That the whole world is one family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam) is a great idea which has always found global resonance. And such an unmatchable and universally accepted idea finds its origin in Hindu religion which is evidently the oldest religion of the world. With this in view, the great scholars of India have been rightly describing the Hindutva as an ultimate and eternal way of life which is timeless and which continues to guide even the global community. The rise of India is attributable to this way of life that ensured the political, social, economic empowerment of people belonging to all sections of society through the institution of plural democracy. Spiritual luminary Swami Vivekananda’s message of universal brotherhood reflecting the same strong idea of Hinduism does not obliterate into oblivion even today.
“The Supreme Court in India has given a nice definition to Hindu dharma… The Supreme Court has said that Hindu dharma is not a religion but a way of life… I believe the SC’s definition shows the way,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi once said during his visit to Canada. He also said that the Hindu religion had worked for the benefit of nature, including wildlife, through the scientific way of life. “This can show a way out of the small problems of life,” he said. PM Modi’s candid opinion about Hindutva like this goes on to demolish some writers’ myopic argument about Hindu religion, who say that “it has nothing constructive to offer.”
Hence, to say that Hindutva is facing some sort of intellectual and political crisis, as was reported in some sections of the media, is a complete portrayal of the myopic and biased vision that many authors have. How can Hindutva propagating the philosophy of vasudhaiva kutumbakam and universal brotherhood be termed rigid at the same time? The governance model of the government of the day is based on the theme “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” that reflects the dynamism, relevance and importance of that particular idea underlining its forward-looking approach, non-rigid and democratic essence. While analyzing Hindutva vis-à-vis the present regime, what the observers apparently choose to conveniently ignore is that the overwhelming political ascendancy of Hindutva has not at all created a situation where the governance and growth of all sections have, according to some critics, been relegated to background. The leadership continues to emphasize the importance of development for all while remaining true to his Hindutva ideology. The government would not have given priority to development, if the “practitioners of Hindutva politics had started considering the victory as an everlasting phenomenon”.
The crucial economic dimension to the governance model is something that is of paramount importance, given the Covid-induced slow-down and slump affecting the common man. What one gets to see is the political and economic vision of the government reflected by its decisions aimed at financial come-back, social rehabilitation, recovery of the health sector and repairing and empowering the social fabric. Free ration, massive vaccination, Gati Shakti Master Plan, etc. are some of the decisions that demolish the assertion that “Hindutva does not stand for governance”. This is the assertion of those who see everything from ‘religious prism’ and interpret every single development with religious twists and turns.
There is no doubt that the BJP has emerged as an almost pan-Indian political formation which is governing the country for the last seven years now. What the countrymen in these years have seen is the articulation of political vision more clearly about India’s rise. This is the answer to the question being asked invariably by some quarters whether its priority is development or Hindutva? Development premised on the principles propagated by the Hindutva is what goes as an explanation, with the former being defined in social and economic terms, and the latter in cultural terms. There is no denying as well that the policies and programmes for development have to adhere to the law of the land, respecting the basic principles of the Constitution. Coining the term ‘Hindutva Constitutionalism’ for decisions such as abrogation of Article 370 is highly uncalled for. The party in power had this in its manifesto for a long, and this promise was approved by the people of the country in the form of a massive mandate. The repeal of the three farm laws reflects that the dispensation’s respect for democratic values, one of which is the voice of the public, is supreme. After all, the elected representatives in Parliament are actually the voice of the people. What has been perceptible is the challenge of leadership that happens in a plural democracy, which is to prepare policies ensuring political stability, social equity and economic progress on the basis of a widely shared ethical and cultural foundation. Many feel that the challenge has been dealt with skillfully and deftly by the present leadership of the country.
Hindutva ideologues have been explaining with all emphasis at their command how Hindu ethos stood for harmony among human beings and the entire universe. Just on the line of Hindutva, the RSS ideology, as claimed by its leaders on many occasions, is to ensure socio-economic equality, nationalism, etc. A careful perusal of literature on Sangh suggests that RSS ideology of Hindutva is all-inclusive. Since, the Hindu ethos, which talks strongly of diversity and universal brotherhood, is in existence since time immemorial, so the ‘misinterpretation’ of some statements from RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and selective use of some incidents cannot get people to see the organization as an entity that, according to some critics, depends allegedly on communal narrative or does not have any vision for ‘India’s deep diversity’.
This argument stands rebutted by what RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat once said, “Hindutva is one that takes everyone along, brings everyone together, unites everyone within itself, and makes everyone prosper.”
“We believe in an India which includes everyone and does not exclude anybody. That is why we try to approach everyone,” he said.
“Who will be in power, what policy the country will accept is something to be decided by the society and people. There are mechanisms in place for that…We are not concerned about that, what we are concerned about is the conduct of the society.” Even after these views, is it fair to say that RSS ideologues fail to offer an inclusive argument in favour of India’s deep diversity or Hindutva ideologues have gone intellectually bankrupt?
“When Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, the founding Sarsanghachalak of RSS, said we will organise Hindu community then he never made this proclamation because he wanted to oppose somebody, but he wanted to unite people.” RSS chief Bhagwat put in the right perspective these words of Hedgewar. After this perspective, the argument that the RSS cannot go beyond communal narrative looks hollow.
Needless to say, the RSS has witnessed the concept of Hindutva evolve over the years based on the country’s socio-political scene. RSS knows how the Hindu ethos survived as the sole sanctuary of celebrating diversity. The Sangh knows the tenacity and perseverance of the Hindu civilization which has been flourishing in diverse forms. There is a strong argument saying that Hindutva provides an alternative form of modernity. Definitely, the need of the hour is to direct the positive thinking and real efforts towards achieving economic growth and peace in the society. In that case, spirituality and prosperity can go together when the entire socio-political milieu is galvanized in the right direction.
The writer is a political analyst and former Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Electronics Development Corporation. Views expressed are the writer’s personal.
A careful perusal of literature on Sangh suggests that RSS ideology of Hindutva is all-inclusive. Since, the Hindu ethos, which talks strongly of diversity and universal brotherhood, is in existence since time immemorial, so the ‘misinterpretation’ of some statements from RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and selective use of some incidents cannot get people to see the organization as an entity that, according to some critics, depends allegedly on communal narrative or does not have any vision for ‘India’s deep diversity’.