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

[member_20317]

Yes. great pick up lines of the thoughtful kind.

But still not as good as - 'something is better than nothing and nothing is better than nonsense'. Came to me from a true blue BeKaam Madrasi - Really great guy. Now I think I should call him up. Saale se bahut dino se baat nahi kari.

Best of luck.

[RajeshA]

Part 2 of my question was, is Hindu nationalism = Hindutva?

iF Hindutva is an organized response by Hindus to tackle nation-state - it is a new response. Therefore there was no Hindu nationalism before the Muslim and British invasions. It is then true that the British created the Indian nation because there is no Hindu concept of nationalism that pre-dates that.

I am unhappy with this conclusion because I do believe there was a sense of nation that goes back centuries. if Hindutva is telling me that a sense of nation was actually non existent till the Abrahamics came, I suspect they are wrong.

If Rāṣṭra was there, then in one form or another Rāṣṭravāda was always also there, which enabled coalitions to come together to oppose outsiders.

[Yayavar]

Has anyone read/summarised Savarkar's book 'Hindutva'? Am sure it would have some clarifications on the terms and relevance to nation/Rashtra etc.

[A_Gupta]

Part 2 of my question was, is Hindu nationalism = Hindutva?

iF Hindutva is an organized response by Hindus to tackle nation-state - it is a new response. Therefore there was no Hindu nationalism before the Muslim and British invasions. It is then true that the British created the Indian nation because there is no Hindu concept of nationalism that pre-dates that.

I am unhappy with this conclusion because I do believe there was a sense of nation that goes back centuries. if Hindutva is telling me that a sense of nation was actually non existent till the Abrahamics came, I suspect they are wrong.

I would say you need some precision here. What do you mean by "nation-state"? E.g., one conception of it arose only in the 18th century in Europe. How can you respond to something before it was invented?

It is logically entirely possible that Hindutva is an organized response to the nation-state as it arose in the 18th century AND there was Hindu nationalism that pre-dates that --- simply because nationalism is a rather imprecise notion.

It is just like there was science before the Scientific Revolution; except its practice, methods, etc., were less formal than after the Scientific Revolution. If you ask "was there modern science in India prior to the Scientific Revolution?" the answer is No. Modern science is an invention that happened at the time of the Scientific Revolution. If you ask "was there science in India prior to the Scientific Revolution?" the answer is an unequivocal Yes.

One of the purposes of the social sciences is to make such ideas precise.

PS: anyway, we are not getting any closer to examining why Hindu nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense and what we might do to change that.

[RajeshA]

Their gripe is over what they feel is an adoption of Western "immorality" (boozing, dancing, rubbing, kissing, ...) in the name of individual freedoms. Even all that activity would be acceptable to these orgs if there would have been some Indian tradition of such indulgence. What they find unacceptable is not the acts as such but the presumed Western influence on them which cause the youth to act this way!

Rajesh I agree with you here.

But do you see that the problem cannot be elucidated in its right context unless we understand what the west is doing to us. Hindutva vadis who do thse things need intellectual leaders who understand how "western liberalism" is being foisted on Hindu culture and what the history of that liberalism is, so that Hindus can take more nuanced line while tearing down the west.

West has the power to tempt, power to impress, power to make us doubt ourselves. It is up to us to tear through the web of illusion that the West spreads. However all this also needs institutions.

In India we accept western norms of "liberalism" without question. I have got into many an argument by asking about the Indian norms for homosexuality. What are they? Is the west invariably right? Are "rights" to be imposed from above, by "law'.

LGBT and Dharmic perspective
LGBT and Dharmic perspective – II
LGBT and Dharmic perspective – III
LGBT and Dharmic perspective – IV

We seem to believe that Hindus were always liberal in a western sense. I think that is wrong. Hindu liberalism was never something that emerged out of conservatism. It was liberalism that was moderated by Hindu social laws. It was not initial religious control of behaviour followed by "release" when the religions were defeated and sidelined and replaced by "reason" and "rationality" . I use English words that can be misused by saying that Hindus represent "Unreason" and "Irrationality" if they refuse western norms. But these are rhetorical arguments, in fact sophistry, that we need to sort out intellectually - by separating rhetoric from facts

shiv saar,

all Western principles are tools for power of one or the other. Conservatism empowered the clergy. Liberalism empowered the individual by making the individual a pure egoist, thus breaking all informal social contracts and channeling them all through the state, and hence empowering the state.

In the West, even charity is a function of self-propagation, marketing, brand-building and gaining influence among certain groups. Though this is understandable.

There is nothing like Dharma in the West. It is mankind's most brilliant invention. It moderates in a person, in a family, in a community, in a state, in a Rāṣṭra, all contextually, what is permissible, what is prohibited, what is punya and what is paap! Within those bounds, there may be many types of attitudes and behavior which would seem liberal and many types which may seem conservative.

[shiv]

Part 2 of my question was, is Hindu nationalism = Hindutva?

iF Hindutva is an organized response by Hindus to tackle nation-state - it is a new response. Therefore there was no Hindu nationalism before the Muslim and British invasions. It is then true that the British created the Indian nation because there is no Hindu concept of nationalism that pre-dates that.

I am unhappy with this conclusion because I do believe there was a sense of nation that goes back centuries. if Hindutva is telling me that a sense of nation was actually non existent till the Abrahamics came, I suspect they are wrong.

I would say you need some precision here. What do you mean by "nation-state"? E.g., one conception of it arose only in the 18th century in Europe. How can you respond to something before it was invented?

It is logically entirely possible that Hindutva is an organized response to the nation-state as it arose in the 18th century AND there was Hindu nationalism that pre-dates that --- simply because nationalism is a rather imprecise notion.
<snip>
PS: anyway, we are not getting any closer to examining why Hindu nationalism is spoken of in a pejorative sense and what we might do to change that.

No. In fact I think that in my mind the question has been answered.

I tried to see what people felt was Hindu nationalism. In particular I have a notion of loyalty to Bharat that I believe has united people from several thousand years - with widespread (over India) memories of events and people who lived and did things over the land. I don't know whether I am right or wrong - but Hindutva has no aim or intention of including within its fold people who have that sort of feeling for India.

Hindutva, by most opinions that I see is a reaction to the Abrahamic religions and is a unifier only insofar as unity is required to oppose the intrusion of those religions. It has no aim to unite people over any other issues that may cause fissures. If Hindutva is dubbed as anti-Muslim and anti-Christian it is likely to be true because that is its stated reason for existence. That easily explains the attacks on Hindutva from all quarters outside India apart from dhimmified psecs. That is why the pejorative sense exists.

I find this reservation of "Hindutva/Hindu nationalism" to a narrow aim disappointing. Personally I see a much older sense of unity and many goals that will never be achieved because the aims of Hindutva are limited. The morphing of European Christian supremacist tendencies to western universalism is something that Hindutva will not meet because it's aims are religion centered and is not developing the intellectual capital to meet the demand. I now see that Modi's greatness, ability to unite and his popularity stem from his aims that are far more comprehensive than Hindutva per se. Hindutva is hitching a ride on Modi. In fact this may well explain the BJPs poor performance in 2009. Modi is a beacon of hope in many ways, but everything will collapse if far seeing leaders do not emerge from under his shadow.

[shiv]

There has been a big hue and cry in the media about the proposed introduction of Sanskrit language studies in schools . I have not figured out how and where the proposed idea will fit into the curriculum. I agree wholeheartedly that every Indian child, especially if he or she is Hindu, should learn a little bit of Sanskrit, but the question I am asking is, what should be taught as Sanskrit and how should it be taught?

[A_Gupta]

I find this reservation of "Hindutva/Hindu nationalism" to a narrow aim disappointing. Personally I see a much older sense of unity and many goals that will never be achieved because the aims of Hindutva are limited. The morphing of European Christian supremacist tendencies to western universalism is something that Hindutva will not meet because it's aims are religion centered and is not developing the intellectual capital to meet the demand.

Shiv:

Well, Savarkar may have the copyright on Hindutva; "Hindu nationalism" is still up for grabs. Or we eschew labels, simply do our part for a bottoms-up revival. What would be fatal to do is to disengage.

[A_Gupta]

There has been a big hue and cry in the media about the proposed introduction of Sanskrit language studies in schools . I have not figured out how and where the proposed idea will fit into the curriculum. I agree wholeheartedly that every Indian child, especially if he or she is Hindu, should learn a little bit of Sanskrit, but the question I am asking is, what should be taught as Sanskrit and how should it be taught?

Long ago when I was in Kendriya Vidyalaya, we had Sanskrit in sixth, seventh, eighth (and perhaps ninth) class; it was taught in a rather boring way with emphasis on memorization. Then our Sanskrit teacher went away for a month of training; and when he came back, he totally changed Sanskrit instruction. He made the class interactive, and started us on conversational Sanskrit and composition. Alas, it lasted only a short while; he then got promoted and transferred. Our next Sanskrit teacher was the same old, same old, he writes on the blackboard, we copy into our notebook; in the exam we are tested on how accurately we can remember and reproduce what he wrote on the blackboard.

But I think that the people who study these things have come up with innovative ways to teach Sanskrit.

[ShauryaT]

Shiv:

Well, Savarkar may have the copyright on Hindutva; "Hindu nationalism" is still up for grabs. Or we eschew labels, simply do our part for a bottoms-up revival. What would be fatal to do is to disengage.

Dump Savarkar's version of Hindutva and use the supreme court definition of 2002. But practitioners of the new version are needed!

[shiv]

But I think that the people who study these things have come up with innovative ways to teach Sanskrit.

Precisely!

The Sanskrit that I had in school has vanished other than the monkeying around we did with the teacher and the stories that he was a child abuser. The Sanskrit that sticks is from memorized shlokas and conversational Sanskrit from a set of CDs that are widely available. The shlokas learned in childhood are particularly vital.

That apart, our culture is imbibed from stories - the Mahabharata and Ramayana and other stories. The dilemmas, the duties, the treachery, the angst, the heroism. They are exciting stories and they are life lessons and they are history and sociology all combined. But we don't recognize it that way because even my teachers (from the 1960s- mostly dead now) had already been taught to view "history" as the Western Model presented to us (Mohenjo Daro, Renaissance, Mughal) and Mahabharata as stories/mythology - not for school.

We need intellectuals with completely decolonized minds who are able to recognize biases put into the brains of our great-grandfathers' generation that echo down to this day as the "curriculum" and the method of teaching. We cannot separate our history and ethics from our legends. They come as a package. India studies would be a good subject to start even if it sounds like Pakistan studies. Because "India studies" will not be forced to separate "history", "ethics" and "mythology" as distinct boxes - but the course can simply be designed as a story telling class that tells of the past, culture and morality. Some Sanskrit can be included - especially classic shlokas and chants like "asatoma sadgamaya" and gayatri mantra.

But if we try to box this as "Indian history", "Indian math" "Indian socials" etc we are doing a cargo cult copy of western classifications that they use to describe their way of seeing the world, which is what we have blindly adopted as "The way to see the world". We have to first understand how inappropriate that is for the way we understand our past and society. Once again it is difficult to understand why "their way" of seeing the world is wrong and needs to be discarded without our intellectuals understanding why they chose to start viewing the world in that way. It was advantageous for them

[shiv]

Shiv:

Well, Savarkar may have the copyright on Hindutva; "Hindu nationalism" is still up for grabs. Or we eschew labels, simply do our part for a bottoms-up revival. What would be fatal to do is to disengage.

Dump Savarkar's version of Hindutva and use the supreme court definition of 2002. But practitioners of the new version are needed!

Could you post a link please.

[csaurabh]

There has been a big hue and cry in the media about the proposed introduction of Sanskrit language studies in schools . I have not figured out how and where the proposed idea will fit into the curriculum. I agree wholeheartedly that every Indian child, especially if he or she is Hindu, should learn a little bit of Sanskrit, but the question I am asking is, what should be taught as Sanskrit and how should it be taught?

The form of Sanskrit usually taught in schools is dry and useless ( this goes for most subjects though, especially 'Arts' subjects ).
Instead I think what should be taught instead is that rather than as a separate language, Sanskrit could be taught as a part of Indian language studies. Children should be given Sanskritized Hindi texts ( like JayShankar Prasad ) or Sanskritized Bengali texts ( like Bankim Chandra ) and so on, along with modern Indian translations of scientific and technological stuff. This way, they are not only learning a 'language' but rather they are learning different new concepts through the Sanskrit language. The teacher could say for instance that 'gurutwakarshan' = 'gurutwa' + 'akarshan' and this explains the concept of gravity. Or nyayalay = 'nyaya' + 'alay' and this explains the concept of a court of justice. Want to put mathematics? Pick something from Bhaskara's Lilavati or the Baudhayana Sutra. And so on.

If that is too much for these teachers to come up with an innovative curriculum, they can put a TV in the classroom and let the children watch Discovery channel ( in Sanskritized Hindi/other language ), Narendra Modi's speeches, Ramayana, Mahabharata and so on. This would be much more helpful than memorizing boring grammer and stuff. Conversational Sanskrit or the promotion of Sanskrit as link language is doable but we are not at that stage yet.

Of course the elephant in the room here is Dravidian languages and especially Tamil. Since Tamils like to deny any linkage with Sanskrit and consider it as imposition by 'Aryans' . Some form of compromise would have to be reached here..

[ShauryaT]

Could you post a link please.

These Constitution Bench decisions, after a detailed discussion, indicate that no precise meaning can be ascribed to the terms `Hindu', `Hindutva' and `Hinduism'; and no meaning in the abstract can confine it to the narrow limits of religion alone, excluding the content of Indian culture and heritage. It is also indicated that the term `Hindutva' is related more to the way of life of the people in the sub- continent. It is difficult to appreciate how in the face of these decisions the term `Hindutva' or `Hinduism' per se, in the abstract, can be assumed to mean and be equated with narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, or be construed to fall within the prohibition in sub-sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.

Hindutva decision: Supreme Court 2002, CJ J.S. Verma

[A_Gupta]

^^^ Bring classical Tamizh into the curriculum as well, as much as possible.

PS: FYI:
http://swarajyamag.com/culture/when-wil ... n-science/

In fact a meaningful debate related to the material culture at the time of the Mahabharata should be about whether it involved the cultures of Painted Grey Ware (PGW) or that of Ochre Coloured Pottery(OCP) and not whether they used hydrogen bombs or flying saucers.

The 1976 debate on the historicity of the epic was about PGW and OCP and the archaeologists who debated these questions belonged as much to Hindutva thought as Romila Thapar belonged to the Marxist school.

That the Kurukshetra war fought with much more down-to-earth localized weapons in a cultural milieu that used painted grey ware or ochre colored pottery in no way reduces the spiritual significance of the Bhagavat Gita.

[ShauryaT]

There has been a big hue and cry in the media about the proposed introduction of Sanskrit language studies in schools . I have not figured out how and where the proposed idea will fit into the curriculum. I agree wholeheartedly that every Indian child, especially if he or she is Hindu, should learn a little bit of Sanskrit, but the question I am asking is, what should be taught as Sanskrit and how should it be taught?

Nothing against Sanskrit and it should be offered, however a highly sanskritized form of Hindi has more practical usages and has the capacity to unify the nation in ways unimagined and will displace English as the socio-economic language of the elite. Aware of the language wars, however political will is needed to overcome those. We have a crisis as of today, where people do not master "any" language with sufficient literacy. This can be gauged by the number of literary works in any Indian language. Spoken forms of the language thrives however.

[shiv]

Tamil Nadu may be ahead of the rest of the country here - I suspect every child who goes to school learns from the Tirukkural

As per Wiki Thirukkural translates as follows:

Thirukural is known by many names such as:[8]

உத்தரவேதம் / Uttaravedam - later Veda
பொய்யாமொழி / Poyyamozhi - statements devoid of untruth
வாயூரை வாழ்த்து / Vayurai vazhthu - truthful utterances
தெய்வநூல் / Deyvanool - Holy book
பொதுமறை / Pothumarai - Veda for all
முப்பால் / Muppal - three chaptered
தமிழ் மறை / Tamil marai - Tamil Veda

[shiv]

Nothing against Sanskrit and it should be offered, however a highly sanskritized form of Hindi has more practical usages and has the capacity to unify the nation in ways unimagined and will displace English as the socio-economic language of the elite. Aware of the language wars, however political will is needed to overcome those. We have a crisis as of today, where people do not master "any" language with sufficient literacy. This can be gauged by the number of literary works in any Indian language. Spoken forms of the language thrives however.

Shaurya - there is a huge Hindi divide in the country which cannot be good.

Swacch Hindi is not going to become a link language anytime soon. But Mumbaiya versions and Bollywoodized versions may work better. Most native Hindu speakers do not instinctively recognize that languages like Bengali and Kannada are dripping with Sanskrit. I was myself never educated in Kannada and I sometimes find a Sanskritized Hindi word that I don't recognize and I simply ask a native Kannada speaker who is able to tell me the meaning right away. Malayalam again is dripping with Sanskrit. The Kannada and Telugu alphabet too are the A Aa, e Ee type like Sanskrit.

So the British classification of "Dravdian" and Dravidian languages has created a division where a division did not exist and that imposed/cooked up division is alive and healthy today on both sides of the divide. The "philology" that the British told us about separated North and South India like Britain and France with no insight into a common past and a common culture. Echoes of that mental colonization runs so deep now that it won't go away anytime soon. Only anger at being told about that colonization seems to occur.

Three out of four "Dravidian" languages are deeply interconnected with Sanskrit. Only Tamil has borrowings from anolder language that was common to Kannada and Tamil and recent discoveries seem to indicate that the Kannada ancestor language version ("halagannada") was the original that Tamil and other Dravidian languages borrowed from while mixing with Sanskrit. We don't believe our own (Indian) observations about language and culture but revert back to British theories and characterizations even today. And no one will admit that this disconnect is a variant of mental colonization.

[csaurabh]

We have a crisis as of today, where people do not master "any" language with sufficient literacy. This can be gauged by the number of literary works in any Indian language. Spoken forms of the language thrives however.

This is correct. We are getting worse day by day. Nowadays little children are being brought up speaking English-only. We want to learn German, Chinese, anything other than our own languages, it seems like.

But honestly, promoting sanskrit will run into so many difficulties:

-Sanskrit is a dead language
-Sanskrit is useless
-Sanskrit is 'communal'
-Sanskrit is an imposition by evil North Indian 'Aryans' on speakers of other language families ( Dravidians, Central India tribes, North East )

All of these are difficult to debunk because they have some grain of truth to them.

[shiv]

The British were the authors of the North-South divide in India.

Now that I have made that statement, I have to be ready for the argument that I am blaming the British for Indian failures.

Ok let me get rid of the useless rhetoric first. If I say "Shakespeare was responsible for writing a lot of plays" I am giving him credit, not blaming him. So when I say "The British were the authors of the North-South divide in India." - I am giving them credit. Not blaming them - so anyone who even thinks of this argument can shove his rhetoric up his Musharraf.

The British with their translators, historians, philologists and anthropologists simply concluded that there was a north south divide. And they "proved" this with a huge body of literature. That huge body of literature was condensed into so many little textbooks and those little textbooks were studied by Indians who passed exams and then became teachers of my grandfather.

Now both North and South Indians of the less well infomed kind have all internalized the idea that Indian history had a set of fair Sanskrit speaking North Indians coming from Europe who pushed the black South Indians into the peninsula. Each kept their language more or less. You cannot have lived in India if you can't find a North Indian who says "North Indians are fair", "South Indians are black" This defies credibility when you look the uniform brown colour of the Hindi belt people. And along the west coast from South Maharashtra , through Karnataka into Kerala you have some extremely light complexioned people. But what the British said is what we believe. If you compare Kashmir and Punjab with deep south, yes the statement is generally true. But both places have their light complexioned and dark complexioned people. But in between these beliefs are rubbish. But we have stopped thinking as a people and have not yet restarted.

You can kill yourself disproving AIT - but you will not convert 1 billion Indians from believing that India consists of an Aryan derived North and a Dravidian derived south. That is the depth of mental colonization we face today. You can have any number of educated people from north going south or south going north. Many will see the similarities, the common culture and the common words. But when it comes to what we say and believe - it is our textbooks that carry old British memes.

[csaurabh]

Shaurya - there is a huge Hindi divide in the country which cannot be good.

Swacch Hindi is not going to become a link language anytime soon. But Mumbaiya versions and Bollywoodized versions may work better. Most native Hindu speakers do not instinctively recognize that languages like Bengali and Kannada are dripping with Sanskrit. I was myself never educated in Kannada and I sometimes find a Sanskritized Hindi word that I don't recognize and I simply ask a native Kannada speaker who is able to tell me the meaning right away. Malayalam again is dripping with Sanskrit. The Kannada and Telugu alphabet too are the A Aa, e Ee type like Sanskrit.

So the British classification of "Dravdian" and Dravidian languages has created a division where a division did not exist and that division is alive and healthy today on both sides of the divide. The "philology" that the British told us about separated North and South India like Britain and France with no insight into a common past and a common culture. Echoes of that mental colonization runs so deep now that it won't go away anytime soon. Only anger at being told about that colonization seems to occur.

We don't believe our own (Indian) observations about language and culture but revert back to British theories and characterizations even today. And no one will admit that this disconnect is a variant of mental colonization.

The division between Dravidian and North Indian ('Aryan') languages exists. And we should not be ashamed of it. Because there is no imposition going on here. Sanskrit was the common link by which we could express ideas and thoughts and concepts across the length of ancient bharata. This gave rise to 'Sanskriti' or culture.

Because the past is shared, there is no fundamental difference in concepts and thinking between 'Aryans' and 'Dravidians' like there is between English and Indian languages, because English developed in a completely different environment influenced by Christianity. It is not so much that the words are different but the words in English explain completely different concepts such as 'religion' vs 'dharma'. I have not come across such fundamental conceptual difference in any Indian language. There is also the fact that Dravidian languages grammer and alphabet are highly influenced by Sanskrit , as well as the huge number of Sanskrit loan words in these languages . This doesn't mean that Dravidian languages came from Sanskrit ( like some morons like to claim ), but it shows the influence. The huge influence in terms of culture and 'religion' ( actually dharmic philosophy ).

Anyway that's just my personal observations as I have been trying to learn Malayalam for some months now. ( Since in my line of work I am likely to spend most of my life in Kerala or Bangalore, I better learn something about them ). It often surprises people though that I can understand 'difficult Malayalam' ( which is just Sanskrit ) but have a lot of difficulty with 'easy' or day-to-day Malayalam ( which is Dravidian ).

What the British did is created 'race' theories out of language and apply their own abrahamic me vs. you and you vs. me framework on top of it. So it resulted in the wonderful 'Aryan Invasion' theory that everyone swallowed wholesale and was developed into political agendas without much inner thinking about it.

[shiv]

The division between Dravidian and North Indian ('Aryan') languages exists. And we should not be ashamed of it.

You need to explain what this means - because I speak Kannada, Tamil and Hindi and am familiar with spoken Marathi and Gujarati and I believe I have certain insights into how people from these regions see themselves and their language.

I am not sure that you are communicating to me what you mean and vice versa. This is not about shame, but it is about "perceptions" that draw a line where a real line does not exist. In fact where does the dividing line run geographically? What is the nature of the division that you speak of?

One persistent meme left behind by the British is that language makes a nation. Different language, different nation. But this is so untrue for Indians that we might as well be speaking about Mars

[ShauryaT]

The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing South Asia by Ashis Nandy

I am not in complete sync with the below conclusion that "Nationalism" as experienced in Europe is the only way to use the concept. The issue is not one of taming it but to tap into the unifying aspects of the people of the land and use these concepts to stenghthen the union. However a damning indictment of Savarkar and his version of Hindutva, if any was needed.

Many Southern scholars, blinded by nationalism’s anti-imperialist role in the South, believe it can be tamed and used creatively. The experiences of South Asia in the last two centuries suggest that usually religions and cultures change to accommodate nationalism, not the other way round. Savarkar, whom many see as a minor pawn of South Asian history, did change not only South Asian Hinduism but also South Asian Islam and Buddhism. All three had to accommodate strains that have more in common with house-broken versions of Christianity in Europe and North America than with home-grown, South Asian Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism.

Ultimately, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar is the name of a blown-up, grotesque temptation inherent in the Southern world’s encounter with the global nation-state system and with religious traditions that facilitate the internalization of the motive force of western nationalism. That temptation is a part of everyone dreaming of working with tamed versions of nationalism and nation-states armed with ideas of rationality, secularism, progress and the so-called lessons of history, untouched by empathy, compassion and other such subjectivist traps.

[shiv]

The Demonic and the Seductive in Religious Nationalism: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the Rites of Exorcism in Secularizing South Asia by Ashis Nandy

I am not in complete sync with the below conclusion that "Nationalism" as experienced in Europe is the only way to use the concept. The issue is not one of taming it but to tap into the unifying aspects of the people of the land and use these concepts to stenghthen the union. However a damning indictment of Savarkar and his version of Hindutva, if any was needed.

Some interesting titbits here

Everyone knows that the western history of state formation and nation building is simultaneously a story of how religions, denominations and ethnicities were bludgeoned into nationalities. For those entering the realm of history for the first time in Asia and Africa and facing the hierarchies and exclusions of the global state nation system for the first time the temptation is not only to construct their own history, but also to read into Europe’s history their own past, present and future. Even when they construct their own history, the categories and concerns that frame it are ‘universal’ or, it comes the the same thing, European

Savarkar publicly supported cow slaughter when necessary and declared the cow to be a useless animal with no sacredness about it. He also advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism and eat fish and eggs.

[nachiket]

Savarkar publicly supported cow slaughter when necessary and declared the cow to be a useless animal with no sacredness about it. He also advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism and eat fish and eggs.

Savarkar actually said the cow is an extremely useful animal, but that there was no need to consider it holy or sacred.

[shiv]

Savarkar publicly supported cow slaughter when necessary and declared the cow to be a useless animal with no sacredness about it. He also advised Hindus to give up vegetarianism and eat fish and eggs.

Savarkar actually said the cow is an extremely useful animal, but that there was no need to consider it holy or sacred.

Interesting difference in perceptions of what Savarkar might have said. I don't know - either way.

But what i gather from the article is that no Indian was exempt from internalizing "European" views of looking at the world. The old Hindu culture was already in the past by 1900.

That does not mean that we cannot utilize what we retain as long as we are not using some borrowed Euro-views as Hindu. For the we need to know where thoughts and views on some of these subjects come from.

[A_Gupta]

^^^

In retrospect one realizes why Gandhi insisted that the nineteenth-century religious reform movements had done more harm than good to Hinduism in the long run

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Mohammed Ali Jinnah were not personally as culpable as many like to believe. The evil that many locate in them resided, at least partly, in the political ideas that dominated the world. Savarkar and Jinnah were, like most first -generation builders of South Asian states, faithful and obedient pupils of the Bismarckian state and post-medieval European republicanism, both vital parts of the dominant culture of commonsense in their times. Once they accepted that culture, they could not but try to duplicate Europe’s history in South Asia, whatever the cost. Not surprisingly, neither of the two ever mourned seriously, in public, the unnecessary death of more than a million people in the bloodbath that came with the division of British India.

For both, human beings were means of implementing larger historical designs. The rationality they worshipped overlay deep emotional voids, created by personal losses that came almost like betrayals by fate. Both coped with the betrayal through uncompromising, dispassionate, ruthless pursuit of a form of political rationality that allowed and even glorified withdrawal from or avoidance of personal
emotional involvements.

Both lived with fragile, perhaps anchorless self-definitions that pushed them to embrace aggressive, ideological postures that tallied with their deeper psychological needs. In politics if you wear a mask long enough, it becomes your face

[nachiket]

Rather than believing people like Ashis Nandy, we should try to understand what Savarkar actually thought and try to make up our own minds. The man was a great thinker. His views about cows, cow slaughter and cow worship are quite complex.

Link: http://www.savarkar.org/en/rationalism/ ... ow-worship

Gratitude to the cow is consistent with the Hindu trait of compassion towards all living beings
…That we should look upon that extremely useful animal (cow) with the same affection as for a family member is no doubt in keeping with humanism. To protect and sustain the cow is our personal and familial duty. At least in the case of Hindusthan, it is also our national duty.
…To have a feeling of gratitude towards an animal that is so useful to us is particularly consistent with the Hindu trait of compassion towards all living beings. (1936, vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.340)
Cow is worthy of protection so long as this serves humanitarian and national interests
Animals such as the cow and buffalo and trees such as banyan and peepal are useful to man, hence we are fond of them; to that extent we might even consider them worthy of worship; their protection, sustenance and well-being is our duty, in that sense alone it is also our dharma! Does it not follow then that when under certain circumstances, that animal or tree becomes a source of trouble to mankind, it ceases to be worthy of sustenance or protection and as such its destruction is in humanitarian or national interests and becomes a human or national dharma? (Samaj Chitre or portraits of society, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.678)
…When humanitarian interests are not served and in fact harmed by the cow and when humanism is shamed, self-defeating extreme cow protection should be rejected…(Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.341)
…A substance is edible to the extent that it is beneficial to man. Attributing religious qualities to it gives it a godly status. Such a superstitious mindset destroys the nation’s intellect. (1935, Savarkaranchya goshti or tales of Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 2, p.559)
Protect the cow, do not merely worship it
I criticized the false notions involved in cow worship with the aim of removing the chaff and preserving the essence so that cow protection may be better achieved. A worshipful attitude is necessary for protection. But it is improper to forget the duty of cow protection and indulging only in worship. The word ‘only’ used here is important. First protect the cow and then worship it if you so desire. (1938, Swatantryaveer Savarkar: Hindu Mahasabha parva or the phase of the Hindu Mahasabha, p. 173)
Do genuine cow protection
…Without spreading religious superstition, let the movement for cow protection be based and popularized on clear-cut and experimental economic and scientific principles. Then alone shall we achieve genuine cow protection like the Americans. (1934, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.171)
The cow should not be the emblem of the Hindu nation
The cow is but a milch symbol of the Hindu nation. By no means should it be considered its emblem (*Savarkar’s exact words are: gaay hi hindurashtraachaa ek dugdhabindu! Maanbindu navhech navhe!). The object of worship should be greater than its worshipper. Likewise, a national emblem should evoke the nation’s exemplary valour, brilliance, aspirations and make its people superhumans! The cow exploited and eaten at will, is an appropriate symbol of our present-day weakness. But at least the Hindu nation of tomorrow should not have such a pitiable symbol. (1936, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.237)
The symbol of Hindutva is not the cow but the man-lion (*Nrsinha or Narsimha is considered the fourth incarnation of Lord Vishnu. He was half-man, half-lion).
The qualities of god permeate into his worshipper. Whilst considering the cow to be divine and worshipping her, the entire Hindu nation became docile like the cow. It started eating grass. If we are to now found our nation on the basis of an animal, let that animal be the lion. Using its sharp claws in one leap, the lion fatally knocks and wounds the heads of wild mammoths. We need to worship such a Nrsinha. That and not the cow’s hooves, is the mark of Hindutva. (1935, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.167)
The non-Hindus should discard their hatred for the cow and do genuine cow protection
…The religious character that Hindus have given to cow protection howsoever naïve is not symptomatic of cruelty. This is because protecting animals such as cows and buffaloes that are extremely useful to man have an objective of safeguarding human interests. But the religious fanaticism of those non-Hindus whose religion itself is based on hatred for the cow is not only naïve but also cruel. They have no right whatsoever to mock at the Hindus.
There is an overdose of gratitude, compassion, notion of all living beings being one in the cow worship of Hindus. But the cow slaughter indulged in by non-Hindus has an excess of cruelty, ungratefulness and demonic (asuric) taking of life. It is not religious madness but irreligious wickedness. For this reason, these non-Hindus should discard their ‘religious’ cow hatred and consider cow protection done for economic reasons to be their duty. (1935, Ksha kirane or X rays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.171-172)

I thought this was relevant to the topic of Hindutva. I'll delete it if people think it is OT.

[shiv]

Here is another take on what Savarkar said about cows and some other things

[shiv]

Rather than believing people like Ashis Nandy, we should try to understand what Savarkar actually thought and try to make up our own minds. The man was a great thinker. His views about cows, cow slaughter and cow worship are quite complex.

Link: http://www.savarkar.org/en/rationalism/ ... ow-worship

Nachiket - I think I am in agreement with Savarkar in some ways, but I disagree with attempts to sanitize his words for a Hindu audience. I found excessively sanitized language in some links. To me these are self goals. The link you gave me has obviously sanitized versions. I saw that one shortly before I posted another one.

[shiv]

According to Nandy, Savarkar's mind was also colonized. Nandy makes his argument convincing but I cannot claim to know the nuances of Savarkar's speeches in Marathi

[nachiket]

Rather than believing people like Ashis Nandy, we should try to understand what Savarkar actually thought and try to make up our own minds. The man was a great thinker. His views about cows, cow slaughter and cow worship are quite complex.

Link: http://www.savarkar.org/en/rationalism/ ... ow-worship

Nachiket - I think I am in agreement with Savarkar in some ways, but I disagree with attempts to sanitize his words for a Hindu audience. I found excessively sanitized language in some links. To me these are self goals.

You are right. The original Marathi text is much clearer. But I couldn't find another translation. I could translate myself, but I don't have access to the books currently. They are with my father back in India.

[nachiket]

According to Nandy, Savarkar's mind was also colonized. Nandy makes his argument convincing but I cannot claim to know the nuances of Savarkar's speeches in Marathi

The thing about Savarkar was that he was nearly as passionate about Science as he was about Hindutva. He desperately tried to make people think scientifically at all times and that sometimes shows up in what he writes about Hinduism as well. Hindutva was more political than religious to Savarkar.

[A_Gupta]

^^^ IMO "colonized" mind - let us not get too much into that terminology. Given a civilizational crisis, there is no one who will get the response exactly right. Great thinkers make great leaps forward, they also make great mistakes. If one is trying to do big things, both successes and failures may be big.

The point is not to uncritically accept all that great people do or say as correct.

[A_Gupta]

Here is another take on what Savarkar said about cows and some other things

Funny, I was just reading an escapist work of fiction, which had this (mildly edited):

If one chooses power over good, then that power will fail in time....If one chooses good over power, then evil will triumph because there will not be the strength to oppose it....Knowing what to do, regardless of what others including sages say, is not the most difficult task. Doing what needs to be done for good to survive is far harder. Good only needs to survive, not triumph.....alance good and power.

[shiv]

^^^ IMO "colonized" mind - let us not get too much into that terminology. Given a civilizational crisis, there is no one who will get the response exactly right. Great thinkers make great leaps forward, they also make great mistakes. If one is trying to do big things, both successes and failures may be big.

The point is not to uncritically accept all that great people do or say as correct.

Agreed. The point is that people were influenced by the "great thinkers" and "thoughts of the times". The great thinkers and thoughts of the times were all European. An ability to perceive what influences people might have had in their views gives an insight into how they might have approached any problem. Savarkar's views have been categorized (by Nandy) as being very much in consonance with European ideas of secular nation building of that period.

How relevant those methods are today need to be assessed independently and objectively without the rhetoric of secularism and communalism of present day politics.

[A_Gupta]

^^^

How relevant those methods are today need to be assessed independently and objectively without the rhetoric of secularism and communalism of present day politics.

Which is what I hope we are doing in our small way here, and I hope is happening in a thousand other places in the bottoms-up way that we are supposed to have .

PS: IMO, the last 67 years of India proves that the European 18th century "nation-state" idea is parochial to Europe. Theoretically speaking, the Republic of India should not exist! Yet it does, which shows that the political theory is unsound.

Secondly, Europe, through its Union, is itself trying to transcend that "nation-state" idea.

IMO, the disorders in the Arab world, where common language, view of history, religion does not help in maintaining the peace also shows the "nation-state" idea to be not-applicable. The organization of the Arab world into nation-states has been disastrous for them.

One can ask for a single central thread that binds all the people together - this is the idea of the nation-state and nationalism. Or there can be a weave, where no single thread is responsible for holding the whole fabric together, no thread is privileged over any other, yet the whole thing coheres.

Another example, is, e.g., marriage in the West is primarily between two individuals; in India it is still mostly between two individuals AND their families. Marriage in the West breaks if the single bond between the two individuals weakens. It is only natural for the bond between two individuals to fluctuate over the course of a lifetime; IMO, in India the families act as a stabilizer. It is again, metaphorically, the rope versus the cloth model of unity.

Similarly, in his two-nation theory, Jinnah made a single rope of Islam that supposedly ties Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pathans, etc., together. He had to do that, if only out of necessity, because in the cloth model of unity, there is no two-nation theory - despite Hindu-Muslim animosities, there were still sufficient number of threads maintaining the single fabric. Instead of strengthening the fabric, he scissored across it. But his single Islamic rope is only sufficing for his constituents to hang each other.

What does this imply for Hindu nationalism? It means strengthening the weave rather than trying to get everyone to believe one thing.

[csaurabh]

The division between Dravidian and North Indian ('Aryan') languages exists. And we should not be ashamed of it.

You need to explain what this means - because I speak Kannada, Tamil and Hindi and am familiar with spoken Marathi and Gujarati and I believe I have certain insights into how people from these regions see themselves and their language.

I am not sure that you are communicating to me what you mean and vice versa. This is not about shame, but it is about "perceptions" that draw a line where a real line does not exist. In fact where does the dividing line run geographically? What is the nature of the division that you speak of?

One persistent meme left behind by the British is that language makes a nation. Different language, different nation. But this is so untrue for Indians that we might as well be speaking about Mars

That is an interesting topic. I dislike using the words Aryan and Dravidian because these were made up by British. But all the same there certainly is a difference between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian languages. I would suggest watching these videos by Shrikant Talageri and coming to your own conclusions.

Dismantling AIT based on Linguistics
Dismantling AIT based on Rig Vedic Textual evidence & Archaeology
Out of India Theory - Foundations

The gist of it is this: He says that the Rig Vedic Aryans lived not in some imaginary homeland in South Russia or Central Asia ( as imagined in the AIT ), but right here in India. Specifically, the lands now known as Greater Punjab, Haryana, west U.P. ( Probably the Indus Valley Civilization, though there is no hard evidence to prove it either way ) Later the Aryans migrated out of India giving rise to the Indo European family of languages, hence the 'Out of India' theory.

Of course what we now call as 'Hinduism' and classical Sanskrit developed in a period long after that recorded by the Rig Veda and Shrikant doesn't talk about it very much. However he does rubbish the idea that there is no difference between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan language families, the difference is quite clearly there.

[Vayutuvan]

While I vaguely know what savarkar said about cows, I still would not want to eat excessive amounts of any meat whether it is beef, pork, mutton, chicken or fish. I used to relish all those along with veggies but not anymore. Coming to know of the treatment the animals are subjected to had a big effect on my outlook. It is not only possible but eminently feasible and even to be epicurean even after one renounces flesh consumption.

[shiv]

Of course what we now call as 'Hinduism' and classical Sanskrit developed in a period long after that recorded by the Rig Veda and Shrikant doesn't talk about it very much. However he does rubbish the idea that there is no difference between Dravidian and Indo-Aryan language families, the difference is quite clearly there.

Absolutely. The languages are definitely different, despite the Sanskrit content.

But let me illustrate the difference in attitudes and perception that the British brought in to those who acquire an education in India.

For example the people of Karnataka or the people of Andhra do not see themselves as Aryans or Dravidians. They see themselves as part of Bharat with the same heroes and the same sacred texts - meaning the Vedas. They do not particularly see themselves as "South Indian". Concepts like "South Indian people" and "Dravidian" are British classifications that have been absorbed by Indians.

Like I said, the British believed that "language" was an intrinsic part of nation. They cooked up "Dravidian people" on the basis of philological (language related) differences. The Dravidian people spoke Dravidian languages and were a different dark skinned race. Who were they? They were the "Dasyus" kicked out by the Aryas. Pure fakeology. The British could not accept that people who spoke Dravidian languages and Indo-European could be one nation or show allegiance to the same set of values. After all the French and English were separate, warring nations, defined by their language. In truth The person from Karnataka or Andhra feels no different about himself or about India than a person from Maharatshtra, MP, Bihar or UP. It is only British inspired classifications that have brought the concepts "South India" and "dravidian"as separate people. Only the languages are different. They are not a "separate people" either in "race"."ethinicity" or genetics.

The fact that they are one people is reflected in culture and self-identification. A man in South Maharashtra did not see himself as a different nation from North Karnataka. A man in South Karnataka did not see himself as living in a separate nation from someone in Tamil Nadu. They only acknowledged that people in different places spoke different languages. The references that we casually make today about "South Indians" speaking "Dravidian languages" and others Aryan languages have the hangover of British attitudes and an imposed British history by British "analysis" of Indian texts and British philological observations.