Reclaiming Indian nationalism: confronting the rise of European-style Hindu nationalism in contemporary India
The Indian Express has recently published a thoughtful and in-depth discussion on the rise and dominance of Hindu nationalism in India, contributed by distinguished social scientists Yogendra Yadav, Suhas Palshikar, and Akeel Bilgrami. They express concern that the current dominant conception of Indian nationalism resembles European-style nationalism. In our context, this translates into the politics of Hindutva or Hindu nationalism.
A common thread in their analysis is the implicit concession that Hindu nationalism has become the dominant form of nationalism in India today. While it is true that Hindu nationalism is assertive and widespread, Indian nationalism—rooted in constitutional values and inclusive ideals—continues to exist in the imagination of a significant section of society. In the 2024 elections, the Hindu nationalist party secured only 36.5% of the vote share, and even this figure is contested amid widespread allegations of electoral manipulation.
Nonetheless, the concerns raised are valid and deserve serious attention. Hindu nationalism has entrenched itself not only through electoral politics but also by infiltrating state institutions, dominating mainstream and social media, and shaping public discourse.
Yadav attributes the rise of this form of nationalism to the vacuum created by a secular, internationalist, modernist ethos cultivated in post-Independence India. This ethos, he argues, deliberately avoided nationalism, inadvertently creating a space now filled by Hindutva’s idea of the nation. Palshikar traces the roots of this nationalism to strains within the national movement over a century ago.
Bilgrami begins by appreciating India’s long-standing pluralistic tradition: “For centuries, Indian society has been characterized by an unselfconscious pluralism of religions and cultures. Today’s European-style nationalism, by contrast, manufactures division and calls it unity.” He partly disagrees with Palshikar’s view, noting that while such attitudes existed during the freedom struggle, they were marginalized by the dominance of Gandhi and Nehru. Though some questions were left unresolved, Bilgrami argues they do not constitute the roots of today’s Hindutva-driven nationalism.
To better understand the emergence of Hindu nationalism in India, we must also examine historical differences. In Europe, sovereignty transitioned from monarchs to modern centralized states. The rise of such states—facing the challenge of managing diverse groups—led to the evolution of secularism.
In India, sovereignty was largely held by princely rulers before being usurped by colonial powers. After Independence, sovereignty was transferred from the colonial state to the Indian state, which was guided by a Constitution that Yadav aptly describes as “inclusive without othering.” India adopted this path, and in principle, Indian nationalism continues to follow this vision.
However, Hindu nationalism is now asserting a narrower identity, mirroring European-style nationalism. Unlike Europe—where language, religion, and culture shaped national identities—India’s communal nationalism has largely been driven by religion alone, dividing Hindus and Muslims.
The roots of Indian nationalism lie in the socio-economic changes brought about by modern industry, education, and communication. These were bolstered by social reform movements that sought to dismantle hierarchies. Leaders like Narayan Meghaji Lokhande and Com. Singaravelu organized workers, while Jotiba Phule, Savitribai Phule, Ambedkar, and Periyar led struggles for social equality—an essential component of Indian nationalism. Gandhi and Nehru led a mass movement not only for political freedom but also for an inclusive national identity that welcomed all.
Alongside this inclusive nationalism, however, feudal elements laid the foundations for religious nationalism. These factions argued that religion defined national identity. Supported by rajas, nawabs, and elites clinging to a decaying social order, they eventually gave rise to the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and RSS. This religious polarization served British colonial interests and ultimately facilitated the Partition.
Hindu nationalism, inspired by European examples like Germany and Italy, became a force even before Independence. Its organizational structure, including the training of swayamsevaks and pracharaks, spread its ideology across the country. Just after Independence, its impact was felt when Nathuram Godse, a former pracharak, assassinated Mahatma Gandhi—perhaps the most powerful symbol of Indian nationalism.
Hindu nationalism was not limited to the RSS. The Hindu Mahasabha and even certain elements within the Congress harbored similar ideas. Nehru recognized the threat but was unable to root it out, partly due to the continued dominance of feudal structures and rising religiosity.
Hindu nationalism upholds caste and gender hierarchies and gained popular support through cultural issues like cow protection. Its growing influence became evident in the 1980s, marked by mass mobilizations around religious causes. The Shah Bano case provided a pretext for communal polarization, and the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign opened the floodgates for the rise of Hindu nationalism.
In recent decades, vocal assertions of Indian nationalism have been muted. The Right seeks to equate nationalism solely with Hindutva. Is there hope for reclaiming Indian nationalism as the primary national vision? Yes, there is.
Recent developments offer a glimpse of revival. The Bharat Jodo Yatra and Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra show that the space overshadowed by Hindutva can be reclaimed. By foregrounding the rights and concerns of Dalits, women, Adivasis, workers, and minorities—alongside broader social movements—Indian nationalism can be revitalized. The Constitution continues to inspire deep trust among the masses. The twin strategies of promoting constitutional values and supporting inclusive movements can provide the necessary foundation to restore Indian nationalism in the years to come.
---
Comments