Hindutva Fascism and the Future of Indian Politics | Kobad Ghandy

(Paper Presented at a Conference in Trichy (Tamilnadu) on January 7th 2024)

In much of India, Hindutva has got into the bloodstream of not only the middle classes but even of the lower classes/castes including sections of Dalits. Let alone left thought even the democratic thoughts of Ambedkar seem to be on the back burner. Whichever party is in power, even at the state level, they seem more involved in appeasing the Hindutva sentiment with soft Hindutva than countering it with democratic thoughts and ideas, of which India has a long history of over 3000 years – from the Charvakas (7th Century B.C., to the rationalist thoughts of the Buddha; to the non-brahmin Bhakti tradition, to the thoughts of modern day thinkers and social activists Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar.

Hindutva is merely the extreme political face of our Brahminical/traditional life styles, that pervades most facets of our cultural existence and family lives. Not breaking with customs and traditions in our homes becomes the breeding ground for Hindutva fascism in our political orientation. Whether it is keeping a small murti in the corner of our homes (to appease the demons), or conducting some ceremonies in the name of not hurting our parents’ sentiments, or social interactions more confined to one’s own caste, or maintaining our past food habits (not eating beef, vegetarianism, etc), or letting our wives do the traditional roles, or adopting certain traditional dress codes, or even accepting certain concepts like Vaastu Shastra (and going so far as seeking to give it a scientific understanding); etc etc are all drops that fill the pot of Brahminism culturally and often (not always) take on a Hindutva fascist form politically. Even the proliferation of new age gurus add to the Hindutva culture under varied scientific guises. In such a scenario it is no wonder that the BJP with its money power is able to get the upper hand in elections.

Hindutva is nothing but the extreme form of Brahminism; while Hindutva fascism is the explosive cocktail of Brahminism + big corporate power (both Indian and foreign). The recent Rs.3,500 crore jumla at Ayodhya (with infrastructural costs said to go up to Rs.57,000 crores) was its best example – where Brahminism, politics and big corporate power (was crudely on display. Though the shankaracharyas were sidelined, neo Brahminism was in full display with Mahant Nrityagopal Das Ji Maharaj as the Chairman and VHP vice-president, Champat Rai as the General Secretary of the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust. Billionaires, tech titans and business leaders joined in celebrating the inauguration of the Ram temple at Ayodhya as corporate India gave leave to staff and organised special prayers to mark the Ram Mandir consecration. India Inc’s power brigade, including Mukesh Ambani, Gautam Adani, Sunil Bharti Mittal, Kumar Mangalam Birla, and other prominent business leaders, attended the Ram Temple consecration ceremony in Ayodhya. Notable attendees also included Nishant Pitti, CEO and co-founder of EaseMyTrip, and Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu. Those funding also included Anil Agarwal (Vedaanta), Gautam Singhania and even the non-Hindu, Tata, who too was a major player donating Rs.100 crores.

The event was marked by the declaration of a public holiday by the central government and Reliance. Anti Muslim riots broke out in some parts of the country. With the consecration of the Ram Mandir, religious tourism in the small ancient town of Ayodhya is set to surpass Mecca and Vatican City in footfalls, according to Jefferies [1] The grand opening of the temple comes with a large economic impact as India gets a new hotspot that could attract 50 million tourists a year, the research firm said in a Jan. 21 note. That’s higher than a combined 30 million that Vatican and Mecca see in a year. A $10-billion makeover comprising a new airport, revamped railway station, township, and improved road connectivity will likely drive a multiplier effect with new hotels and other economic activities, Jefferies said.

Though Hindutva Fascism is vehemently anti-democratic, it opportunistically utilises the electoral process to gain power. The opposition, including the ‘left’ are unable to rally the masses with an attractive alternative and mostly confine themselves to a negative agenda of attacking Hindutva. But without a concrete alternative that captures the imagination of the people, and based on reality, this becomes meaningless. What this slogan could be we shall come to later, for the present let it be said that soft Hindutva is no real alternative; it is merely a policy of appeasement of Hindutva fascism. Those entrapped by the Hindutva slogan, if given a choice, would obviously seek the harder form than the soft, wishy-washy one.

As a result, the parliamentary left (as with all other opposition parties) has become increasingly irrelevant. Hindutva fascism plays on the nationalist sentiments to rally the masses. Being Hindutva is indirectly portrayed as standing up for India with Islam as the (anti-national) enemy. Without any real clear-cut alternative, for example the CPM, in Bengal, allies with the BJP to counter the Trinamul and prevents its own leader from Tripura (ex CM) from coming to Bengal to give his anti-BJP/RSS experience. Yet, a CPM leader, says: the most important outcome of "taking them (ie. BJP) on" would be to substantially reduce their electoral presence. This job is being done by the INC and the left in the INDIA alliance. That they are doing exactly its opposite in West Bengal is because parliamentary politics gets precedence over principled politics. By targeting the TMC they defacto assist the BJP by splitting the anti-BJP votes. But this is nothing new as historically the social democrats have played a major role in binging the fascists to power, as in Germany, brought out by R.P.Dutt. [2]

Unlike the parliamentary opposition, it is the ML forces that have been most consistent in trying to rally the masses against Hindutva fascism, unfortunately their reach is small. First, there were the huge conventions in Hyderabad and Delhi, and more recently we have seen two major events against Hindutva fascism – one in Bangalore/Raichur and another the Kolkata -Banaras rally. More particularly were the rallies throughout Bengal by a conglomeration of nearly 200 organisations holding street corner meetings which culminated in a massive public meeting on January 22nd with about 60,000 in attendance. Here too the CPM was conspicuous by its absence.
Ofcourse, it is Tamilnadu which has the strongest anti-Brahminical tradition due to the impact of Periyar, and this paper was itself presented at a massive public meeting in Trichy by the organisation ‘Peoples’ Power’ (Makkala Adhikaram). In this state it is not only the left forces but also the ruling DMK that takes a strong anti-Hindutva stand.

Unfortunately, in the rest of the country we see little concrete opposition, and the Congress has failed to place any concrete alternate agenda though they had an ideal opportunity in Rahul Gandhi’s South-North and now East -West yatras. In his present east-west yatra they have the meaningless slogan ’Nyay ka haq milne tak’. Infact it was Rajiv Gandhi and the then Congress big-wig Arun Nehru, that initiated the Hindutva agenda by opening the locks of the Babri Masjid. Actually, this false nationalist hysteria was a necessary component of the agenda to push the neo-liberal economic policies initiated in the early 1990s which witnessed a quantum leap in policies of sellout to foreign capital. Aware of what the forthcoming neo-liberal policies would result in for the people, they sought to divert their anger through communal strife.

While Brahminism seems to be more entrenched than ever before in the minds of the people, and our centuries-long anti-brahmin traditions seems buried for the present, it is bound to rise from the ashes, particularly amongst the OBCs, tribals and Dalits as they have nothing to gain from Brahminism, but, infact are its victims.

But more important than fighting Hindutva on its own grounds, is necessary to put forward another slogan more closely aligned to the lives of the people. Once this alternative captures the imagination of the people Hindutva would automatically fade out of peoples’ consciousness. But what then could be this slogan to rally the masses?

TRUE PATRIOTISM VS FAKE NATIONALISM

If we look back at history, we find that the freedom struggle captured the imagination of the entire masses. Thousands willingly scarified all for its cause. But though we have achieved political freedom, in all other senses we have been betrayed by our leaders past and present.

In fact, the drain of our wealth to foreign shores which was 8% of GDP in the colonial period went up to 12% by 2000 and today it is over 17% [3]. While in the colonial period the loot was direst, today it is indirect and not so easily visible. But then the vast amounts of FDI, FII, PEs, VCs, etc do not enter our country for charitable purposes, but to extract super-profits not available to them in their home countries. Today there is hardly a single ‘Indian’ company that is not in the stranglehold of this foreign capital, so also are our stock exchanges, financial assets, etc; together with all these forms of extraction, large amounts reach tax havens through hawala/black money and also leave the country through the flight of intellectual capital — it is all this that results in the massive drain from our country. It is because of this enormous drain – whether abroad or to a handful of HNWIs - that India, even after 75 years of independence continues to wallow in the cesspool of backwardness and underdevelopment.

A call to stop this drain & control the black money, in order to build our country and people could be the most effective alternative slogan. This concrete alternative could be a slogan against the sellout of our country to the imperialists and their representatives in India, thereby arousing the patriotic sentiments of the masses which is being diverted by the Hindutva slogan.

Such a call can in fact be seen as a completion of the agenda of the earlier freedom struggle. ‘Stop the drain’, kick out foreign companies/capital’, seize the ill-gotten wealth of the collaborators, boycott certain goods as symbols of the imperialist loot; etc etc. could be conjectured. In fact today at the international plane people across countries have successfully called for the boycott of Starbucks, founded by a jew with strong Zionist connections. Besides being accused for tax avoidance in Europe, anti-competitive practices in the US, human rights abuses in many countries, and labour issues involving union-busting – Starbucks has been accused for its links to the Israeli military. As a result, Starbucks has lost a massive $ 12 billion in its share valuation on the stock market. Ironically its present CEO is a brahmin from Pune, Laxman Narasimhan – one of the 30 Indian origin CEOs of top MNCs who would rather sell their soul, than work for our country. A Brahminical tradition that saw our country handed over to foreign conquerors again and again. Starbucks operates in India in collaboration with the Tatas (another major collaborator), selling Rs.3 crore per year (just under Rs 1 lakh per day) and making huge profits.

While the swadeshi call may not be so easily implementable as in the colonial period, unless the masses are aroused to oppose and stop this drain t(abroad and to HNWIs) there can be no realistic development of our country. Afterall, which country can develop with nearly one-fifth of its wealth being sucked abroad year after year and 62% of GDP funnelled off by NHWIs into private coffers.

The key to the development of this country is first to stop this outflow of wealth and invest it in the development of MSMEs and agriculture. Afterall, 66 lakh crore rupees fleeing the country each year is no small amount, that too for a country that has been destroyed by over two centuries of colonial rule. And if to this is added the 62% of the black economy (a massive 200 lakh crore rupees a year), the bulk of which goes to fill private coffers – it is the death knell for India’s development model. If even half of this is curbed one can get vast funds to pump into our MSMEs and agriculture. But our leaders wear their patriotism on their sleeves while enriching themselves at the cost of the country.

Hence the essence of Hindutva fascism is the cocktail of Brahminism and continuing neo-colonial loot. Brahminism serves to create the fertile ground for anti-democratic and reactionary consciousness on the back of which the big corporates can continue looting our country and its people. This poisonous mix was best seen at the recent Ayodhya event as already mentioned. Now let us investigate these two in greater detail.

BRAHMINISM

The Brahminical ideology is so deep-rooted that it even pervades western thought which is often superficial while Brahminism is deeply embedded in our sub-consciousness. Though its impact will be far greater in the upper castes, religiosity tends to take it to all castes (even those treated as untouchables by them), particularly amongst those who have not witnessed any democratic awakening (like Ambedkarism or Periyar). It comes with the more acceptable label as being ‘Indian’ and ‘patriotic’, compared to something foreign. It takes on varied cultural manifestations, even in our food habits and dress code. It gives the appearance of purity vis-à-vis supposed vulgar western culture. The trouble is most youth are faced with two alternatives – western culture or traditional/Brahmanical values.

Democratic culture is nowhere on anyone’s agenda. And as our polity is primarily caste-based, Brahminical identity tends to get further consolidated.
If we look at it historically Brahminism has its roots in the Vedic period over 3,500 years ago. The Brahminic process was then linked to the formation of the State and was deeply involved in ritualism and elitism. The priests were hereditary and others were confined to an inferior status, as beings from the lower castes. And inspite of numerous revolts against it, it continuously adapted its form absorbing the varied opposition discourses and tends to dominate till this very day.

In the old days those who could not adjust to life under the Brahminic system renounced the world. They were called Shramanas. In ancient India the number of people dissatisfied with the prevailing religious systems increased considerably, giving birth to a significant religious movement, the Shramanism. The Shramana movement was a Non-Vedic movement parallel to Vedic Hinduism in ancient India. The Shramana tradition gave rise to the Charvakas, Jainism, Buddhism, Ajivikas, Ajananas, etc, and was responsible for the related concepts of saṃsāra (the cycle of birth and death) and moksha (liberation from that cycle). These religious movements rose with the rise of the state and agriculture around 6th century BCE.

The śramaṇa religions became popular in many circles whose centre was in the Magadha region in modern Bihar. On the other hand, the Aryans main centre was between the Jamuna and Ganga – like Kaushal, Kashi etc. This was the heart of promotion of Brahminism and their Vedas called Bihar and the east papbhumi.

The 6th–5th centuries BCE are often regarded as a major turning point in early Indian history. During this period, India’s first large cities since the demise of the Indus Valley civilization arose. These 16 Mahajanapadas with their own culture, language and rule (republic oligarchies) was linked to the rise of urban centers, agriculture, and the use of iron technology in ancient India. The Mahajanapadas were primarily located in the northern and eastern parts of India and were a group of 16 powerful and wealthy ancient kingdoms in ancient India. Many prominent ancient Buddhist texts make frequent references to the ‘16 great kingdoms’ (mahajanapadas) that flourished between the sixth and the fourth centuries BCE. Some of the famous Mahajanapadas included Magadha, Kosala, Vajji, Avanti, and Kuru....
The Magadh kingdom was followed by the Mauryan (324 to 187 BC) and Gupta periods. During the reign of Chandragupta Maurya, Kautilya (Chanakya) introduced all the concepts of state craft and caste oppression which saw a resurgence of Brahminism. According to Kautilya, the ruler should use any means to attain his goal and his actions required no moral sanction. The last of the Mauryan kings Ashoka (304 – 232 BCE) converted to Buddhism after the brutal Kalinga war. Ashoka was the third Mauryan Emperor of Magadha in the Indian subcontinent during c. 268 to 232 BCE. His empire covered a large part of the Indian subcontinent, stretching from present-day Afghanistan in the west to present-day Bangladesh in the east, with its capital at Pataliputra.

After Ashoka’s tryst with Dhamma and Buddhism, the Sungas are known for having reverted to Brahmanical orthodoxy .Buddhist sources claim that Pushyamitra Sunga persecuted the Buddhists. The Divyavadana gives stories of Pushyamitra’s cruelty and his animosity towards Buddhism. It is reported that the buddhist monks were murdered in their thousands by the orthodox brahmins of those days. Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras and Mahabhasya were composed in this period. Since then, most of the major kingdoms like the Satavahanas, aggressively promoted Brahminism.

To counter this progressive buddhist tradition we find two major works pushed by the orthodox brahmins around the turn on the millennium – first was the Bhagwad Gita said to be around the 1st century BC and the Manusmriti between the 1st and 3rd century AD. The Bhagavad Gita presents a synthesis of various Hindu ideas about dharma, theistic bhakti and the yogic idea of moksha. The Bhagvad Gita says all our actions are controlled by the universal Brahman through our soul. We are not responsible for our actions. So, according to this logic murder, lying, cheating, …. everything is legitimate.

The Manusmriti codified the caste duties and set the extreme patriarchal attitudes, the roots of which lay in the earlier Hindu texts – Vedas, Upanishads and Gita.

The Gupta period from early 4th century CE to the 6th century CE. saw not only significant contributions to art, culture, science, mathematics and governance, but also Hindu revivalism. The empire rose from the ashes of the Indo-Greek kingdoms in the Magadh region of Bihar. The Gupta Empire stretched across northern, central and parts of southern India between 320 and 550 CE. The status of women declined as compared to the liberal (Buddhist) era of earlier times when extreme forms of Brahminism got a major boost. Satipratha (widow immolation) was common, and widow remarriage was not allowed in higher castes. Besides the performance of Vedic sacrifices, the worship of gods Brahma, Vishnu and Siva became popular. The two epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata was widely promoted during this period as well. Often portrayed as the golden age of Hinduism, the Gupta period saw the consolidation and extension of Brahminism which had been struggling with Buddhism.

From the 7th century onwards the Nayanars and Alvars contributed to the growth of Saivism and Vaishnavism in South India. This is known as the Bhakti movement. The anti-brahminical Bhakti tradition began to dominate the religious life of the South Indians. To counter the Bhakti tradition Brahminism promoted Sankaracharya (788 to 820 CE) by advocating Advaita philosophy. He advocated the oldest concept of Hinduism which explains the unification of the soul (atman) with the Supreme Soul (Nirguna Brahman).
Whoever may have been the rulers, the brahmins or upper castes seemed to have dominated the officials who defacto held control. Even the Muslim rulers adjusted to the Brahminical system as most of their officials were brahmins or higher castes. Though the existence of Islamic rulers facilitated the rise of the Bhakti movement, they too were instrumental in suppressing many of the reform movements against brahminism. And so it was with the British rulers as well who played a major role in taking forward the Hindutva agenda:

COLONIAL PROJECT

After Battle of Plassey in 1757 the East India Company seized power in Bengal. Soon after, in 1776, William Jones translated the Manusmriti and In the 1780s Warren Hastings got the Bhagwad Gita translated into English. The British called The Bhagwad Gita the main book of the Hindus.

Then the British Govt called 10 brahmins to evolve a law to standardise Hinduism. The first central law – the Zantoo Code – came into being. This defines who is a Hindu and it accepted all castes as Hindu. It was presented by the 10 pundits and accepted by the British.

Next the British Orientalists (historians) gave a glorious past to Hindu rule but showed Muslim rule as the dark ages. The model set by the British historians and now accepted by most are: Hindu Age; Muslim Age and British Age.

As most nationalists were upper caste Hindus the British introduced their divide and rule policy. They took the first caste census ever in 1871 to use existing caste divisions to their advantage. This showed the upper castes were a minority and the horrific conditions of the Dalits. As the Hindus did not admit Dalits into their fold, the British instigated Dalits against the higher castes. This made the upper castes nervous. Most top bureaucrats were upper castes right from Mughal times as were the early freedom fighters.
After the caste census, Dayanand Saraswati (1824 to `83) started the Arya Samaj movement (from June 1877). He stated: “we are all Hindus and have a glorious past. Bring in the Dalits through shuddhikaran (and some reforms) and Go rakshak.” His supposed Hindu reform movement advocated a return to the temporal and spiritual authority of the Vedas. Although some of Dayananda’s claims to the unassailable authority of the Vedas seem extravagant (for example, modern technological achievements such as the use of electricity he claimed to have found described in the Vedas), he furthered many important social reforms. He opposed child marriage, advocated the remarriage of widows, opened Vedic study to members of all castes, and founded many educational and charitable institutions. Defacto, he sought the brahminisation of entire society spreading its tentacles from the confines of Brahmins to the lower castes.

In reaction to this brahminisation offensive the Justice Party was formed in Nov 1916. The formation of the Justice Party marked the culmination of several efforts to establish an organization to represent non-Brahmins in Madras and is regarded as the beginning of the Dravidian Movement. Periyar converted the Justice Party into the social organization Dravidar Kazhagam and withdrew it from electoral politics in 1944. Periyar was one of the few effective anti-brahmin leaders, earlier most of the Bhakti saints were killed by the orthodox.

One of Periyar’s quotes on caste was, "a sizable population today remains as Untouchables, and another sizable population exists in the name of Sudras and as serfs, coolies and menials. Who wants an independence that cannot help change these things? Who wants religion, scriptures and gods, which cannot bring about a change in this sphere.” Gandhi advocated for the caste system and its preservation. On the question of Untouchables being prevented from drawing water from wells and entering temples, Gandhi suggested having separate wells and temples made for them instead. Periyar argued against this by demanding the Vedas of the Indo-Aryans to be burnt and their deities to be destroyed since it was their creation of the castes and Untouchables. He added that “Graded inequality has got so much into the Hindu blood that general intelligence is warped and refused to mend even after English education and higher standards of living".

Whatever the stand of the Arya Samaj and the Justice Party was on social issues, both were pro-British. In 1909 the Morley – Minto Accord was brought in, for separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims. This acted to consolidate a Hindu identity even further, and its brahmanisation. In 1916 the Hindu Mahasabha was formed within the Congress by Lala Lajpat Rai, Madan Mohan Malviya etc….. demanded a separate identity for Hindus within the Congress. The Congress thereby covertly also played the Hindutva card.

The Hindu Mahasabha opposed the movement for Hindu-Muslim unity, resulting in widespread Hindu Muslim riots. In this atmosphere the RSS was formed using Dayananad Saraswati’s agenda of shuddhikaran to unite all Hindus (Hindu pride), Go rakshak and harking back to supposed Hindu glorious rule. For this they had the tacit support of the British as the RSS diverted from the Congress’s anti-British agenda.

Hindutva and Brahminism have been the ideal vehicles to carry forward British and corporate loot of our country and people – as it promotes regressive and anti-democratic thinking. Hindutva fascism is nothing but its extreme form which gives no space for any alternative to arise, strangulating the democratic thoughts that arose earlier through the Lokayatas, Bhakti saints and those of Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar.

DEMOCRATISATION OF INDIAN POLITY

The future of Indian polity can only be democratised by acting simultaneously on the economic base as also the superstructure. Both are interlinked to countering the Hindutva fascist agenda.

The economy can be democratised by confiscating the wealth of the big corporates and foreigners and using those funds for promoting agriculture and MSMEs on whom the bulk of our people depend for their livelihood. Foreign loot can be opposed by calling for a boycott of certain goods to rally the masses. Black money can be countered by calling for a boycott of certain individuals – as symbols of that corruption.

In the sphere of ideology/thught, Hindutva and Brahmnism has to be replaced by the more democratic thoughts of the Lokayatas, Bhakti saints and the social reformers of recent times. Their thoughts need to be promoted through songs, articles, films, and all forms of the audio-visual media.

In the political sphere a broad united front has to be built against Hindutva fascism using all the contradictions thrown up by any dictatorial power. A great deal of flexibility will be called for while aligning with different forces, but without capitulating to wheeler-dealers or fake elements who seek to deflect from this struggle. Such a front should help not only take on Hindutva fascism but also help push all other parties and forces closer to this agenda of democratisation of our society.

Any democratisation (i.e. anti-fascism) of Indian polity and economics must necessarily go with democratising our thought process by eradicating bramhinism from its roots in every possible way - not merely replacing Hindutva fascism with some kind of soft Hindutva. Democratisation of the cultural sphere cannot take place through a compromise with Brahminism and its varied manifestations (patriarchy, casteism, intellectual elitism, etc) in our lives

Brahminism needs to be first and foremost countered in our family life where feudal authority and patriarchal relations dominate most families even of the left. This is manifested in parental/male domination and wives/partners playing the traditional roles in many spheres at home/family even while being activists outside. Here the importance of manual labour is a key to counter Brahminical/Hindutva values that look down on labour and idealise the intellectual.

Democratic relationship means treating all others on equal terms no matter how backward or poor or whatever their sex may be. Brahminical thinking results in us looking up to people (crudely those from the upper caste) but more subtlely to those with knowledge/ability/sophistication, while looking down at those not so competent or capable or poor. Here too no real rectification in this thinking is possible in isolation from manual/physical labour. This in no way denies negating talent and appreciating its role in organisational planning, only it is the question of negating superiority and hierarchy.

Now if we move from the family to the organisation the same is manifested in the role of the ‘leader’. The Brahminical approach here tends to put the ‘leader’ on a pedestal; who is above criticism and whose every word is supposed to be the gospel truth. This approach is widely prevalent in most left organisations where the leaders themselves expect blind faith. Such an approach has been one of the main reasons for the lack of growth in the left movement, as, obviously such ‘leaders’ have been ineffective in building the movement and yet continue to assume those roles. Such an approach is nothing but a form of brahminism, where upper caste elitism is replaced by intellectual elitism.

Finaly, to repeat, fighting Hindutva fascism is inconceivable without countering its cultural roots in brahminism in our houses and families. Democratisation of society cannot be piecemeal; it has to take place not only in the socio-cultural realms but also at the political realm, and of course in the very economic base itself. At the political realm it entails building the broadest possible anti-fascist front and replacing the Hindutva slogan with a patriotic call against imperialism and their collaborators in the country.

January 24 2024