A voter from Rajasthan recently said “laabh toh bahut mila hain Congress Sarkar se, lekin Hindu ki tarah hi vote karunga (I have benefited a lot from Congress government’s schemes, but I’ll vote like a Hindu”). A superfluous reading of this statement is that the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) have successfully captured India’s “Hindu vote”. Before that proposition is objectively dissected, we must concede that the RSS-BJP have shifted the nation’s political centre so comprehensively that many feel compelled to operate on their terms (or in juxtaposition to them). That is why many privately practising Hindus are now performative in their religiosity, make metaphysical distinctions between Hinduism and Hindutva and are reduced to props to the RSS-BJP’s politicisation of religion (as in the Ram Mandir’s inauguration).
But that citizen’s innocuous statement did raise four fundamental questions that progressive forces are skirting around. First, does India’s silent majority see itself as primarily Hindu (obfuscating all other socio-economic and political identities)? Second, does this identification determine political alignments? Third, do Hindus see their socio-political, economic and religious interests as contradictory to all other religious communities? And, finally, how can progressive parties win the “Hindu vote” (if it exists) without resorting to performative religiosity?
India’s national pulse
Only a scientific survey can demonstrate whether Indians think and vote exclusively as Hindus. But going by the Lokniti surveys, it is a combination of other factors (including a plethora of developmental issues, the absence of countervailing mass organisations, an anti-establishment angst and the lack of an inspiring alternative vision) which is determining voting patterns. However, it is undeniable that Hinduism genuinely influences the daily interactions and normative worldview of many Indians. However, the moral compass of the silent majority still overwhelmingly leans towards India’s Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb and vasudhaiva kutumbakam. Mahatma Gandhi’s distinction between communalism (the othering of communities for politico-ideological ends) and religion as a way of life is a helpful yardstick to understand this further. Gandhi consciously positioned himself within India’s socio-cultural mainstream. Drawing on that mainstream’s norms, he ensured that the Congress movement scrupulously followed sarva dharma samabhava (equal respect for all religions), ahimsa (non-violence), aparagriha (non-possessiveness), asaucha (control of diet including abstinence from alcohol) and satya (truth). Consequently, the Congress exemplified morality, public service and tapasya (self-control and sacrifice) in popular consciousness. This societal embedding allowed for mass association. Thus, Indians from any caste, creed, gender, ideology and region could be in the Congress provided they scrupulously adhered to maitreyi fraternity) and identified with the nation. This balance between ideological sharpness and suppleness made the Congress Party hegemonic.
But if the Congress was solidly aligned with India’s national pulse, why is BJP a beneficiary of the “Hindu-vote” today? This is partly because of the political stasis post Babri Masjid. While stridently defending secularism, progressive parties abdicated the responsibility of programmatically countering communalism to civil society. Unfortunately, civil society does not have a uniform pan-India presence, the financial wherewithal or the State’s instruments to pose a comprehensive ideological counter. Meanwhile, the RSS-BJP silently indoctrinated society by appropriating Dalit-Other Backward Classes-Adivasi icons, and through religio-cultural programmes, educational institutions and popular culture. Essentially, the Sangh Parivar tactically aligned itself with the mainstream to inject its ideology onto and into society. It is no coincidence that the Sangh exclusively leverages (even weaponises) Vaishnavite norms or iconography (as opposed to Shaivite norms which make insurmountable demands including sanyas or renunciation). The BJP undoubtedly complements this by stacking the electoral field, employing vast resources and deploying the state machinery. But it is the socially integrated Sangh that it leans on the most.
Recapturing the mainstream
To reclaim the hearts and minds of our people, we progressives must interrogate our class and moral privileges. We must continue proffering economic/developmental/welfare, linguistic and federal prescriptions. They will work, especially if we make concerted efforts to emphasise the commonality of interests between all communities. But that can only happen if we also re-capture the national pulse (without resorting to the symbolic or performative). This is the ultimate project of national integration. Because society structurally resists change, enlightened leadership has to patiently inspire it to transform. But for an effective re-calibration, that leadership must first be socially accepted as moral arbitrators. This is crucial because while the State has struggled to actualise India’s constitutional social revolution for the past 70 years, the only way it will succeed is if that revolution is seeded from below. As Dr. Ambedkar said “social conscience is the only safeguard of all rights, fundamental or non-fundamental”.
Therefore, progressive parties must reintegrate themselves at the most granular level, creatively leveraging the mainstream’s norms. For example, the Congress Party still has a presence in nearly every village across India. It can thus revitalise its village and mandal units which were originally rooted in socio-cultural life (unlike booth and block units, which are essentially electoral and patronage units). These institutionalised socio-ideological systems can work with sub-caste Dalits, Other Backward Classes and Adivasis; with popular culture; with local religious/spiritual organisations; and organise community activities.
Progressives also have the rare opportunity to mould the “Hindu vote” at the macro level. Ironically, it is the BJP which has provided this opening. In reducing Hinduism to an object of electoral and commercial utility, the BJP has alienated key religious stakeholders (including all four Shankaracharyas, akharas, mutts, ashrams and religious trusts) who are legitimately disillusioned by the disregard for Hinduism’s sanctities. Additionally, some feel threatened by the BJP’s efforts to appropriate their temporal, functional and financial powers, which they fear is a subversive endeavour to restructure Hinduism irrevocably. Further, the BJP is estranging India’s silent majority which sees through its divisive instrumentalities. It is to circumvent this disenchantment that the BJP is frantically manufacturing fresh controversies in Mathura-Kashi, and raking up Akhand Bharat.
Progressives should ideally leverage this crisis to re-engage religious/spiritual trusts and induce them to implement structural reforms within Hinduism by shedding atavistic dogmas (and thus permanently eschew casteism, patriarchy, communalism and illiberality). This becomes especially imperative because the Supreme Court of India’s verdict on the Babri Masjid has clearly not halted the weaponisation of religion or attacks on other religions. Frontally tackling the Sangh’s cultural nationalism could also prove to be a golden opportunity for cultivating a constitutional consciousness. After all, Mahatma Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar (before he converted), Mahatma Gandhi and Rammohan Roy also engaged, challenged and changed Hinduism. In furthering the national interest, shouldn’t we?
Foster a sense of Indianness
Even though there is no silver bullet to counter the potent mixture of Hindutva (politicised Hinduism) and Rashtrawaad (nationalism) today, progressives can reclaim popular support by fostering a sense of Indianness. We need to reassert what it means to be Indian, and demonstrate common bonds of kinship. This cannot happen through a pan-Indian hawa (narrative), which is resource intensive and puts the onus of psychological association on the disinterested. Therefore, progressives must embed themselves in the nation’s socio-cultural mainstream and build an ideological superstructure that works top down and bottom up. This normative work requires a high degree of self-insulation from the immediate, and necessitates dynamic entrepreneurship (and hence, boldly disruptive programmes).
It is likely that this could be caricatured as soft-pedalling Hindutva or moral defeatism. It is not. This is a bugle to steel ourselves for the more foundational battle which can stem the weaponisation of Hinduism, and enable the reclamation of India’s soul. Any further hesitation will cause irrevocable damage to India’s civilisational and constitutional ethos.
Pushparaj Deshpande is the Editor of The Great Indian Manthan: State, Statecraft & the Republic and the Director of the Samruddha Bharat Foundation
