In India, Hindu fundamentalism is closely linked to the political situation and Hindu nationalism. The nationalist practices of Indian political groups provoke extremist reactions from other fundamentalist movements from different religions. To understand the actions and reactions, basic knowledge is needed of fundamentalism, contemporary Indian politics and the main actors in this, namely the Congress party, BJP, RSS and VHP. Fundamentalism has many forms and aspects: from the Boeings that pierced the WTC in New York to a ban on cow slaughter in India. In this article I limit myself to fundamentalism in the various major religious movements. The most striking aspect of fundamentalism is violence. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, this violent fundamentalism has been discussed frequently. However, popularly, religious fundamentalism and terrorism are often lumped together. Islamism in particular is linked to this terrorism. This makes it increasingly unclear what fundamentalism actually means and what terrorism has to do with it. In this lack of clarity, Saddam Hussein was also labeled a Muslim fundamentalist. However, this enemy in America’s war against terrorism was a secular head of state, who in recent years has increasingly shown himself in the field of religion. For example, he invested a lot of money in building a huge mosque, as was done in earlier times by the Mughals in India.
In this article I want to arrive at a workable definition of fundamentalism and elaborate on what Hindu fundamentalism is all about. To clarify what we can understand by fundamentalism, I will devote the first part entirely to this term. I will discuss the different characteristics generally given to fundamentalism and briefly outline different forms of fundamentalism. After explaining properties and categories, I arrive at a definition of fundamentalism, which can only be considered a definition and not a definition. In the second part I will then discuss Hindu fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism has become a popular concept. It is being talked about more and more and the media is paying attention to it. In the secular West, the media tends to portray extremist ideals and especially people who hold strong beliefs in a bad light by labeling them as fundamentalism. This gives any belief in revealed scriptures and religious legislation a negative connotation. Originally, the term fundamentalism applied to movements that emerged in the nineteenth century among Protestant groups in the United States of America. Only later was the term also used for movements within Islam and Judaism. Eventually the term also came to be used in movements from other civilizations, especially Hinduism and Buddhism. The term fundamentalism also came to be used by groups that did not label themselves as fundamentalist.
Now that fundamentalism has become a general term for all kinds of movements within very diverse movements, it is important to describe what the term means today. It is not the case that fundamentalists necessarily fall back on the foundations of their religion. The orthodoxy they pretend to be is precisely a heterodoxy, which is in sharp conflict with the established religious order. Heterodoxy is also evident from the fact that different fundamentalist movements can emerge from each religious movement at any point. It is clear that there are major differences between different fundamentalist groups. However, it is also clear that these groups share certain family similarities. These family similarities are discussed in the coming paragraphs. A definition can then be derived based on shared properties and attributes.
Fundamentalists fight against many enemies: other ideologies and movements, erring followers within the same camp, fellow believers who do not take religion seriously, and the corrupt secularized government systems. This fighting, according to Marty and Appleby, is a key feature of fundamentalism, distinguishing it from traditionalism and conservatism. They divide this fighting into five forms:
- First of all, fundamentalists are fighting back. It is therefore no insult to refer to fundamentalists as militant. They fight back in response to threats to their common identity, socially and personally.
- Secondly, they are fighting for something. Fighting for always starts with a certain worldview. They fight for a certain ideology that they believe should be defended. If the threat from that ideology increases, there will be a fight for a changed civil policy. This can go as far as fighting for one’s own territory through war.
- Third, fundamentalists fight with certain weapons, with certain sources that they consider fundamental. This involves selecting those weapons that can strengthen their identity, hold the movement together, build a defense around the borders and keep others at a distance. Certain foundations are chosen as doctrines and used as weapons in battle.
- Fourthly, as described above, something is being fought against. Whether this is a general or a specific enemy does not matter. As long as there is one opponent who can be blamed. In general, more attention is paid to the more moderates than to the polar opponents.
- Finally, fundamentalists are fighting under something. In the case of theistic religions under a god. In Christianity and Islam, fundamentalists carry out God’s or Allah’s will.
Zeidan attributes the following eight shared characteristics to fundamentalisms: scripturalism (adherence to the letter of Scripture), ideologization, radicalism, extremism, iconoclasm, exclusivism, dichotomization and fundamentalism as a symptom syndrome. Scripturalism refers to the view that the scriptures are divinely inspired and revealed and therefore perfect and infallible. This also includes literary interpretations. This is where the authority for the observance of moral rules in all human practices is derived. The revealed truth is then ideologized as an absolute and objective whole. Radicalism is evident in the commitment of its members and their efforts to achieve a realignment of society based on their ideal vision of what society should look like according to Scripture. Extremism refers to the willingness to sacrifice oneself and take aggressive action.
Fundamentalists are also iconoclastic. They criticize deviations from traditional religion as described in the sources, in terms of doctrine and practice. Idols and secular substitutes for the deity are not accepted by fundamentalists. Exclusivism refers to the view that one’s own faith is the exclusive representation of divine truth and that other faiths are therefore incorrect. Dichotomy amounts to dividing the world into binary oppositions and two camps: the true believers and the unbelievers. Finally, any form of fundamentalism should be seen as a syndrome with many symptoms and not as a clearly defined category. However, according to Zeidan, the above characteristics are the basis for defining a fundamentalist movement. Every fundamentalist movement would therefore have to meet at least these characteristics in order to be classified as fundamentalist.
The definition that Zeidan gives follows logically from the properties mentioned: “a cluster of religious movements concerned about the contemporary marginalization of religion and its public role in society, claiming a divinely revealed inerrant scripture as their sole ultimate authority for all spheres of life, mainly literalist in their handling of the source scriptures, radical and rigorous in terms of the contemporary application of these scriptures, extremist (although not necessarily violent) in terms of their methods, and exclusivist in their views of competing ideologies . ” In this article, which focuses on Hindu fundamentalism, this definition cannot suffice. In particular, the sacred scriptures do not appear in Hindu fundamentalism as described in the above definition. It is therefore not the Vedic texts that form the basis for this form of fundamentalism. I will come back to what it is all about in the second part. At this point it is enough to say that the definition mentioned does not apply to every form of fundamentalism.
As a basis for fundamentalism, Zeidan depicts it as a response to the destructive effects of secular modernity on religion and in particular the growing gap between religion and the public sphere. However, we must be careful not to see fundamentalism as an anti-modern phenomenon, as a kind of eruption of strong traditional forces previously suppressed by modern regimes and modern cultural programs. Fundamentalism itself is also a modern phenomenon that arises from a reaction against other modern phenomena. If we then look at a categorization of fundamentalisms, we come closer to a definition that does not have to exclude certain forms and can continue to contain the reactionary. An initial categorization is as follows: theological, political, cultural and global. A second categorization has to do with the interaction with the outside world: world-conquering (taking control over all structures of society), world-changing (interfering with changing individuals, institutions and laws), world-creating (creating enclaves with their own structures and institutions). ) and world-rejecting (extreme separatism).
In my opinion, a definition of fundamentalism should reflect the core of what fundamentalism is all about. Furthermore, the definition should be drafted in such a way that it defines every form of fundamentalism. This article is about religious fundamentalism. From the foregoing I arrive at the following definition. Religious fundamentalism is a cluster of groups that, in response to the secularism of modern society, defends a religious identity based on traditional foundations theologically, politically, culturally and/or globally with world-conquering, world-changing, world-creating and/or world-rejecting tactics . Translated into Hindu fundamentalism, the definition boils down to the following: a group that, in response to secularism, defends its Hindu identity (Hindutva) politically and culturally with world-changing tactics. How this Hindutva relates to Indian politics is explained in the next section.
Hindutva
A Hindu means a person who regards this land of Bharatvarsha from the Indus to the Seas, as his fatherland as well as his Holyland .
This translation from Sanskrit by VD Savarkar from the early twentieth century provides the basis of Hindu fundamentalism. It also shows how closely fundamentalism and nationalism are linked. It is a nationalistic definition of the cultural Hindu that refers to geography, genealogy and religion. Two terms have a lot to do with this and will come up regularly: Hindu Nation (Hindu Raastra) and Hindu Being (Hindutva). According to Savarkar, the subcontinent is the motherland of all Hindus and being Hindu is the quality of their national culture. This ideology was later picked up by Keshavrao Baliram Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, which I will discuss in detail later in this section because of the RSS’s relationship with Indian politics.
India’s first universal modern state needed the emergence of a common political identity. The role of the modern state was to maintain a balance between the many minority communities, to create a mosaic of them and to keep them stable. The only thing that could hold the many small communities, birth groups and religious sects together was structural politics. It therefore had to remain impartial, neutral or secular. Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Bose were important political figures who saw socialism as an alternative to the nationalist politics of the time in the 1930s. According to them, socialism could meet the economic and social demands of the country. The secular socialist policies of the Congress party have long shaped Indian politics since then. In recent decades, however, communalism – antipathy between different groups (communities) of different culture, ethnicity, language or religion – has become more prevalent again and the BJP has become the largest party, a party that, together with the RSS and the VHP, gives Hindu fundamentalism a face. The four parties mentioned deserve further explanation.
The Congress party (originally Indian National Congress) has long been the most important political party in India. In the interwar period, MK Gandhi was the leader of that party that strove for independence from the British regime. In 1920 the party joined forces with the Muslim League, a high point in Muslim-Hindu unity. Creating regions based on language instead of British provinces was one of the first reforms brought about by the Congress party. Independence was achieved in August 1947 followed by Gandhi’s assassination in January the following year. The national elections of 1952 and 1957 showed that the Congress party would dominate politics and become a conventional party. The party took a central position, leaving room for parties to the left or right of center. Opposition grew on both sides. The Congress party found it increasingly difficult, but was still the largest party in 1996. However, the opposition led by the BJP intensified its opposition and put the Hindutva ideology at the top of the agenda. The arrival of Sonia Gandhi to the Congress party could not turn the tide and caused additional commotion because of her Italian origins. Since 1998, the Congress party itself has had to take its place in the opposition.
The victory went to the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party). This political party was founded on April 5, 1980 in the spirit of the RSS to connect ideology and real politics. Before that, there was already the Bharatiya Jana Sangh and the Janata Alliance, both closely associated with the RSS. The most important people at that time were already AB Vajpayee (the current Prime Minister), LK Advani (the current Home Minister) and Brij Lal Verma. Five principles were identified: nationalism, national integration, democracy, positive secularism and values-based politics. It is striking that Hindutva does not fit in here, but the party did become a national alternative to the Congress party. However, after the defeat in the 1984 elections, the BJP underwent a metamorphosis that ended with Ultra-Hinduism. Advani became the leader of the party in 1986 and started an anti-Muslim campaign. He further accused the government of promoting minorities and pseudo-secularism. This was an attempt, in response to the situation in the Punjab and Kashmir, to attract more Hindu votes. Partly thanks to the response to communalist feelings, especially in connection with the Ayodhya conflict (In the 16th century, the Babri Masjid mosque was built in Ayodhya under the Mughal leader Babur. According to the RSS, a temple was built to honor the birthplace of Lord Ram Ultimately, the mosque was destroyed on December 6, 1992 by fanatical Hindus led by the RSS) became stronger, a gigantic leap was made in the political barometer in 1989. These gains ensured that even more attention was paid to Hindutva.
The RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or National Volunteer Corps) has been discussed several times. The RSS was founded during the Dasara festival in September 1925. The militaristic movement had more and more societies and members and a few years later a clear hierarchical organization had emerged. However, the RSS was not yet involved in politics. After Hedgewar’s death, the movement was taken over by Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar. He gave the RSS a systematic ideology, which shows a fundamentalist intolerance RSS fundamentalism: The non-Hindu peoples in Hindustan must adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but glorification of the Hindu race and culture. Since India’s independence, the RSS’s membership has soared, despite the assassination of Gandhi by a former member of the movement. The political history of the RSS begins in 1951 when political leader Dr. Mookerjee, along with a large part of the RSS, founded the Bharatiya Jana Sangh. The RSS continued the struggle for Hinduism, the Jana Sangh started the political struggle which was later further fought by the BJP.
The RSS is a clear example of a reactionary fundamentalist movement. According to the RSS , all the setbacks that India has faced are due to the lack of unity in Hindu culture. The domination of the Muslims and the British are examples of this, but also the failure of Gandhi with his concessions to the Muslims in the struggle for independence. After independence, it is Nehru who, according to the RSS, made a mistake with his false dogma of secularism to bind the minorities to him. To all these setbacks, the RSS is responding with the fundamentalist call for Hindu Raastra and Hindutva. Not everyone agrees that the RSS is a fundamentalist movement. According to Prafull Goradia, there can be no fundamentalism in Hinduism because there is no finite script and no founder. Pralay Kanungo, in his book RSSS Tryst With Politics, gives some better arguments from other writers. For example, the RSS would be communalist and not fundamentalist and actions of the RSS would not stop at antagonizing Muslims if the RSS were actually fundamentalist. Kanungo also comes to the conclusion that the RSS is indeed a fundamentalist movement and indicates that the counterarguments cannot gain a foothold. Experts such as Hans Bakker and Susan Bayly also indicate the fundamentalist characteristics of the Ayodhya movement sponsored by the RSS.
The last party that plays an important role in this context is the VHP. The VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad or World Hindu Council) was founded in 1964 on the birthday of the deity Krishna (29 August) . This movement was also sponsored by the RSS. The VHP is based on seven objectives:
- Take steps to generate self-awareness, to perpetuate and strengthen Hindu society.
- Protecting, developing and spreading Hindu norms and values, both ethical and spiritual.
- Establishing and strengthening contacts with Hindus in the diaspora and helping these co-religionists.
- To welcome back all those who have left the Hindu community and rehabilitate them as part of the Universal Hindu Community.
- Providing social services for humanity in general. The VHP has started Welfare Projects for the 170 million underprivileged people who have been suffering for centuries. Schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. are part of these projects.
- Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the six hundred million World Organization residing in 80 countries, strives to revitalize the eternal Hindu community by reshaping the code of conduct of our age-old Dharma to meet the needs of today’s changing society.
- Eliminating the notion of untouchability in Hindu society.
Fundamentalist aspects are clearly present in the VHP. However, the objectives appear very social. But the actual objective remains hidden. All help that the VHP offers to the oppressed classes has the sole purpose of blocking the influences of Christianity and Islam. While the RSS wants to bind Hindus through discipline, ritual and doctrine, the VHP promotes the spiritual level. However, the goal remains the same: gaining followers. Things remained quiet around the VHP until 1981. Afterwards this movement also became reactionary. In Minakshipuram in the state of Tamil Nadu, about 1,500 Harijans (children of God, the name Gandhi gave to the untouchable castes) were converted to Islam in 1981. The RSS asked the government to ban conversions and the VHP stepped into the breach because of the alleged danger of Hindus becoming a minority in India. Subsequently, in April 1984, the VHP first came up with the intention of liberating the Ram Janmabhoomi, Ram’s birthplace in Ayodhya. This made the VHP a major mobilizing force behind the emerging Hindu commensalism. I will omit the bloody battle that accompanies this in the rest of this article.
Conclusion
Hindutva means being Hindu, the essence of Hinduism. Hindutva is the cultural identity underlying Hinduism. In my opinion, all actions and reactions to promote Hindutva fall under religious fundamentalism. It is the traditional element that fundamentalists defend. In this article I have shown that this mainly happens at the political level. Parties such as the RSS and VHP that originally did not involve themselves in politics have become increasingly concerned with political issues in which their Hindutva was threatened. With the BJP as the largest political party at their side, Hindu fundamentalism is clearly on the rise. This brings with it an atmosphere of communalism, in which Hinduism and Islam and Hinduism and Christianity in particular are pitted against each other in an increasingly bloody manner.
The current situation of fundamentalism, communalism and terrorism (I refer to the attacks in the state of Kashmir) has reached threatening proportions. It is written about every day in newspapers and magazines and books are published that deal with this subject. The last chapter on this has not yet been written. Besides the anti-conversion laws in several states, the ban on cow slaughter is also a popular topic. At first this seems innocent, but when the newspaper reads that someone is being lynched by Hindu fundamentalists for slaughtering a cow, it becomes clear in which direction proposals such as these are going. Christians and Christian institutions must also suffer. A Christian hospital was attacked by members of the VHP earlier this year and an investigation into Christian institutions had already been launched. The reason given is that the Christian organizations involved are working to divide the country and destroy the Hindu religion.
Most striking, however, are the militaristic actions of Muslim and Hindu groups. The destruction of the Babri Masjid is still regularly mentioned. But there have been similar attacks on more recent dates. For example, the Raghunath temple in Jammu was attacked on November 24, 2002, and the Ghandinagar temple of the Swaminarayan sect on September 24 of the same year. All this in revenge for the violence against the Muslims. The disturbances on both sides still bring out Hindu nationalist feelings among the majority. This is evident, among other things, from the triumph that Hindutva achieved in the December 2002 elections in Gujarat.
Hindufun damentalism has clearly gained a foothold in Indian politics in the form of Hindutva and the question remains where this will end. One thing is clear. The current political situation does not help the country to get rid of the poverty problem and it is once again the lowest social classes in society who suffer, the people who live from day to day and are not concerned with a national cultural identity.