Hindutva is taking a new path after the BJP's defeat, says Usama Khalidi* India has had two main national narratives in its political culture for most of its modern history. One is liberal and modernist, celebrating the country's immense cultural diversity and aspiring to restore India's position as one of the leading nations on the world stage. The other narrative is a synthetic vision of national culture, seeking to revive a mythical image of India with its lost glory as a Hindu nation. The modernist vision triumphed in the national elections that concluded last month, defeating the ideology commonly referred to as Hindutva or Hinduness and championed by the political Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). After six weeks of soul searching since the elections, the BJP leaders all but conceded that their vision had failed, and called for a new openness to all minority cultures. They declared in a resolution adopted 21 June: "Hindutva is not to be understood or construed narrowly confined to religious practices or expressed in extreme forms. It is related to the culture and ethos of the people... a way of life... and, therefore, inclusive." It also rejected theocracy or any form of bigotry as "alien to our ethos". But for many decades, the Hindutva ideologues' argument had centred on what they called the "Hindu ethos", which at once set Hindus apart from the Muslims, conjuring up all kinds of negative images of the Muslim "other", seeking a presumed unity of views with their audiences. There was one problem with hyping up "Hindu ethos". There was no such thing. Despite the prevalence of social values derived from the Hindu holy books, the Vedas, historically there never was a primarily Hindu self- consciousness across the country. What there actually was, and still is, is an Indian ethos that includes not only Muslims, but Sikhs, Christians and the Dalits or the so-called lower caste Indians who don't really regard themselves as Hindus. The Indian ethos is perfectly analogous with the American ethos and its British, French and German varieties, but not necessarily with those of the totalitarian states. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ethos as: "The fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society. The distinguishing character or disposition of a community or group, person etc, the moral element in dramatic literature that determines a character's action or behaviour (Greek: custom, habit, character)." Obviously, these are subjective categories of thought. There may be differences in the religious rituals or other cultural practices among the different segments of the population, but the spirit, character and sentiments underlying these practices in India are pretty much the same across the board. These differences cannot possibly be subject to legislation. Thus, when a political party such as the BJP talked about ethos, its purpose was none other than to divide the electorate between "them and us" in its crudest form. This was the tactics of the Nazis, the Fascists, and their numerous imitators all over the globe, except that these tactics have worked minimally in the West, but more substantially in the nascent democracies of the Third World. The BJP resolution would seem to indicate a remarkable recognition of India's deep-rooted multiculturalism if it was honest and meant what it says in all its significant implications. Indian ethos envelops and encompasses its Muslim population simply because they have been an integral part of India's political and cultural history for more than 1,000 years. Islam has enriched the lives of Hindus as much as Vedic Hinduism has enriched the lives of Muslims and thus the Indian version of Islam, which evolved in a dialogue with Vedic values, as a whole. In its classical, textbook form, removed from the realities of daily life, Islam stands for universal equality, thus posing a challenge to the Vedic sanction of the caste system. The Sufi version of Islam as it evolved in India accepted the premise that some spiritually highly evolved individuals acquire a closeness to Divinity. Honouring these holy men brings peace and good tidings to devotees; the holy men, dead or alive, may even help fulfil some of their followers' longings. The classical Vedic definition of karma (or human actions) also underwent some changes as it acquired a sense of fatalism influenced by the Muslim notions of taqdeer. In its original meaning, Karma had other-worldly connotations. The impact of television and the spread of education were bound to produce a standardisation of social and political behaviour regardless of religious pieties, as has been witnessed in the West as well as in other economically successful societies, such as China and Japan. The process of modernisation also was destined to help standardise behaviour, with its acceptance of the basic principles of secularism, rationalism in dealing with social problems, and equal rights for women. Viewed in this light, the Indian ethos acquires an equivalence with the national ethos of most mature democracies, such as America, the UK, France and Germany. Each of these societies has some peculiarly national characteristics which find expression in its political culture. Perhaps it is the maturity of democratic systems that allows the most progressive and universalist elements of national culture to gain ascendancy. The assertion of India's national ethos by the BJP would be more meaningful if its leaders and theorists owned up the gross violations of India's moral traditions during their watch in Gujarat in 2002, when many more than 2,000 innocent citizens were slaughtered under state supervision. They would also need to revisit the nationally staged vandalism organised by the BJP leaders in UP in 1992. * The writer is a freelance journalist of Indian origin based in Washington, DC.
