Hinduism and Hindutva

By Rohan Rajesh 

The use of the terms “Hindu nationalism” and “Hindutva” are widely used to describe the current political situation in India. The BJP – the ruling party in India – is India’s most prominent Hindutva party, and recent actions (legislative and otherwise) by the BJP are part of the broader Hindutva agenda. It is thus essential to understand Hindutva and its relationship with Hinduism because Hindutva is an important part of India’s complex political landscape. I will neither argue for nor against Hindutva; this blog post is simply an explainer to educate everyone.

First, let us define Hinduism. The term itself was originally an appellation used by non-Indians to describe the various systems of belief that have developed in the Indian subcontinent over the past four to five thousand years. However, the term “Hindu” or anything like it does not exist natively in any Indian language. The reason is that there really is no such thing as “Hinduism.” Hindus do not have a unified religious leadership; a universally agreed-upon sacred text; common festivals, traditions, and rituals; or even a unified belief in God. Broadly, Hindus can be broadly described as “astika” and “nastika.” An astika generally accepts the authority of the Vedas, the Upanishads, and that there is a relationship between an individual’s “Atman” or soul and the universal “Brahman.” A nastika does not believe those things. Some examples of nastika philosophies are Buddhism, Jainism, and Charvaka (an ancient atheistic and materialistic philosophy that espoused empiricism). The existence and acceptance of agnosticism and atheism in Hinduism is why many people do not consider it a religion at all. Even the pervasive and notorious caste system has been subject to debate over the millennia. Several prominent philosophers like Adi Shankaracharya (a major proponent of Advaita Vedanta whose teachings are famous throughout India and the world) and Basava (the founder of Lingayatism) rejected caste and saw equality in all living things. It is because of this diversity that Hindus have largely been tolerant and accepting of other faiths from within India and without for thousands of years. This acceptance and diversity are best summarized by this quote from the Rig Veda, “There is one truth; the wise describe it in many ways” (Rig Veda 1.164.46).

Hindutva (which in New Sanskrit roughly translates as “Hinduness”), on the other hand, is a contemporary political ideology akin to Islamism and Christian fundamentalism. It is a synonym with the term “Hindu nationalism.” A Hindutvavadi (the Hindi term for a supporter of Hindutva) believes that Hindus have been dominated by foreign religions (first the Muslims and then the Christian British) for the past thousand years because Hinduism is fundamentally weak. Due to the aforementioned lack of structure, they believe that Hindus have been subjects of the more organized and conversion-focused Abrahamic faiths. Thus, Hindutva seeks to unify Hindus so that they can better defend themselves from foreign religious encroachment, whether that be Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh (and India) or Western Christian missionaries. Ironically, to protect Hinduism from proselytizing Abrahamic faiths, Hindutva seeks to make Hinduism more like those faiths. Hindutva also seeks a unifying language for all Hindus – the Sanskritized Hindi spoken in North India – and oppose the official use of English, which Hindutvavadis associate with “foreign” liberal ideas. Many Hindutvavadis also believe that India’s constitution is too foreign for India because it was written in English and espouses “Western” ideas like secularism.

Of course, the experiences of Hindus under Muslim rule differed significantly by region and time period and is a complex historical issue that deserves a separate blog post. But, in the mind of Hindutvavadis, Muslims have consistently betrayed India by destroying and looting temples, forcibly converting Hindus, implementing discriminatory Jizya taxes, or attempting to implement Sharia law. In their view, the ultimate betrayal was the partition of India (whose very geography is sacred) into a Muslim-majority Pakistan (which at the time included Bangladesh). The forced expulsion of Kashmiri Hindus in the 90s from their homeland by Pakistan-backed Islamist extremists in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley further fueled this fire. Hindutvavadis also point to what they see as “appeasement” for Muslims in India’s Constitution. For example, Muslims in India have a separate personal religious code that permits polygamy for Muslim men. Until recently, triple talaq – the controversial practice whereby Muslim men could divorce their wife by saying the word “talaq” three times – was also permitted. Another example was the autonomy given to the erstwhile Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the Hindutva view, this was yet another example of preferential treatment for Muslims that Hindus do not get. To a lesser extent, Christians often face the ire of Hindutvavadis. In particular, they take issue with foreign missionaries operating in India. Hindutva demands that Muslims and Christians in India abandon the “foreign” elements of their faith and integrate into Hindu culture.

Hindutva is best understood as the political expression of resentment amongst certain Hindus who feel they have been dominated by Muslims and Christians for the past one thousand years. This resentment is mainly prevalent in the Hindi-speaking heartland of the north but not amongst everyone in the region. Although Hindutva is unlikely to fundamentally transform Hinduism (simply because of the latter’s sheer diversity and timelessness), it is still a potent electoral force to reckon with, something American foreign policy experts should take into account.