Defining Hinduism
Defining Hinduism, the Sanatana Dharma, in modern times has been fraught with challenges. They arise from the fact that the Indic notion of “religion” is different from the Western-Abrahamic one.
Hinduism does not fit the typical “religion” parameters as understood by most of the modern world. For example, Hindu Dharma is non-dogmatic. According to S. N. Balagangadhara (Balu), one of the problems of defining Hinduism is that there is no Indic notion of “religion.” When “outsiders” came into contact with India, they tried to make sense of Indic religions, including Hinduism, from their lenses. From Albiruni to Wendy Doniger, they have attempted to define Hinduism from their religious and ideological prisms and prejudices.
Indians have done their fair part as well. From Swami Vivekananda to Sri Aurobindo and from M. K. Gandhi to V. D. Savarkar, they have contributed to our understanding of Hinduism. We Hindus understand the internal contradictions of Hinduism. This appreciation comes from the quintessential Indic belief that there are many truths but only one Reality. The Rig Veda, one of the most ancient texts of the Hindus, proclaims:
ekaM sad vipra bahudha vadanti (Truth is one, wise speak of it differently.)
However, explaining these contradictions to predisposed minds is not easy. On the other hand, some attempts to define Hinduism have exposed it to external threats from predatory proselytizers. For example, saying “Hinduism is a way of life, not a religion” puts Hinduism firmly into the hands of fanatic evangelists who claim Hinduism is a “false religion.”
Hinduism, most scholars accept, has a recorded history of over 5,000 years. Hinduism reveals its inherent pluralism with its epistemology & ontology, argumentations & disputations, and indigenous knowledge system. Hinduism has evolved and remained relevant to over a billion strong people in their everyday life and beyond through its continuity and reformation.
Hindutva
V. D. Savarkar’s book Hindutva: Who is Hindu? (1923) must be seen in this background. Savarkar was defining Hinduism and its followers in a spatiotemporal context. Within the Indic framework, his book will be considered a smriti, a work of non-divine origin. According to Arvind Sharma (Hindu, Hindustan, Hinduism, and Hindutva; Numen, Vol 49), Savarkar defines a Hindu as “one who (1) regards the entire subcontinent as his (or her) mother/fatherland…; (2) is descendant of Hindu parents… and (3) considers this land holy.” Derived from this notion of a Hindu, her Hinduness– Hindutva– is then presented in terms of “a common nation (Rashtra), a common race (Jati) and a common civilization (Sanskriti).”
What is essential and somewhat paradoxical to note in this context is that “religion does not figure” (Sharma) in Savarkar’s definition of a Hindu. Savarkar’s Hindu identity is in terms of pitra bhoomi and punya bhoomi. Savarkar was a “rationalist atheist who wanted his body cremated after his death without any religious ceremonies” (Rudolf C. Heredia, Gandhi’s Hinduism and Savarkar’s Hindutva, Economic and Political Weekly, Jul 18-24, 2009). Savarkar makes a clear distinction between “Indian religions” and “religions practiced in India.” The former, according to Sharma, is the representation of “Hindu nationality” while the latter of “Indian nationality.”
Most Western and some Indian scholars have misunderstood Hindutva. They consider it static and monolithic. The reality, however, is that “its context, text, and subtext have changed over time, depending on the period involved… and the person expounding it” (Sharma). One of the reasons for this misunderstanding is that most Western and Indian scholars haven’t studied Hindutva with the attention and nuance it deserves. Other being the fact that most scholars are ideologically predisposed.
At one time, Hindutva was focused on opposing the Partition of India. Hindutva entered the realm of political power after Independence when Bharatiya Jana Sangh (Jana Sangh), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) predecessor, was founded as a political party in 1951 by Syama Prasad Mukherjee. According to Sharma, Hindutva “took the form of identifying India with Hindutva, rather than Hindutva with India” during Jana Sangh time. It is important to note, as Sharma points out, that the “Indian government, both in the language of the Indian Constitution adopted in 1950, and subsequent legislation has virtually adopted the Hindutva definition of a Hindu– as one who belongs to any religion of Indian origin.”
The focus of Hindutva, post-Independence, has primarily been Indian culture and the Indian nation. The Hindutva Hindu culture is the representation of the Indic tradition. Politically, the Hindutva notion is about “Hindu Rashtra,” not the “Hindu Raj.” Girilal Jain (The Hindu Phenomenon, 1996) explains the difference between “Rashtra” and “Raj” in terms of “nationalism” vs. “statism.” However, these subtleties aren’t always easy to explain, especially to ignorant or lazy scholars-commentators.
An attack tool
Notwithstanding the History, evolution, and its current formulation, Hindutva has become a tool in attacking Hindus who assert their cultural, religious, and political identity. These days, it is impossible to talk about Hinduism in favorable terms without being accused of being a Hindutva-vadi. In such a discourse, Hindutva is misused as a euphemism for Hindu supremacy, Fascism/Nazism, right-wing, Hindu nationalism, etc.
“As soon as one speaks up for Hinduism,” according to scholar-activist Sankrat Sanu, “one would be dubbed “Hindutva” and demonized in the “secular” discourse.” For Sanu, Hiduvta is “Hinduism that resists.” According to Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee (Cry Hindutva: How Rhetoric Trumps Intellect in South Asian Studies), crying Hindutva in academic circles is an effort to “discipline non-conforming [Hindu] scholars.”
The Hindutva accusation is arbitrary. No one has developed a system to judge a scholar’s work on the parameters of Hindutva. “To use Hindutva as a smokescreen,” write Adluri and Bagchee, “is to instrumentalize real pain and suffering.”
Regardless of one’s view of Hindutva, such namecalling trivializes genuine debate and argument, both in academic circles or elsewhere.