heap1b

Hindutva Evolution And Politics:
Part 1b: Current State and Near Future

Note: Part 1a is here

This is not intended as a 'preaching' nor a comprehensive study, but just some thoughts. Since background is already set, without much of an intro to this, let me get to it straight, point by point

I) Sustenance of Power: The big question in 2019 was if BJP will be able to retain power. Apart from the political deft needed for that, there was also the challenge that, for centuries now, Hindus have not been thinking as rulers, as conquerers - at best, we (Hindus) think, behave and act as "defenders", more often as the sufferers, the defeated, the attacked. Even a few months before the election, there were voices among some 'right wingers' that "Not pro Hindu enough, so NOTA" etc. Modi may have retained power in 2019, but it is yet to be seen as to when will even a tenth of the 1 billion strong Hindus behave as "We rule India", much less "We are here to rule the world", not in an oppressive way, but spiritually, intellectually and economically as we once did (see % of world GDP)

At the micro level, there are some concerns of dishonesty/bickering/rivalry among Nationalists, but at the same time, it is also rather remarkable that BJP as a party, in its 40 years did not have a major split. CongressMuktBharat efforts seems to be yielding results, but India is far from being ready for  Unipolar politics. Time has come to think "Can hindutva control/determine who will occupy the space of the Congress?". In a multi-party democracy of our kind, it is lack of maturity on the part of some of so called liberals to cry "Only 45% voted for NDA, 55% voted against" only when BJP comes to power (The left govt in Kerala-2016, for example came to power with 43.5%, but the same ilk will never mention that), however, it does raise a point for the Nationalists that there is 55% (of those who voted) yet to be convinced, and another >30% of the eligible who did not even vote

II) Ideology and Activism: For a 1billion Hindu population with such geographic and cultural diversity, it is difficult to say if there has been unform "trends", or even "change of trends" from generation to generation. Still, I think it is reasonably safe to say that there has been renewed awareness of history (and the dangers that Hindus went through) and our heritage in the currently 25 to 55 age group. However, one must pause and think if that is true in the 15-25 also. It will vary from family to family, but one thing is for sure. There is no guarantee that a Nationalist's or even a swayamsevak's son/daughter will grow up so. In fact too much of activism neglecting their welfare, any amount of hypocrisy (preach something but not do it oneself) can all lead up to potential backfire

That leads me to the topic of activism. Without going into a detailed analysis, I shall simply ask the Nationalistic reader to ask oneself these following questions. For how many of you "Hindu Activism" means only forwarding whatsapp messages and videos to a group which has only people of your own ideology ? How many of you ask your children to learn Yoga or Sanskrit while you yourself dont ?

III) Demography and Self-Confidence: So far I mainly wrote about the 100 crore Hindus in India. What about the 30crore or so who are not ? This sort of goes back to the point raised in I above. Why is it that the 100 crore Hindus are on the defensive about the 5 crore or so Christians, of which perhaps not even 10% are the proselytising kind ? Muslims are many more, agreed, but even a 5% of their population in your neighbourhood makes you (the so called "hard core Hindu") nervous, Why ?

While I repeat that I dont intend to preach, it is my opinion that Hindus should a) Learn about our own religion well, including Sanskrit b) Read and understand Christianity and Islam and finally c) each one should turn a Dayananda . Aurobindo couldn't have been clearer when he said "Fulfilment of Sanatana Dharma is India's only Swaraj" or Vivekananda who said "Expansion is Life, Contraction is Death". To do that, one is our own self-confidence and conviction. The other is the particality, as a former RSS sangchalak once put it "Roti-Beti ka sawaal hein", reader is free to draw your conclusion

IV) Beyond India: Extending the logic above, there is no doubt the ultimate goal of all this should be to make India the Viswa Guru once again. Time and again India has produced spiritual masters - be it Vivekananda or Prabhupada or Amritanandamayi or Sri Sri or Sadhguru. One may differ with them in methods, but as long as they are not fakes or work against Hinduism, every Hindu should at least not get into "I dont like this particular Guru/Method" mode. Remember, there are Hindu namdharis themselves across the world waiting and wanting to prevent their growth. But it is also important that at some point the golden ratio mentioned in Bhagavad Gita 7.3 is surpassed -- that is, out of 1000 people who come seeing the surface level glitter of spiritual movements, 10-20 should go deep

Some times I feel, Oh how nice it would have been if all these threats were not there -- the interested could spend all his/her time in learning (scriptures) and seeking. However, our sages long back realised that such a scenario is never to be. Currently a Hindu activist typically "spreads thin" into two or more hats out of the Brahmana (learning), Kshatriya (defenders, for the modern age it is also intellectual Kshatriyas), Vaisya (earning, donating, charity) and Sudra (the foot soldier, campaigns, ground work) - do we need more volunteers dedicated and focused on each areas ?

I will end this part with my oft repeated statement. Hinduism can be considered on the path to revival, only when hitherto unearthed knowledge from our existing scriptures/manuscripts can be brought out in modern terms and perhaps patented. 

heap1a

On 9feb2020, at 12.10am, Parameswaranji left his body. I may have met him twice or thrice of which a one-on-one discussion may have happened only once, however, his idea of Gita decade in the late 90s, and some events organised in connection with that were instrumental in taking me through the paths I have travelled over the last 20 years. Hence, after a long gap, today I undertake writing this two-part essay on "Hindutva Evolution And Politics" - part1(a/b) on India and part2 on Kerala

I cover only the era which I have seen and was old enough to understand and remember - i.e from late 80s when I was 10years old. Ayodhya movement was at or nearing its peak. That was the time when BJP was in a mood of "nothing to lose". RSS by then was already 60+ years as an organisation and perhaps saw it as a pan-India opportunity to unite Hindus beyond language and caste barriers. The VHP too, though formed in 1964, perhaps became more known at that time. Of the many events and methods used, two points stand out in showing the deep understanding these organisations had about the psyche of India - shila pooja in every village, and a 'Dalit' laying the first brick

That was Phase-1 in the period I am analysing and ends with the 1992 demolition of the disputed structure which lead to many outcomes - it 'calmed' down at least some Hindus who were angry at thousands of his temples looted and destroyed by Islamists ; but to many Hindus - again whether the reader likes it or not - it was the moment of "Oh these people indeed did what they said". In other words, it was "Oh we can" moment for many -- the RSS or its sister organisations, started earning admirers who so far had not gone to a Shakha. Even now, many of them did not go to a Shakha, but started watching RSS or its sister organisations keenly and some eventually became volunteers for some cause or the other.  A lot of them also started thinking "A pro Hindu Nationalistic party, i.e BJP, can perhaps even come to power at the center and fulfil the other two promises too - i.e 370 and UCC", but the men at the top realised that the electoral numbers are not there yet. The pan-India presence of Congress party will take time to erode, and in many states the anti-Congress sentiments benefitted regional parties rather than BJP. Vajpayee, with Advani's support must be credited for changing that into a "Its a coalition era, let us (BJP) make allies, come together with anti-corruption and development as the key agenda items". There sure were concerns among core sangh groups on BJP compromising on its 3 key agenda items, but Vajpayee was able to eventually convince that "we are here not to eternally sit in opposition, we are here to rule". 1993 to 1999 period was the Phase-2

BJP in power at that time, unfortunately was like Abhimanyu - broke into the Chakravyuha, but did not know how to come out of it. In other words, did not know how to retain power. 1999-2004 was Phase-3 of hindutva, and it was characterised by growing dissentment among many hindutva folks against BJP. There were growing feelings of "Nothing is being done for hindutva", "we could not build a strong Nation image, especially with Kandahar and Parliament attack going unpunished". Vajpayee's 1999-2004 tenure was corruption free, but neither were they able to market it properly, nor were they adept at dealing with traps laid for them. Added to it, most of the party strongmen went into the government and the party Presidents were too incapable, so much that many BJP supporters themselves may not remember who all were party Presidents from 1999 to 2004. The turn of the millenium also saw growing influence of the Christian conversion brigade in India and so RSS, VHP and sister organisations, started focusing more and more on those social challenges. The support base built over Ayodhya movement was the launchpad for many, but now there was an even 'outer circle' starting to get associated with them, being pained with one or more of the "4Ms" - Missionaries, Mullas, Marxists and Media". However, this group would not help BJP retain power in 2004 because in their opinion, BJP did nothing to counter any of these "M"

Phase-4 is 2004 to 2014. Whether one likes the lady or not, whether she had any helpers, especially from outside India or not, it was Sonia's tactics that helpes UPA gain power in 2004 and retain it in 2009. In fact, UPA-1 was kind of smart to hoodwink the Indian public, added to which there was leadership vacuum in BJP in 2009. The amount of damage UPA-1 and UPA-2 had done - corruption, sowing the seeds of anti-Nationalism in campuses hitherto unaffected, compromises on National security and so on - sank in only towards the mid/end of UPA-2. Ground swell among the core and outer circles of hindutva supporters made Narendra Modi the PM candidate, who ran an unprecedented campaign between Sep 2013 and May 2014 to give BJP its first ever "272 paar"

Phase-5 is 2014-19. Modi in my opinion focused on two things: Development and Pride in India. He proved himself that he is capable of taking bold decisions like Demonetisation even if they had the potential of being unpopular, and to initiate things, even if not perfect, like the GST, Swach Bharat, and a plethora of others. More importantly, he was able to transform people views about India both internally and externally through decisive National security measures like surgical strikes and Balakot. There was still the "How much has he done for hindutva" question, however there were a couple of factors different from 2004 -- Amit Shah had diligently strengthened the party base, the UPA damages were too heavy to be forgotten that quickly and so hindutva folks did not want to repeat 2004. In fact many were so sleepless at the prospect of losing power that for the first time in their life they decided to campaign. If in 2014 Modi wanted people to elect him, in 2019, people wanted him to be elected. The less Modi campaigned, the more people took it upon themselves

And now were are in Phase-6 and the man who is making a difference is Amit Shah. 370 effectively gone in a flash - well, so we think, but there has been quite a preparation. Ayodhya verdict is a court one, and anyone who have read in detail about the evidences would be convinced, yet there are those 'fictitious questions' of "What if BJP were not in power?", "What if the structure was not demolished in 1992?". And then came the CAA. So far Phase-6 of BJP seems to take the route of "We dont care whether we retain power in 2024 or not, now is the time to address the core issues we stood for". Whether this full term will be characterised by that or not is to be seen, but more importantly "Is India ready for that ?". "What do/will the new generations think?" "Is the Islamic two-pronged threat more than ever ?" "Where will hindutva go from here?" "what should be its long term goals". I will share my thoughts in a Part-1b post soon, till then comments on this part (1a) are welcome