The theme of the special issue of Organiser this week is encapsulated in the title ‘Is Hindu Vote Bank feasible’. In a lengthy, signed editorial, editor R. Balashankar says it was Swami Chinmayananda who first envisaged the idea of a Hindu vote bank in the mid-1980s. “It was the outcome of a deep felt cultural angst, the fear of Hinduism being submerged by the onslaught of Semitic evangelism, Islamic fundamentalism and pusillanimous political paganism. An osmosis of the religious Hindu into a political Hindu like his Muslim and Christian counterpart.”The idea of vote bank was rejected because many felt that Hindus were incapable of being united and Hindu leaders seldom worked for Hindu interests. But these assumptions “miss the major concern behind the vote bank idea. The vote bank is a weapon to remind Hindu of his innate strength,” says Balashankar. He goes on to argue that the “The crux of this idea is to make Indian polity Hindu centric, whatever may be the definition attributed to the term Hindu. Hindus cannot remain spiritual islands invoking philosophical platitudes, when their very identity, their legitimate share in the national resources is denied.” Different prescriptionsWhile most contributors agree on the need for a Hindu vote bank, prescriptions differ. Kanchan Gupta writes: “Young India, overwhelmingly Hindu and rapidly moving towards conservative values even while keeping pace with modernism, is driven by the idea of Rising India. I would posit that a new definition of the ‘Hindu vote’ must perforce factor in this idea whose contours are essentially, though not entirely, economic.” The new agenda must “unabashedly” promote these new aspirations — be it free market economics or rapid liberalisation. Subramaniam Swamy offers a three-step formula. First, “India must be known as a nation of Hindus.” Second, Hindu organisations have to appeal to Hindu masses “to vote for a party that adopts and openly advocates a pre-approved Hindu Agenda.” And third, the Hindu vote bank “need target only forty per cent of the 83 per cent Hindus to achieve an absolute majority in Parliament.” M.D. Nalapat advocates the Gujarat example — “In that state, Hindus do not feel ashamed to be Hindus. They do not feel the need to squeeze themselves into as cramped a political space as they can fit in, cringing at the repeated blows to their rights. Even a casual visitor to Gujarat will see the difference that pride and confidence within the majority community can do.” Hindu RajyaBut Radha Rajan, an emerging Hindutva ideologue, decries the idea of Hindu vote bank and demands state power instead. Drawing a distinction between Hindu rashtra (nation) and Hindu rajya (state), she says the dharmasastras accorded primacy to ‘rajya’ as the most important instrument to enforce dharma. The ‘rajya’ comprised of the king, minister, nation, capital, treasury, armed forces and allied kingdoms. She argues that “the answer to Hindu political disempowerment is not for Hindus to become a vote bank but to control and wield state power.”Compiled by Manini Chatterjee
