The Hindu Value for Debate and Dissent: Untangling Hinduism and Hindutva

TRADITION OF DEBATE
There is an ancient and vigorous tradition of debate and dissent within the Hindu tradition. Religious teachers contested each other’s understanding of the nature of ultimate reality (brahman), brahman’s relationship with the world and the meaning of liberation. They disagreed about the interpretation of sacred texts. Shankara and Ramanuja, for example, understood, quite differently, the meaning of the famous Chandogya Upanishad sentence, “Tat Tvam Asi (That Thou Art). The Arya Samaj founder, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, rejected the worship of the divine in murti-form, affirmed the absolute authority only of the Samhita section of the Vedas, and rejected conservative understandings of the caste order. The point is that arguments about the meaning of Hinduism and Hindu identity are not a recent phenomenon. These matters were debated even before the term Hinduism was coined. Such disagreements continue to our present day.

RELIGION AND NATION
The rise of the ideology of Hindutva (Hinduness), and here I am specifically referring to thought of V.S. Savarkar, has intensified and added new dimensions to contemporary debates within the Hindu tradition about Hindu identity. Briefly, Savarkar connected Hindu identity with Indian citizenship: “A Hindu is primarily a citizen, either in himself or through his forefathers of Hindustan (Savarkar)” A Hindu, according to Savarkar, must regard India as both fatherland (pitrbhu) and sacred land (punyabhu). Savarkar’s definition marginalizes Indian Christian and Muslim communities. Though born in India, he expresses suspicion about their loyalties since, in his view, they revere sacred spaces outside of India. For Savarkar, a Hindu should not regard, as sacred, any place other than India. On the basis of this view, the national loyalties of millions of Hindus around the world, born in different lands, and still revering India as a land of pilgrimage, will be suspect in the lands of their birth.

DIVISIVE DEBATE
Hindutva’s identification of religious and national identities intensifies the divisiveness of contemporary intra-Hindu debates. Those who do not separate the two (viz. religion and nation) readily treat criticism of the state as criticism of the Hindu tradition, and criticism of the tradition as criticism of state leadership. Hindus who are critical of state policies are accused not only of treason but also of Hindu apostasy. Identification of the tradition with the state means, in effect, its identification with the person of the state leader who assumes a sacrosanct status and immunity from critique. Those who are regarded as enemies of the state are treated as enemies of the religion; those who are friends of the state are regarded as friends of the religion. All of this holds true, in general, for theocratic states.

COMPROMISING INDEPENDENCE AND ETHICAL VALUES
Any religious tradition that is so identified with the state and its leader compromises what the Taittiriya Upanisad (1.11.4) values as independence of thought (āyuktah) and commitment to ethical virtues (dharmakāmāh). Its allegiance is to a specific version of the nation and not to a reality and to values transcending the state. A religion that becomes the arm of the state or a servant of its leader will not be the moral conscience for all humanity. Such a religious tradition dies a slow death at the hands of its own followers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HINDUISM
The identification of Hindutva and Hinduism has different kinds of implications for Hinduism. On the one hand, there are groups that link and are opposed to both, and call for their complete dismantling. Many of these groups represent the voices of those who have and continue to experience the Hindu tradition as oppressive and as denying their dignity and humanity. They see the tradition as lacking liberating and redemptive resources for justice. Hindus need to be especially attentive to these voices who experience the tradition as oppressive and as denying them power and freedom. It is unjust and arrogant to dismiss these voices without a sincere self-critical openness to the historical experiences from which they speak.

On the other hand, there are groups in India, and increasingly in the Hindu diaspora, that do not also distinguish between Hindutva and Hinduism and are enthusiastic defenders and advocates for both. They see no conflicts between the core religious claims of the Hindu tradition and the nationalistic ideology of Hindutva. They are unapologetic defenders of the state and its policies and are incapable of developing moral critiques of the state from the values of the Hindu tradition. They brand all criticisms of Hindutva as denunciations of Hinduism.

UNTANGLING HINDUTVA AND HINDUISM
Different from these two positions, there are those of us who critically and sharply distinguish Hindutva and Hinduism. We understand Hindutva to be an ideology of religious nationalism that confers a quasi-divine status to the nation and proposes the highest aim of life to be the service and defense of the nation. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms the immanence and transcendence of the divine and does not limit this geographically. Although the Hindu tradition does not exclude love and service of one’s country, the aim of the Hindu tradition is a liberated life, devoted to the universal common good, and not the deification of a nation.

Hindutva makes and thrives upon a sharp distinction between Hindus and non-Hindus. It is a definition of the meaning of Hindu identity based on exclusion and otherness. It overlooks the universalism of Hinduism as well as its human appeal and narrowly identifies it with nation and clan. Hinduism, on the other hand, affirms a vision of the world’s unity and a commitment to the well-being of all. A parochial identification of Hinduism with nation, clan and ethnicity makes it impossible for Hinduism to legitimately proclaim itself as a world religion. If the Hindu tradition claims universal validity for its teachings, these must transcend such specificities. Hinduism must detach itself from Hindutva if it wishes to be relevant and to speak to human beings across all differences.

We can critique Hindutva as well as specific interpretations of the Hindu tradition that do not promote human dignity, equality and flourishing. Commitment to a tradition must not be measured by unquestioning assent and defense of all that is done in its name. We can lift up and commit ourselves to the profound liberative teachings of the Hindu tradition that affirm the unity of all life, and the values of justice and compassion for all.

Let us not limit the universal gifts of the Hindu tradition by narrowly and imprudently identifying it with any finite state and fallible human beings. Let us not undermine its independence and profound spirituality by diluting its moral voice and making it a servant-arm of the state. A tradition does not become great by making it small.

———

Copyright © Anantanand Rambachan 2020. All rights reserved. Nothing on this website can be used, reproduced, or published without the author’s explicit written permission. Contact author for questions.