On Hindutva & Liberalism..
In Lutyen’s Delhi hushed tones speak of a new bugbear in town. Such is the fear that even ardent & otherwise proud Hindus will try & avoid uttering the word – lest they be shunned and ridiculed. The word is ‘Hindutva’.
But fear was not what prompted this post. It was a question triggered by an email from a friend (who shared this fear). He asked, is Hindutva really appropriate in a liberal context? That question pretty much summed up all that is wrong with our understanding of the word. It also explains the fear.
But is Hindutva really anti-liberal? Or does it denote one of the most tolerant faith/belief system, a tradition that can provide moral order and an ethical compass for the planet? How did a word that literally means the essence of ‘Hinduism’ become so mangled?
Can Hindutva really become the basis of a liberal government? Can we reconcile Hindutva with modern-day classical liberal thought? Can Hindutva become the basis of an inclusive non-denominational, national identity?
Turns out it can. But first we need to remove the blinkers. And understand the ‘essence’ of what we call ‘Hinduism’ (which in itself is a misleading, incomplete and lazy description of the great traditions of our civilisation).
What is the essence of these traditions? I believe the essence is ‘freedom’. Freedom of thought, of belief, of practice.  Freedom is what underpins this great belief system. So deeply ingrained is this idea that Swami Vivekananda, famously asserted, “All of Vedanta is the assertion of freedomâ€. Indeed the liberal ethos in India owes its very existence to the long traditions of tolerance of the other in Sanatan Dharma. Pluralism is inherent to Indic traditions; being different is ‘normal’. So how can Hindutva be exclusivist?
Is this strong undercurrent of freedom enough to make ‘Hindutva’ a short-hand for liberal ideology & polity in India? Not quite.
What about the ‘politics’ of Hindutva, you may ask? How can it be relevant in the context of governance? Here, I shall borrow from the grand tradition of Raj-Dharma, the tradition that states quite unambiguously that the state exists to ensure prosperity and security for its citizens; that national interest lies in the well-being of all; that  “kings who perform Raj-Dharma selflessly, following the prescribed code of crime and punishment, and who treat their subjects even-handedly..get the highest position that may be available to a true sanyasin“; that “DandaNiti†requires state power be used to protect the weak against coercion and exploitation by the mighty.
Here are the seminal concepts of rule of law and equality before law – clearly enunciated in texts that date back to several millenia. Only the stubborn will doubt that the philosophy of Hindutva encompassing Raj-Dharma can be an excellent guide in matters of governance and statecraft.
What about the liberal stance on economic matters?
Here, I quote Mario Gómez-Zimmerman writing about “The Capitalist Structures of Hinduismâ€: “(In India, throughout the centuries) the play of particular economic forces was not over regulated and, more significantly, the individual was considered to have rights before the state….The socialist concepts of equality and a classless society are completely rejected by the Varna system…Hinduism never denies the right to property… The attainment of wealth, although embodied with a social function, is considered a praiseworthy personal achievement.”
Gómez-Zimmerman is hardly alone.  Numerous others have commented on this aspect of Hindutva. And how can I ignore the concept of “Artha” – one of the four Purushaarthas in ‘Hinduism’? or the second line in the Chanakya Sutra: “Dharmasya moolam Arthah” meaning the basis of all “Dharma†is “Artha†or wealth (also resources, means).
There is much more of all this – and far more insights – in our ancient wisdom & traditions. It is time we stop feeling embarrassed about our heritage. Time instead, to start feeling proud of the civilisational continuity. Time to start feeling proud of the essence of this tradition. Time to start feeling proud of Hindutva.  Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!
Related Posts: Hindutva & Liberalism (the original post; now Part I); A slide presentation on “The Political Philosophy of Hindutvaâ€
Video of a brief talk on this topic delivered in presence of Sh Koenraad Elst. Also read: Hinduism is 100% anti-Socialist.
Finally, an interesting and relevant excerpt on ‘Nationalism’, courtesy Nitin Pai:
Let’s start with an axiom: all individuals are free, and from this freedom, they possess certain inalienable rights. They possess these rights and freedoms at all times, but in a state of nature, their ability to enjoy the freedom and exercise the rights is circumscribed by their individual power. In Indian philosophy, the state of nature is termed as matsya nyaya, or the law of the fishes, a condition under which the stronger fish eats the weaker fish. “..
To better enjoy their rights and freedoms, individuals trade-off a part of their freedom for the security offered by a state. Hence Kautilya writes
People suffering from anarchy as illustrated by the proverbial tendency of a large fish swallowing a small one (matsyanyayabhibhutah prajah), first elected Manu, the Vaivasvata, to be their king; and allotted one-sixth of the grains grown and one-tenth of merchandise as sovereign dues. Fed by this payment, kings took upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining the safety and security of their subjects (yogakshemavah), and of being answerable for the sins of their subjects when the principle of levying just punishments and taxes has been violated.[Arthashastra I:13]
…The upshot is that the state is necessary for the practical enjoyment of individual rights and freedoms. The survival and security of the state—often termed “the national interestâ€â€”is directly connected to the ability of citizens to enjoy their freedom. Put in another way, the “national interest†is the well-being and development of all its citizens.
No matter how hard you shout from rooftops about what the real meaning of Hinduttva is, you are unlikely to get many people to see things your way. You cannot start with the wrong word and arrive at the right conclusion.
Try it the other way round and you might succeed. The recent elections provide an example. Dozens of channels tried to tell people about secularism. That didn’t get them anywhere. The word meant nothing. People knew that or figured that out eventually.
One person talked about development. And he refused to talk about anything else. That got him somewhere.
Try and begin with the word freedom instead. On this blog, you have demonstrated that you mean to keep it free (although you don’t let me delete all my posts, I must add). Where do you get the strength and patience to deal with adverse comments and reactions? Well, there may be some discovery there..
(And by the way, I would like to congratulate you on your stint with the AAP party. If nothing else, your – and I am sure there must have been many others -disillusion with AAP demonstrated the hollowness of the AAP core and hastened the discovery of the true nature of AAP. Well done!)
Finally, consider this. (I believe) politics begins when you are considering WHAT to discuss. It almost ends once you have chosen the topic. Let me ask you.. Why at all discuss Hinduttva today? Try and discuss who should be the next leader of the congress party. That might be the most important issue for the country.
Dear Shantanu,
I appreciate that you are making serious non-trivial efforts to establish the compatibility of Hindutva and classical liberalism.
I would just like to point out one thing. It is what Gaurav (@doubtinggaurav) wrote in his rules for internet hindus as “Don’t have first principles, have guiding principles”. Here a “first principle” refers to accepting something dogmatically, to the exclusion of considering any competing idea. Even if an idea is great, at best be guided by it, and keep one’s eyes open for a conflicting idea.
I would like to see that applied to the context of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism has served many different groups of people at different points of time. Trampling on classical liberal values mindlessly has lead to much damage or delay in progress. However, this doesn’t yet prove conclusively that in every single situation classical liberalism works best. Arguably, some of the poverty reduction in China has been helped by going against classical liberalism.
I am not saying “abandon it with glee”, or even “don’t follow classical liberalism”. Do follow it if that is your calling, but keep it only as a guiding principle, not a first principle.
@froginthewell: Good point re. “first principles” (& being dogmatic!). I may substitute the term in a subsequent iteration of the slides..Thanks for pointing out.