The opinion of the Sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh on the LGBTQ issue has surprised a section of the chatterati class. The surprise shows the disconnect of this section from the Sangh Parivar and a severely limited understanding of the wider Hindutva movement. For too long, Hindutva has been misrepresented in academia and public discourse through the lens of its adversaries, who painted it as an archaic and socially orthodox movement opposed to modernity.
Hindutva emerged as the organic response of the Hindu society when faced with new social and political challenges of a rapidly transforming society under capitalist-industrial transformation in the colonial framework. It was the attempt by the much older polycentric Hindu society to navigate the new world order dominated by nations and nation-states by forging a new modern nation or Hindu Rashtra. The creation of Hindu modernity has always been one of the core driving forces of the Hindutva movement.
To understand Hindutva today, we must go beyond the reductive political context and look at it as an ideology combining political expression with cultural synthesis. In trying to define a weltanschauung for a rapidly transforming Hindu society, an ideology like Hindutva will have to show constant innovation and evolution. The fundamental shifts in the articulation of Hindutva over time are reflections of a deep collective churning on the part of Hindu society, which is trying to revitalise itself in a world far removed from anything that the traditional Hindu imagination can address directly.
The elements of synthesis are to be seen in the introspective nature of Hindutva, in it becoming a ground on which modernity and tradition do not clash but negotiate with each other to define the Hindu visions of the past, present, and future. Hindutva is not an ideology staring at the past. It simply cannot afford to be. However, its embrace of modernity detests passivity or submission to Western mores due to its strong anti-colonial outlook. It is why such negotiation is always grounded in the Indian cultural milieu, and hence the constant need to look for possibilities in Indian culture.
It also explains one of the reasons for Hindutva’s concern with history, which in India also encompasses the epic retellings of the ancient past. Mohan Bhagwat quoting from the Mahabharata is an example of how Hindutva uses history as a cultural toolbox to aid the process of creative engagement between the past and present — possibilities in the present find an echo in a past which all Hindus have always looked up to reverentially. It is part of the vision for a dialogical Hindu modernity which is comfortable with tradition as an active agent of change.
A common mistake in the academic lexicon is clubbing together diverse strands and describing them as the “Hindu right”. But unlike simplistic assumptions, the Hindu Right movement has not been a single movement but an amalgamation of different strands with distinctive regional variations. Three strands stand out due to their influence in the past and present. The first is the Ratnagiri line of radical Hindutva proposed by Savarkar, which envisioned a rapid and total transformation of the Hindu society leaving behind most of the social traits of the old society, like the caste system. Second is the conservative approach which, in principle, agrees with the changes advocated by Hindutva but distrusts disruption. It supports social equality, widow remarriage, inter-caste marriages, and LGBTQ rights but believes that society must chart its way instead of forcing it. The third is social orthodoxy which confuses the old village-based feudal-agrarian order as the essence of the Hindu civilisation and opposes social change and modernity in the name of tradition.
Most of the attacks on the RSS or the wider Hindutva movement stem from attributing to it the views and agendas of the social orthodoxy. This is either due to confusion or a deliberate attempt by partisans in academic and journalistic circles. It has partially succeeded in painting a picture of Hindutva which is at complete variance with the self-image of the organisations rooted in Hindutva. One example is the allegation that Hindutva seeks to destroy cultural, social and linguistic diversity and freedom and homogenise India. In contrast, the Hindutva movement sees itself as the defender of the diversity of India. It has watched with alarm how this diversity has been rapidly lost in erstwhile parts of India — Pakistan and Bangladesh — and is determined not to let it happen in India.
The opinions expressed by Mohan Bhagwat are neither new nor surprising. Unlike liberals who make every issue about themselves, their personal opinion or moral judgment, the RSS takes a wider view of the contested issues with the ultimate aim of samanvay or harmonising opposing views within the framework of the Indian civilisation.
(Prakash is National Vice-President, BJP Youth-wing and Chauhan is research scholar, JNU)
