THE GREAT INDIAN DEBATE — DAY 39 Is Hindutva a legitimate political ideology or a form of ethnic nationalism?
THE STAKES Last month, the Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the Maharashtra government’s decision to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Sambhaji Nagar and Dharashiv. The petitioners argued that the move was driven by Hindutva’s project of rewriting history to privilege a Hindu narrative. Meanwhile, the BJP’s national executive passed a resolution reaffirming its commitment to "cultural nationalism," a term often used interchangeably with Hindutva. The debate isn’t just about names—it’s about whether India’s political identity should be rooted in a majoritarian cultural framework or a pluralist constitutional one. With the 2024 elections looming, this question will shape everything from school textbooks to citizenship laws.
THE ARGUMENT FOR Hindutva, its proponents argue, is not ethnic nationalism but a civilizational ideology that seeks to unite India’s diverse Hindu communities under a shared cultural identity. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who coined the term in 1923, defined Hindutva as loyalty to the land of the Indus (Sindhu) and its cultural heritage, not adherence to any single religion. For Savarkar, a Hindu was anyone who considered India their pitrabhumi (fatherland) and punyabhumi (holy land)—a definition that included Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists but excluded Muslims and Christians, whose holy lands lie outside India.
Modern advocates, like the RSS and BJP, argue that Hindutva is a unifying force in a country fractured by caste and regional divisions. They point to policies like the abrogation of Article 370, the construction of the Ram Mandir, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) as efforts to correct historical injustices—whether the "Islamic conquest" of Kashmir, the demolition of temples, or the persecution of Hindu refugees. They reject the label of "ethnic nationalism," arguing that Hindutva is inclusive of all who accept India’s Hindu cultural core, even if they practice other faiths. As BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has written, "Hindutva is not about religion but about the nation’s soul."
Constitutionally, they argue that Hindutva is compatible with secularism as practiced in India—a "positive secularism" that treats all religions equally, unlike the "pseudo-secularism" of the Congress, which they accuse of minority appeasement. The Supreme Court’s 1995 judgment in Manohar Joshi vs. N.B. Patil held that Hindutva is a "way of life" and not inherently communal, a ruling often cited to defend its legitimacy.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST Critics argue that Hindutva is, at its core, a form of ethnic nationalism that defines Indian identity in exclusionary terms. While Savarkar’s definition of Hindutva may have been cultural, its modern practice—through lynchings of Muslims, the targeting of interfaith couples under "love jihad" laws, and the erasure of Mughal history from school curricula—suggests a project to establish Hindu dominance. Political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot calls it "ethno-religious nationalism," where the Hindu majority is mobilized against religious minorities, particularly Muslims, who are framed as outsiders or threats.
Opponents point to the 2002 Gujarat riots, the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and the recent bulldozer demolitions of Muslim homes as evidence that Hindutva’s cultural nationalism is a cover for majoritarianism. They argue that the ideology’s emphasis on a shared Hindu past ignores India’s pluralist history—from the syncretic traditions of Sufi and Bhakti movements to the contributions of Muslim rulers like Akbar. The CAA, which fast-tracks citizenship for non-Muslim refugees, is seen as a direct violation of the constitutional principle of equality, reinforcing the idea that Muslims are second-class citizens.
Legally, critics cite the Supreme Court’s 2018 Navtej Singh Johar judgment, which upheld the right to privacy and struck down Section 377, as a reaffirmation of India’s pluralist ethos. They argue that Hindutva’s project of homogenizing Indian identity undermines the very idea of a diverse, inclusive republic. Historian Romila Thapar warns that Hindutva’s version of history—where ancient India was a golden Hindu civilization corrupted by Muslim invaders—is a myth that serves a political agenda, not an academic one.
THE HIDDEN DIMENSION Most debates about Hindutva focus on religion and identity, but the economic underpinnings are rarely discussed. The rise of Hindutva coincides with India’s shift from a socialist economy to a neoliberal one in the 1990s. As the state retreated from welfare, the BJP filled the vacuum with cultural nationalism, offering identity-based solidarity as a substitute for economic security. This is why Hindutva’s strongest support comes from the urban lower-middle class and rural poor—groups that feel left behind by globalization but are not organized under traditional leftist movements.
Another overlooked factor is the decline of the Congress. The party’s inability to articulate a coherent ideological alternative—oscillating between secularism and soft Hindutva—has left a vacuum that the BJP has exploited. The 2014 and 2019 elections showed that Hindutva is not just a cultural project but a highly effective electoral strategy, one that mobilizes voters around symbols like the Ram Mandir while sidelining economic issues like unemployment and inflation.
Finally, there’s the question of demographics. India’s Muslim population is projected to grow from 14% to 18% by 2050. For Hindutva’s proponents, this is a demographic "threat" that justifies policies like the CAA and the push for a Uniform Civil Code. For opponents, it’s a sign that India’s pluralism is under siege. The real debate isn’t just about the past—it’s about what kind of future India wants.
WHERE INDIANS STAND A 2021 Pew Research survey found that 64% of Indians believe it is "very important" to be Hindu to be "truly Indian," while 59% say the same about speaking Hindi. However, 84% also believe that respecting all religions is a very important part of being Indian. This suggests that while many Indians embrace a Hindu cultural identity, they also value pluralism. Election results tell a more complex story: the BJP’s vote share has grown from 18% in 2009 to 37% in 2019, but it still relies on alliances and regional parties to govern. Hindutva’s appeal is strong but not universal.
YOUR VIEW If Hindutva is about cultural unity, why does it so often manifest as hostility toward minorities? Is there a version of Hindutva that could coexist with India’s constitutional secularism, or is the tension inherent?
This newsletter aims to clarify genuine arguments on complex issues. It does not endorse any political position or party.