Hindu Nationalism And The Problem Of Trust

Do some of the recent disturbing incivilities like the lynching of Akhlaq at Dadri, abetting of Rohith's suicide at HCU and the arrest of students at JNU connote an end of Indian heterogeneity and tolerance? Does this point to a new form of dominant nationalism? Despite the "fear of fear" prevailing amongst some of us in university spaces there isn't a singular nationalism that dominates our social and political. A single narrative of anything — nationalism included — may not work for India where identities of region, religion, caste, and ethnicity are paramount for individuals along with the ultimate (?) national identity.

The national thus has various sub-nationals and at times the sub-national can bring the national to a grinding halt — like the Jats did in Haryana recently or Patels in Gujarat previously. G. Aloysius sorted the problem of Indian nationalism for us with his brilliant rendition titled Nationalism without a Nation in India. Ambedkar did this long back by understanding India at best as a nation in making — that required a long and patient cooperation of communities and castes. Only such patience could build trust (not tolerance) amongst the compatriots who otherwise are/were deeply segmented.

BJP and RSS too seem to work on the assumption that India is not a nation — at best it is a nation in making. Thus putting their passionate political, economic, socio-cultural and religious resources (both ideas and material) in making the nation Hindu. Their reliance on "democratic" means reiterates that violence, as a one-time project of achieving nationalist goals does not work. Hindutva like Hinduism thus is a modern project — an act of convincing Hindus that they are Hindus (a matter of pride) and that they are a nation. Is this a dominant form of nationalism? Most probably not — at best this seems like a form of sub-nationalism, which may collide with Patel nationalism in Gujarat and Jat nationalism in Haryana and Marathi nationalism of Shiv Sena in Mumbai. 

Not all is bad with the Nationalism of BJP-RSS as Gandhi's ideal of Ram-rajya are slightly radicalized by Hindu nationalists. That Hindu nationalism continually fails to cease the national moment despite continuity with ideas of the Mahatma is telling of the challenges involved. The elite Hindu aspirations of turning our present and future into a homogeneous (Hindu) whole seems like a nearly impossible project however. The challenges have more to do with caste basis of Indian polity, one that is used to civility of indifference. The idea of Bharat Mata and Vande Mataram are repertoires of colonial times discovered in 1870s and represents the modern urge of elite Hindus to make India a great (Hindu) civilisation. It signifies an attempt to move from indifference amongst Hindus to tolerance across castes in an indigenous way.

Has the transition from indifference to tolerance been successful in post-independent India? Going by the scale of violence against Dalits, missing convictions and the general anti-reservation sentiments amongst elites, it seems to have been a mixed bag of change. India got democracy much before our imbibing any values of civility. In sum, we have increased tolerance, what we lack is trust — trust in and concern for people we don't know.

Some Sanatanis even now criticise the Indian state and Constitution for its modern aspirations and for being isolated from the logic of indigenous Hindu order. However the Constitution of India is not strictly disconnected with local order as it provides special representation for the SCs and STs (and later to the OBCs). The 'secular' Constitution of India also protects the cow (though not for sacred reasons). Thus the elite Hindus managed to save the cow through the Constitution and the lower caste radicals saved their political rights, access to education and employment through reservations.

The transition from indifference amongst castes to tolerance is a difficult political project — something that is recognized and institutionalised through the Constitution. Innovative and strategic repertoires of BJP/RSS are mobilised to turn caste, region, religion and emancipatory aspirations of women into sources of Hindu consolidation. However these very factors along with vibrant markets play spoilsport for Hindu political ambitions. Not surprisingly Laloo Prasad Yadav called it a battle of Mandal vs. Kamandal in Bihar polls — so much intolerance against the Hindu project of tolerance.

With the coming in of social media and 3G networks understanding (our) history is a matter of seconds. Sub-nationalisms have thus come to further travel and dominate both virtual and real spaces. Whatsapp groups for instance, are now formed on caste, religion, region along with non-identity groups like those of school alumnus, weight loss or zumba and so on. The rise of latter does not mean the end of former. India continues to be a disagreement-riddled civilisation and our search for bharat mata may also take us to mahishasura, manusmirti and back to bharat matrimony (where caste and religion matter). We traverse multiple worlds and Hindu nationalism could be one such world to join — when you want to be angry against Muslims/Christians, against reservations, against lovers (who do not fit) and against beef-eaters.

The central problem of those countering BJP lies in their obsession with tolerance. Religious ideologies do not necessarily lead to intolerance. The glitch here is that BJP too is mobilising for tolerance — tolerance towards reservations and (limited) tolerance towards Muslims. The lack of vocabulary and ideas in Congress is symptomatic of Congress's own position on reservations and minority rights. Nehru opposed the idea of reservations for backwards and the idea of minority rights was discarded for the sake of nationalism. It took several years for Congress to come to with the terms with minority rights through Sachar and reservations for OBCs in 2006.

In the sociality of caste, indifference is good and tolerance is almost a bad word. Aspiration of tolerance is beneficial but the risk of it leading to tolerance of indifference runs large. Ambedkar instead aspired for a social democracy where trust and civility are important; one that transcended segmented modes of thinking and being. Something modern where the privileged could possibly sympathise with the deprived despite the policy of reservations and those at the margins could be citizens on their own terms without being stigmatized.

Suryakant Waghmore is Professor and Chairperson at the Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.