajeshA]

Hindus are neutral about Jews, and not positively disposed because Jews do not really matter in the Indian or Hindu scheme. Judaism has its own share of problem. It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics. To an average Ram, Kumar or Vijay Judaism is as same as a Jaina.

How can one be a Hindu and not a Hindu nationalist?

When one cares for just Hinduism and not a nation. There are several paths in Hinduism, and some of the paths do not encourage nationalism.

Clicky 1 Clicky 2

[Harpal Bector]

Perjoratives imply negativity.

I think the main source of negativity on this issue comes from the fact that shades of this "Hindu Nationalism" are indistinguishable from very nasty forms of chauvinism commonly seen in all religio-centric political political associations. For example "Christian Nationalist" groups in the US are typically seen as bible thumpers with big guns who endorse the actions of anti-state elements. in Saudi Arabia, extreme Islamist nationalist ideas of the Juhaiman Utaibi variety are seen as a perennial threat to Unitarian Islam guided Saud dynasty.

While it may be argued with some success that the people in the Hindu body of faith (in as much as that exists) who subscribe to such extreme interpretations are a numerical minority, it is impossible to make a visible appraisal of any self-confessed Hindu Nationalist's extremist leanings. This makes minorities uneasy and makes policing extremists impossible.

The problem is something Muslims in the world are quite familiar with. I am sure Sikhs will tell you the problems associated with the well founded objections to Khalistani thinking.

The late Capt. Verma once opined to me that this label of "Hindu Nationalism" was inherently toxic. It carried too much baggage and it was best to drop it altogether in favour of a more inclusive tag. His exact words IIRC were "I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist". I would say that his words are definitely the most insight I have had into the issue in my life.

I later became aware of Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni's (former leader of Jamaat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind and head of Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband) works which are available in the "Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam" (Composite Nationalism and Islam) collection. I believe these speeches and epistles lay out a very clean template for separating personal religious goals from the sense of individual national duty.

I feel the basic template created by Maulana Madni can be suitably generalised to other religious groups and other nations.

Conflating deeply personalized religious ideas with a sense of national duty carries grave risks. This is the path that Pakistanis of the Ajmal Qasab variety end up walking down.

[shiv]

The late Capt. Verma once opined to me that this label of "Hindu Nationalism" was inherently toxic. It carried too much baggage and it was best to drop it altogether in favour of a more inclusive tag. His exact words IIRC were "I am a Hindu and I am a nationalist". I would say that his words are definitely the most insight I have had into the issue in my life.

He was exactly correct in recognizing that it was not possible to be both Hindu and nationalist without being smeared. That is exactly what I have been saying on this thread.

He was a great man and his statement was made when the time was not yet ripe to say what I am saying now.

I don't think we need to give up the term. We need to reclaim the term. That is what this thread is about - recognizing how the term "Hindu Nationalism" has been made "toxic" (an appropriate word) and then detoxifying it and grabbing it. Hindu nationalists are not bigots. And there is a "Hindu" nationalism that stems from ancient traditions, literature and history that has nothing to do with hatred of minorities. It is love and loyalty to the geography and all the tradition and history that our sacred geography is associated with. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not "against" anyone. No one should be offended by it. Certainly not enough to call people bigots and extremists.

[Comer]

Hindus have adjusted to two sets of Abrahamic religions that came with militarily superior conquerors. We bowed our heads, accepted our inferiority but did not convert wholesale. The inferiority complex remains. And when we suddenly wake up and say "Duh - I don't need to feel inferior" - you start seeing that the memes, literature and discourse is loaded against you. Everything that your culture represents has already been declared offensive. Only apology and diffidence is praised. Or else you are a troublemaker. And extremist. A bigot. That is the fate of Hindus. Even in India, let alone outside.

shiv, i think it was works the other way too. Inspite of the waves of invasions and several attempts to convert, we are still around and in quite numerous too. That builds insecurity to those who come from a rigid viewpoint borne from a mix of Abrahamic (probably traces back to Greek philosophies)mindset and Western values. To such a mind, having classified things rigorously into bins, Hinduism/Hindus stuck out as sorethumbs, as an exception to rules. The rules range from rubbish like democracy cannot be found below such and such a parallel, religions are dumb where with a ridiculous timescale for creation myth etc etc. And you have a religion/people who buck the trend. The typical reaction to a datapoint which doesn't fit the curve is to isolate it or sweep it under the carpet. Any "ism" raising out of such an isolated datapoint is swept aside. I am not sure I expressed it correctly.
To quote this fairly popular histomap http://www.slate.com/features/2013/08/histomapwider.jpg . Am sure this causes a few takleefs.

[JE Menon]

>>It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics.

This is not accurate. Judaism came to India before Islam existed, and the people of India always viewed them positively, as a contribution to and enhancement of the society that then existed. This has continued since then. It is only recently in historical terms that the Muslims vs Jews issue came to the public consciousness as an issue to be considered in our relationship with the Jewish people.

[shiv]

shiv, i think it was works the other way too. Inspite of the waves of invasions and several attempts to convert, we are still around and in quite numerous too. That builds insecurity to those who come from a rigid viewpoint borne from a mix of Abrahamic mindset and Western values. To such a mind, having classified things rigorously into bins, Hinduism/Hindus stuck out as sorethumbs, as an exception to rules. The rules range from rubbish like democracy cannot be found below such and such a parallel, religions are dumb where with a ridiculous timescale for creation myth etc etc. And you have a religion/people who buck the trend. The typical reaction to a datapoint which doesn't fit the curve is to isolate it or sweep it under the carpet. I am not sure I expressed it correctly.
To quote this fairly popular histomap http://www.slate.com/features/2013/08/histomapwider.jpg . Am sure this causes a few takleefs.

The only dispute I have with your post are the words "That builds insecurity to those who come from a rigid viewpoint" as if insecurity is a result of Hindus not converting. Not at all. The sense of insecurity is by design, from the very beginning of any interaction between an Abrahamic religion and anyone outside of that religion. That one God is by definition insecure as long as any other religion, or unbelievers exist. It as not as though they came in peace and then got insecure when their kindness was not repaid by the conversion of Hindus to a superior faith. Hindus were considered inferior and undesirable from the outset and remain so. It's just that Hindus bent, but did not buckle.

There were a hundred and one egregious things that were declared part of the "Hindu religion" though they were not religious in nature. Hindus bowed and did everything they could to change and become "pleasing" in the eyes of those who were critical. But no. Nothing works. Short of complete conversion and acceptance, nothing will work when it comes to Abrahamic religions. The have no mechanism of "acceptance" .

At some stage you have to stand back and think, "WTF - am I that bad?" And the truth is no. You are not that bad. It's high time that fact is stated assertively.

[shiv]

>>It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics.
.

I missed that statement. It reveals ignorance of the history of Jews in India. Jews were taken in like Parsis and any other refugees who came to India in the past.

[RajeshA]

i think it was works the other way too. Inspite of the waves of invasions and several attempts to convert, we are still around and in quite numerous too.

[SwamyG]

>>It is only the Hindu nationalists that support Israel and view Jews favorably, because Muslims vs Jews dynamics.
.

I missed that statement. It reveals ignorance of the history of Jews in India. Jews were taken in like Parsis and any other refugees who came to India in the past.

Oh really? Pray tell me how many Jews exist in India? I did not miss anything or neither am I ignorant. Posting in BRF at the minimum requires some study and double checking, which I try to do. Bulk of the population did not intermingle with Jews. One sparrow here and there does not maketh summer.

And it is also quite stale to keep harping on how Hindus allowed Parsis and Jews (these people were harassed at the hands of Muslims). One reason is because Hindus did not consider these people to be harmful. Hindus for a long time thought in terms of Caste foremost, than from a religious perspective (religion as defined by the Westerners).

[RajeshA]

IMO, among the Bharatiyas, the connective tissue between the world of Moksha, i.e. Darśanam, Sampradaya, Panth & Bhakti and the world of Rāshtra is Dharma. Dharma sits in between, is nourished by both and still keeps the two apart.

One's Bhaktipanth should not intrude upon one's Rāshtravad and vice versa, at least not directly, but only through the medium of Dharma - the Ārya system of Meta-Ethics.

Same is the case with Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Sure the Vaishnavas consider Sri Rama and Sri Krishna to be Avatars of Vishnu, and Vishnu to be the Supreme Godhead, but that is an issue of faith. Those pundits and people who do worship and praying to Sri Rama and Sri Krishna, they are doing it as their faith, their Panth.

However Sri Rama and Sri Krishna are national heroes and national icons as well who fought off Adharmic rulers and their oppression and established Dharma for the people. They were both kings and Raj Niti was an intrinsic part of their lives.

So can the two be separated? Yes, they can, and that is by framing the dialogue on the basis of Dharma.

Dharma is the biggest beauty of Bharatiya thought, which no Abrahamic can boast of. Among the Abrahamics, there is no authority independent of God. All directions have to come directly from God, but Dharma lives autonomously from any God concept, and Hindu Gods are shown to submit to Law of Dharma themselves.

The life a "Hindu" leads and the thoughts a "Hindu" thinks in the scope of his Moksha, do not have a bearing on his life or thoughts in the scope of the Dharmaarthik.

There are some "Hindus" who wish to limit themselves to the "Moksha" scope. They would talk about "Hinduism", and they would follow their own God concept and spirituality. I would call them Hinduists.

Other Hindus would care about Dharmaarthik goals, possibly in addition to Moksha goals. These would care about Rāshtra and Hindutva.

Hindu Nationalism becomes a pejorative for many Hinduists, because they feel that they are being defined over Rashtriya issues, from which they like to keep their distance. Moreover, for no fault of the Hindutvavadis, they feel that the ideology of Hindutvavadis is besmirching the pristine Mokshik, philosophical and tolerant traditions, to which they wish to limit themselves and is dragging them where they don't want to be. They feel ashamed about this to an extent that they make demands of Hindutvavadis to completely reject Hindutva.

It is however not Hindutvavadis that are dragging the Hinduists into the political and ideological cross-fire. It is they themselves, as they choose to call themselves Hindus even though "Hindu" is associated with Rāshtravad. They do so because they follow the Western line which has thought up "Hinduism" as a religion. Secondly they feel ashamed that their faith is being compared to the likes of Radical Islam or Christian Fundamentalism, but here again Hinduists fail to appreciate that Dharma stands in between Moksha and Dharmaarthik and would not allow the debate in the Dharmaarthik field (Rāshtravad) to encroach in the Mokshik field. But if the Hinduists fail to use Dharma as a shield to protect their terrain from Western criticism, often because these secularized Hinduists buy Western rhetoric lock, stock and barrel, what can the Hindutvavadis do?

[Harpal Bector]

I don't think we need to give up the term. We need to reclaim the term. That is what this thread is about - recognizing how the term "Hindu Nationalism" has been made "toxic" (an appropriate word) and then detoxifying it and grabbing it. Hindu nationalists are not bigots. And there is a "Hindu" nationalism that stems from ancient traditions, literature and history that has nothing to do with hatred of minorities. It is love and loyalty to the geography and all the tradition and history that our sacred geography is associated with. There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is not "against" anyone. No one should be offended by it. Certainly not enough to call people bigots and extremists.

My interpretation of Capt. Verma's words was more narrow.

The term is toxic and needs to be abandoned.

Every religious group has such well recognized toxic combinations. It is much easier to simply leave this alone and find other articulations of geographically defined national sentiments without such associations.

I can understand it if a particular political party felt the need to use this combination of words to win an election. Nawaz Sharif gets elected on similar verbiage but once elected he distances himself from it. The same can be said of Ariel Sharon or Benjamin Netanyahu. That is the way it is done everywhere.

Why change what works?

[SBajwa]

There is no such thing as "Hindu","Buddhist","Jain","Sikh","etc" all are Dharma!! Which is not equal to religion!!!!

by Dr. Shiv
But since the stories are all allegedly cooked up, is the geographic setting also all cooked up?

NO!! Definetely not!!! remember in the context of Jawaharlal Nehru University historians who have been teaching the CBSE (and rest) since last 65 years that Akbar, Aurungzeb, Jahangir were all good! and Tegh Bahadur was a "Rebel" who tried to unsettle India by killing these emperors!!

We have been robbed of our history!! by JNU!! and that's what we should be telling everybody!!!!

[SBajwa]

ROBBED OF OUR OWN HISTORY

[Harpal Bector]

If one attempts to revive this "Hindu Nationalism" brand - one has to deal with the overhead of erasing its negative connotations. That may well be impossible.

Even if one assumes that is somehow possible, there is a greater cost embedded in defining "Hindu Nationalism" to the "sacred geography" of this "Hindu Nation". The problem here is that the "Hindu" diaspora is spread so far and wide that if the "sacred geography" is defined extremely locally, then there will be a negative connotation associated with everyone who does not immediately place loyalty to the "sacred geography".

This is going to be a serious problem for all those "Hindus" who serve in the machinery of different nation states. For example, members of the Sikh, Saini and Gurkha communities serve in the armed forces of many nations. These descendants of ancient Indian warrior castes today fight along side their fellow nationalists in Canada, America, Britain, South Africa, Kenya, India, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. These people have repeatedly laid down their lives for their nations and are "Hindu" and "Nationalists" in every sense of the word. Are these people to be excluded from the "Hindu Nationalist" tag or are they simply not "Hindu"?

And what of the numerous Indian origin peoples like the residents of Java and Sumatra, or Trinidad, or Mauritius, the Tamil speakers of Malaysia, the Indians-by-birth-Zulu-by-Soul-folks of Durban, or those guys in Fiji - how do they classify as? They all support their nation's cricket team and vote in the elections of their nation. Are they "Hindu Nationalist"?

Is Mr. Patel who operates a Super 8 motel in the Midwest and flies the star spangled banner on his door not a "Hindu Nationalist"?

Also what of the Thais who call their Emperor King Rama the IV, and their capital Ayuthya? or the Indonesians and the Myanmarese who treat the Ramayana and Mahabharata as national epics? All those Hindus serving the Bangkok, Yangon and Jakarta Police forces -- are they not "Hindu Nationalists"?

It is one thing to talk vaguely about a "Sacred Geography" - Col. Claus Schenk Von Stauffenberg did it just as the Nazis shot him... so yes that kind of language is effective at conveying a point, but going to the trouble of actually defining it is a major pain in the posterior. This is just going to give people a headache.

In 1998 - Atalji made a choice to distance himself from toxic terms. Some people in Nagpur were unhappy with this but as the late Sri Brajesh Mishra curtly told them to go to hell - the matter ended there.
In 2003 - The "Gujurat Gaurav" rebranding exercise was carried out to reduce the toxicity that the Godhra Ahmedabad cycle brought to the fore but the attack at Akshardham put an end to that.
In 2004 - The "India Shining" initiative failed to have any real impact in electoral terms.

One is repeatedly told that the 2014 victory was largely a verdict in favour of efficient administration and economic progress.

Given the costly overhead that resurrecting a toxic term carries, I really question whether is it is worthwhile to do this. An efficient alternative is to simply attempt a completely different rebranding exercise and hope that unlike Gujurat Gaurav and India Shining - the money doesn't just end up being flushed down the proverbial toilet.

I feel Capt. Verma's was extremely prescient and a narrow interpretation of his words points us in the most sensible direction.

[shiv]

It is one thing to talk vaguely about a "Sacred Geography" - Col. Claus Schenk Von Stauffenberg did it just as the Nazis shot him... so yes that kind of language is effective at conveying a point, but going to the trouble of actually defining it is a major pain in the posterior. This is just going to give people a headache.

You are of course welcome to your views on this

But I disagree.

I could sit on the South pole and call it my sacred geography, but that would mean little - and the cold would kill me. No need for Nazis. The point is that any Indian who has been exposed to India's folklore and traditions would be aware of the geography that was part of their history, the geography that their heroes walked upon.

If one's Macaulayite education has failed to make that clear to some Indians, it would be wrong to insist that this is true for all Indians. I repeat, for the third time in this thread that geographical features like snow clad mountains in the north that give rise to the Ganga. The Ganga itself uniting with the Jamuna. Dwaraka in the east. Godavari, Kaveri and Lanka in the south are known to every Indian whose cultural memory has not been erased or suppressed by shame. And there is nothing toxic about these - notwithstanding your reductio ad Hitlerium in bringing Nazis into this conversation.

Imagining that such memes of geography does not exist among Indians is wrong. But that is not why I disagree with what you claim Capt Verma said to you.

My point of disagreement centers around the fact that we cannot simply back out and stop using expressions because someone else made them toxic. Those "toxic" expressions are reserved for us and people will keep on using them whether we back out or not. It is my intention to do whatever is in my power to point out that the "toxicity" is deliberately designed to shame Hindus and put them on the defensive. It is my intention to keep using that expression and stand accused of being a toxic Hindu and show that the accusation is false. I think the term Hindu nationalism needs to be reclaimed rather than putting one's tails between one's legs and slinking away.

[shiv]

This is going to be a serious problem for all those "Hindus" who serve in the machinery of different nation states. For example, members of the Sikh, Saini and Gurkha communities serve in the armed forces of many nations. These descendants of ancient Indian warrior castes today fight along side their fellow nationalists in Canada, America, Britain, South Africa, Kenya, India, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. These people have repeatedly laid down their lives for their nations and are "Hindu" and "Nationalists" in every sense of the word. Are these people to be excluded from the "Hindu Nationalist" tag or are they simply not "Hindu"?

The fact that people go to other lands and act dharmically in those lands does not detract from the fact that there is a separate, non toxic allegiance to the geographic area of India that many Hindus feel. That allegiance is not aimed against Muslims, Jews, Christians or anyone in any other place.

Where does the "toxicity" come from in this case? Why would these people need to put up with a toxic description and walk away from protesting?

Nationalism is not toxic. Loyalty to land that one considers sacred is not toxic. Why is "Hindu nationalism" toxic when it is simply loyalty to a geographic area that does not demand anything of anyone else?

[shiv]

For those who did not read or did not want to read what I wrote in the first post of this thread, I will cross post part of that, so that I can re-state where I am coming from and why I believe Hindu Nationalism has acquired a "toxic definition" more among Hindus and Indian themselves - a fact that now makes it unnecessary for anyone else to do the name calling - because a critical mass of Indians has been convinced that "Hindu Nationalism" is bad and "toxic"

Over the years, in my online interactions with people, I have said a lot of things. Some people (usually educated English speaking Indians of my social class and educational background) have accused me of being a "supporter of Hindutva" - as if I have some deep desire to cremate all Muslims alive and rip open pregnant bellies of Muslim women. In online conversations they usually illustrate any views they don't like with a linked online image of the stereotypical "Hindutva-vadi". The stereotype hated "Hindu nationalist" is typically a figure wearing shorts, a hastily smeared tilak (a messy patch of vermilion on the forehead), sometimes with orange flag or robes - with his fist raised and mouth open ostensibly calling for the killing of all people dubbed as non Hindu.

I am a Hindu nationalist. Am I being accused of wanting to kill Muslims and eliminate all religious minorities in India? Why?

Let me ask another question:

Is it possible that most educated Indians are convinced that "Hindu nationalism" is a term that is hateful and to be avoided, and that while they are happy to declare their feelings of nationalism, it is "Hindu nationalism" that that they would like to avoid because the term refers to murderous bigots, and no one wants to be associated with murderous bigots?

But why? Why is Hindu nationalism associated with murderous bigots? is it because an RSS member murdered Gandhi? Is it because political parties like the BJP who profess "Hindu nationalism" are associated with groups who are seen as murderers such as Ranvir Sena?

But surely this argument is a mealy mouthed, insincere one if you are yourself a BJP supporter and a voter, How can you vote BJP and then try to distance yourself from Hindu Nationalism because you think the word represents murder and bigotry? If you are not a BJP/RSS supporter or voter you may say anything you want because you are in any case a political opponent of people who claim to be Hindu nationalists.

Exactly why does the expression "Hindu Nationalism" represent murder and bigotry?

[svenkat]

I repeat again.Hindu nationalism is criticised by Hindus themselves.Let us consider them one by one.
1)The sikularists-We can ignore them with contempt.
2)The leftists-serious criticism.The Hindu revivalist brahmins romanticise the past ignoring class based 'exploitation' of peasants in the past and ignore modern capitalist/trader interests to homogenise hindus.
3)The tamils-Hindu nationalism is essentially North Indian narrative ignoring tamizh indviduality.Such a hindu nationalism ignores a sacred geography which is essentially TN based but takes into account the great centres of North India-Ayodhya,Mathura,dwaraka,Kashi but has little interest in say MH or Assam or Bengal.Its great literary traditin-the Sangam poetry is essential secular not religious.
4)The dravidian argument-say KAs lingayat tradition which is essentially limited to KA and adjoining areas of MH,AP.Yeddyurappa with his 'limited' worldview would belong to this tradition.
5)The 'dispersed' shaiva and shaaktha traditions throughout India.
6)Sikhism seen primarily as a shaiva panth of punjab with its top leadership of gurus as vaishnava essentially a punjabi sampradaya.
7)The arrogant vaishnava(not so well disguised) in this very thread, contemptuous of Hinduism.
8)The soft vaishnava completely lost in an 'amorphous' world of Hinduism.
9)The smartha orthodoxy which looks down on non vedic sampradayas
10)The Advaita 'orthodoxy' which has deep suspicions about every other siddhanta as political.
11)The dalits whose only geography in the recent past was the 'impure' cheri/basti.
12)The rajput/maratha/mudaliar/thevar/kamma/jutt sikh landlord geography of being the 'lord of his domains'.And Hindu worldview respects the kshatriya as the defender of the land if he 'rules' within a 'dharmic framework'

No thinking hindu cares about the muslim/christian 'worldview'.These are just mleccha franchisees.

[svenkat]

del-duplicate post

[member_22733]

I am a Hindu nationalist. Am I being accused of wanting to kill Muslims and eliminate all religious minorities in India? Why?

This has turned into one of my long ramblings, sorry for that :

Short version from the "other" side: "You cannot be a Hindu Nationalist because it will pose a challenge to our narrative and our agenda for you". My goal is to convert the whole of India into an exclusivist religion and you dont have a place in that India. I might be doing it for religious, cultish or economic reasons, and you are coming in the way. How can I convert people if there is a Hindu Nationalistic movement??!! Hindu Nationalism is yeeevil because it is against Exclusivism (in other words: You are fighting its dual: Universalism). Universalist-Exclusivist duality runs counter to an Agnostic-Inclusive duality. Thus the fight against Hindu Nationalism is a continuing fight against Pagans and Infidels. We are fighting them for their crime of existing. It is an existential fight and we should not make any mistake about it.

Long version on how it happened:

I used to think this was leftover from colonial era policies, where Hindu Nationalists were especially singled out for harsh treatment. This created a harsh choice to the non-Macaulayized, Hindu elites in India. They could either hold on to their identity and miss the brishit loot gravy-train, or they could join in on it. Membership to the loot club was only done if you disowned who you are and then try to be who you never could be, the brishit-stiff-upper-lipped-TFTA Gora Admi. The few that chose to remain Hindu were later initially marginalized (Gokhale etc) and later actively persecuted (Savarkar and co).

Our Macaulayputras were fully involved in that process, and they were rewarded well by the looters. From that POV its easy to extrapolate and say that the current bunch of fully Macaulayized Brishit installed elites are descendents of those who had played a part in suppressing Hindu assertiveness, and thus are following the script laid out by their ancestors.

It is immaterial whether the initial suppression of Hindus by the elites was done by coercion by the Brishits or it was due to their own volition. What matters now is that their children are the ones making the decisions for the rest of us.

The above is what I used to believe. I still do to some extent. However I now think that there are many hidden agendas that is missing from this picture. A multi-generational transmission of shame, inferiority and self-hate that persisted in our elites for this long is a very potent thing. If you have no good intentions towards India, this self-hatred can be used to create problems in India, and we now know to the extent which it has corrupted us.

A gora/arab who is also a quick learner with a keen observational powers would easily manipulate things to push his or her own agenda. The white/arabic agenda-pushers have hijacked the self-confidence void of our elites by giving them a figment of respectability. An award here, a talk show there. Some metrics here and a statistic there and TimesOfIndia, HT, rrrrNDTV, MoorkhaButt, Turdesai will all be standing in line to bow to you, the white man. A gora holds a power over them that defies rationality,whether a gora likes it or not. Many goras initially get confused over this, but they quickly get used to it and get spoiled.

What the spoiled gora does not know is that he and the macaulayized Indian form a pathological bond. The gora gives the Indian his validity and in return he gets pampered and spoiled. Both of them live in a distorted world, but it is a perfect symbiotic relationship. The few goras who like this are usually full blown NPD cases or end up having borderline NPD (Narcissistic personality disorder) and the Indians become their Narcissistic fuel, who only exist as his/her extension which pampers him.

In such a case, a Nationalist Hindu is a challenge to this privilege of being able to set agendas and control India. By being a Hindu Nationalist you are taking away the gora-admis privilege, you are taking away the gora+macaulayputra control over you. This disturbs the pathological bond and thus creates two angry people.

1) The Gora Agenda-pusher who suddenly feels angry that he has no control. He has turned into an ordinary human being.
2) Macaulayized Indians who suddenly feel scared (scared more than angry), since you are pushing away his or her ONLY source of self-worth and his or her only source of "power and knowledge"

Symptom of this disturbance can be seen in the highly predictable NYTime, WaPo (f)artikals on yeeeeevil Modi churned out in constant intervals. And rrrrNDTV, C5M, turdesai behavior towards Modi.

On a side note: Our elites behave like they were hijacked by tiny aliens from space. I can spin many sci-fi short stories on that, one that puts a mirror in front of our elites to show what kind of jackasses they truly are.

[shiv]

I repeat again.Hindu nationalism is criticised by Hindus themselves.Let us consider them one by one.

If all those people you named are "Hindus who criticize Hindu Nationalism" what is the form of nationalism they display? Would it be "non Hindu nationalism"? Or "nationalism but not Hindu nationalism". Or are there no nationalists among those groups?