Emphasising Hinduism for political purposes

Mahatma Gandhi cultivated his image as a deeply religious man. He benefited politically from being adored as a saint-like person. His spirituality resulted in an ostentatious humility. Gandhi dressed in a loin cloth, refraining from symbols of prestige, wealth or power. The symbolism was very effective for several reasons.

His ascetism showed that he had a connection to the many millions of poor people who populated India and, in his view, constituted the nation. It also suggested that he was not involved in the independence struggle for personal benefits, but rather in a sense of serving a higher good. At the same time, his attire resembled the one of a sage who renounces worldly goods in search of a higher, divine truth.

Even his international reputation benefited when Winston Churchill, the British leader, disparaged him as a “half-naked fakir”. Indeed, his display of humility made his quip of western civilisation being a “good idea” resonate across Europe and North America.

In the subcontinent, masses of people could relate to the persona that Gandhi created for himself. It did not only make sense to Hindus. Other religions in South Asia also have traditions of spiritual renunciation and asceticism. While Gandhi always made clear that he was rooted in Hinduism, to which the majority of people in British India belonged, he relied on an inclusive idea of spirituality. He showed respect for other faiths and acknowledged shared values such as brotherly love, truthfulness and peace. His activism was thus based on moral principles that adherents of all major religions can agree on. He was, moreover, keen on finding allies from other faiths.

Non-violent action

Gandhi adopted a political strategy of non-violent civil disobedience. It proved quite effective because it showed how ridiculous and oppressive Britain’s colonial rule was. As it attracted much public attention, the Empire was unable to crush it by violent means. Taking part in non-violent action certainly required courage but was not as dangerous as becoming involved in armed struggle would have been. The case for non-violent action, of course, could also be made by referring to religious principles of many different faiths.

While Gandhi always unambiguously emphasised Hindu roots, he did not endorse all Hindu traditions. As some Hindu reformers had done before him, he argued against the marginalisation and oppression of Hinduism’s lowest castes. He called them Harijans, which means children of God, but they now speak of themselves as Dalits, which means the broken ones. He embraced people from all castes and invited others to do so as well. Nonetheless, he never challenged the caste system per se in spite of it being exploitative and humiliating.

Gandhi normally opposed identity politics and always refused to pit one faith against another. Indeed, his intervention stopped bloody communal riots between Muslims and Hindus in Calcutta in 1947. He went to the city and announced he would stop eating until the bloodshed stopped. The message was that he would starve himself to death, and the fighting actually did end. A few weeks later, however, he could not prevent atrocious bloodshed when British India was partitioned into two sperate independent nations, India and Pakistan.

As a matter of fact, Gandhi’s approach to politics proved most effective in terms of mobilising the freedom movement. His clout fast waned after independence was achieved, however. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress Party, which he had inspired, opted for a technocratic, socialist form of governance that did not resemble Gandhi’s original idea of small, self-sufficient village republics.

Hindu supremacism today

India’s current prime minister is Narendra Modi, and his idea of political action is based on the Hindutva, which basically means the supremacy of the faith. This obviously is not how Gandhi used the faith in politics. Modi, however, thrives on Hindu supremacism. His party, the BJP, belongs to a network of like-minded organisations called the Sangh Parivar. They want India to be a Hindu nation in which all non-Hindu communities are subordinate to their faith. Moreover, they aspire to some kind of world leadership for Hinduism as they understand it.

To some extent, Modi uses symbols of renunciation. His followers often emphasise that he is unmarried, for example. He sometimes withdraws from public life to meditate and, during the Corona pandemic, let his beard grow long.

Rather than cultivate humility, however, Modi likes to project power and strength. Mahatma Gandhi would never have bragged about a broad chest the way Modi does. The prime minister relishes symbols of grandeur, such as the newly built Ram Temple in Ayodhya. It stands on the land where Hindu fanatics tore down the ancient Babri mosque in 1992, claiming it was built on the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. The Sangh Parivar was a driving force of that campaign.

Modi and the Hindutva network claim to tolerate other religions. However, they demand that Hinduism be respected in return, and that basically means that anyone who belongs to a different faith in India must accept the dominance of Hinduism and its culture. For practical purposes, this stance can turn quite violent. There have been recurring cases of lynchings after Muslims were accused of having slaughtered cows which they consider to be holy. Hate-speech and rumours are used to stoke anger and to manipulate voters. Deadly occasional anti-minority rioting keeps many people terrified.

The Hindu-supremacist camp cultivates a seemingly inclusive idea of the religion. Lower castes are invited to take pride in Hinduism. The general vision, nonetheless, remains one of rule by men from the upper castes with only few symbolic exceptions.

Cultivated grievances 

Modi and the Sangh Parivar use Hinduism to cultivate a sense of grievances. They suggest that India’s majority multi-lingual and multi-cultural population is a homogenous entity that has for centuries suffered abuse. In particular, they fan flames of anger against the Muslim minority by claiming that the problems India faces today result from centuries of Mughal rule, followed by colonialism and decades of what they call “inept” Congress Party rule.

This ideology fits the pattern of the kind of right-wing extremism that is currently gaining ground in many countries. These forces typically paint an excessively beautiful picture of an imagined harmonious past which, they claim, they will restore by fighting the enemies of the people. A complex historical past is explained in simplified language with an extremely narrow focus.

Hindu supremacism, however, is nothing new. Indeed, the murderer who killed Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January 1948 belonged to this camp. He blamed the partition of India and the resulting bloodshed at the religiously inspired non-violent independence leader.

Suparna Banerjee is a Frankfurt-based political scientist. 
mail.suparnabanerjee@gmail.com