Hindutva or Hinduness is not a momentary idea stuck in some historical accident; it is, instead, conscious culmination of a millennium long process of identity formation and is synonymous with decolonization. Hindutva, therefore, is a collective effort of masses and encompasses social, economic and political transformation of the civilizational space which transcends modern national boundaries. Attributing the idea of Hindutva to one individual (read, VD Savarkar) is a futile effort to undermine and constraint the millennia long collective effort of the civilizational masses with a universal outlook to derive new identity and meaning based on its shared historical experience. Recently, attempts have been made to differentiate between Hindu [read Sanatan dharma] and Hindutva. Here, I have made an attempt to evaluate two very popular propositions against Hindutva and show inherent contradiction between the two propositions.
In academia, it is well established proposition that Hindu way of life is exclusively a Brahmin project which propagates inequality and suppression through caste system. Drawing from this proposition, academicians argue that alien rule in Indian subcontinent was relatively [at least] ‘tolerant’ and ‘emancipating’ for masses who converted to non-Indic religions. In a way, this proposition disregards violent religious conversion hypothesis as proposed by the Hindutva thesis. Second proposition attempts to differentiate between Hindu and Hindutva and states that Hindu/Sanantan dharma is tolerant towards others; therefore, Hindutva is a project to obsolete the inherent tolerance residing in Sanatan religion and culture. Contradiction between these two propositions is self-evident however, a further examination of historical facts exposes them in entirety.
It is a claim that Islamic conversions in Indian subcontinent were outcome of unequal caste system, however, these claims refuse to explain complete Islamization of the civilizational margins (modern Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan) but failure of equality based religion(s) to replicate the same at the civilizational core (Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh)1. An equally interesting question is why civilizational leaders (spiritual and political) took weapons against egalitarian Islamic rule which became (or accepted as) a part of Indian civilization [Ganga Jamuni Tahzeeb hypothesis]2. In fact, the drive against Islam was so forceful that it became the cornerstone of Vijayanangara (1436-1646) and Maratha Empire (1674-1857) in western and South India. It is quite interesting to note that the term ‘Hindu’ to address the believers of Sanantan Dharma became popular in this period only. However, it was Shivaji who used ‘Hindu’ in a political sense in his quest to establish a Hindwi Swaraj3. It was the beginning of the formation of Hindutva or a political Hindu identity.
Hindutva is not merely a product to identify who is a Hindu but it also signifies a civilizational process. Mostly, Hindutva is viewed merely as a product embedded in colonial history; however, its evolution as a process of experienced persecution, civilizational devastation and destruction by aliens is ignored. Terming Hindutva as artificial colonial construct refutes millennium long experience of a civilization and questions its ability to employ accumulated experience to attain new meanings suitable for its future. What is more pathetic is to justify civilizational destruction by drawing false historical equivalence.
On destruction of civilizational symbols e.g. temples (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain), it is claimed that temple and idol destruction was a common practice in India before Islam appeared4. Claimants of this thesis easily ignore the ideological and philosophical difference between appropriating an ‘object’ without changing its meaning5 and destroying it. Those who refuse to acknowledge that iconoclasm is integral to Islamic philosophy are the people who should be made responsible for the destruction of Bamiyan Buddha by Taliban. Islamic apologists also fail to distinguish the conduct of the central Asian invading tribes towards idols and images before and after the advent of Islam6.It is interesting to observe that pre Islamic nomads/tribes (Shakas and Kushanas) from central Asia became integral to Indic civilization but Indian civilization refused to accommodate Islam in the same manner.
Hindutva is the logical culmination of shared experience of past millennium and lessons from this experience must be used to reshape future of India. Hindutva is the glue to keep together an artificial construct called Nation State which is failing to end the millennia long civilizational wars. These civilizational wars are continuously reshaping national boundaries and are great threat to the idea of nation state based on universal human rights. Hindutva is the philosophy to protect constitutional idea of Indian state in this century of information warfare.
References
1Richard Eaton, in an interview, completely ignores the Islamic history from 700 to 1200 at the margins of Indic civilization and jumps to Sultanate period (1191 onwards) to argue that ‘conversion by sword theory’ doesn’t fit in the case of India. This interview is available at: https://scroll.in/article/769463/we-will-never-know-the-number-of-temples-desecrated-through-indias-history-richard-eaton
2In response to Islamic invasion, two types of tendencies emerged in Indian religious sects. The passive line was of Eknath and Ramdas to focus on spreading awareness against Islamic rule. See, JV Naik, “The Foundations of Swarajya,” in V Subramaniam (ed), “Shivaji and Swarajya,” Orient Longman (1975). Also see, W.R. Pinch, “Peasants and Monks in British India,” University of California Press (1996). At the same time, another body of monks took active military role to confront Islamists. This was a response to militarized Sufi monks who were part of invading Islamic armies. See, W. G. Orr, “Armed Religious Ascetics in Northern India,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, XXIV (1940), 81-100.
3See, V Subramaniam (ed), “Shivaji and Swarajya,” Orient Longman (1975). Available at: https://ia801609.us.archive.org/17/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.275725/2015.275725.Shivaji-And.pdf
4Available at: http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf
5See, R. H. Davis, Indian Art Objects as Loot, journal of Asian Studies, 52, 1 (1993), p.22.
6Srinivasan provides evidences of pre Islamic Central-Asian conquerors including Turks who contributed to the iconographic developments which had been started by the Shakas and which became incorporated in the Indian civilization. See, D. M. Srinivasan (ed.), Mathura: the Cultural Heritage (New Delhi, 1989), p. 79
पंचायत 