Bhagwat's Hindu categories: An exercise in political appropriation

By Ram Puniyani* 

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat often performs rhetorical acrobatics to defend the idea of a Hindu Rashtra. At times, he says that everyone living in India is a Hindu because we share a common ancestry. Earlier RSS ideologues, however, were more explicit in asserting that Islam and Christianity are foreign religions.

The principal ideologue of Hindu nationalism, V.D. Savarkar, defined a Hindu as one who regards the land stretching from the Sindhu to the seas as both Pitribhumi (Fatherland) and Punyabhumi (Holy Land). The second RSS Sarsanghchalak, M.S. Golwalkar, openly admired the German model of nation-building, even citing the persecution of Jews as an example to emulate in creating a Hindu nation. Bhagwat presents a more polished version of the same ideological project.

The RSS has also consistently argued that Hinduism is not a religion but a "way of life," a claim that runs contrary to the sociological understanding of religion, which generally includes a sacred deity, rituals, holy texts, and a clergy.

Recently, Bhagwat came up with a novel classification of Hindus, apparently in an attempt to address the growing sense of marginalisation among Muslims and Christians while simultaneously subsuming them within the framework of Hindu identity. Giving Hinduism an expansive meaning, he stated: "If you are Indian, this nature (Hindu) is inherent in you." He underlined that Muslims and Christians are an inseparable part of the Hindu nation.

Bhagwat then outlined four broad categories of Hindus. The first, he said, consists of those who openly proclaim their Hindu identity with pride. The second comprises those who acknowledge being Hindu but consider it nothing extraordinary. The third includes those who prefer to speak about their Hindu identity only in private. The fourth consists of people who have either forgotten their Hindu identity or have been made to forget it.

This raises several questions. Who, according to Bhagwat, belongs to the first category of "proud Hindus"? Are they those who demolished the Babri Masjid? Those who gather outside mosques shouting abusive slogans? Those who, like some Kanwariyas, create public disorder during religious processions? Bhagwat did not clarify, leaving one to infer his meaning.

Consider Dr B.R. Ambedkar. Born into a Hindu family, he publicly burned the Manusmriti and famously declared that although he was born a Hindu, he would not die a Hindu. Into which of Bhagwat's four categories would Ambedkar fit? And what of the Indian Constitution, drafted under Ambedkar's leadership? The RSS had opposed the Constitution at the time of its adoption, arguing that it was based on Western values and lacked an authentically Indian foundation. How does Bhagwat reconcile that history with his present formulation?

The RSS today faces the challenge of attracting Muslims, Christians, Dalits and Adivasis into its fold. Its recent attempts to speak in more conciliatory terms about Muslims and Christians reflect this political necessity.

Defining Hinduism itself, however, is no easy task. There are several reasons for this. First, Hinduism is not a prophet-based religion and has no single founder. Second, numerous religious traditions that developed in the Indian subcontinent have gradually been grouped together under the label of Hinduism. Third, the enormous diversity of beliefs and practices within Hindu traditions defies any single, uniform definition. Practices and beliefs that emerged at different historical moments continue to coexist. Lord Satyanarayana and Santoshi Mata are worshipped alongside philosophical notions of Ishwar and the concept of Nirguna Nirakar Brahman—the formless, attributeless Absolute.

The central feature that distinguishes Hinduism historically is the pervasive influence of the caste system. Social inequality acquired religious legitimacy through the caste order, which became deeply embedded in scriptures and social practices.

The Aryans, who came to the subcontinent in successive migrations, were pastoral communities practising polytheism. During the Vedic period, the Vedas emerged, reflecting the values of that era and describing numerous gods and goddesses with distinct functions. The Manusmriti became an important guide to social organisation. This Vedic phase gradually evolved into Brahmanism, during which the social elite remained insulated from the rest of society. The caste system became the principal mechanism through which this insulation was maintained.

The challenge posed by Buddhism to caste hierarchy compelled Brahmanism to adapt, giving rise to what later came to be recognised as Hinduism. Public rituals, festivals and devotional practices were expanded to appeal to broader sections of society and draw them away from Buddhism.

It is noteworthy that until around the eighth century CE, the major religious texts of the subcontinent do not use the term "Hindu." The word gained currency after West Asian Muslim travellers and rulers referred to the people living beyond the Sindhu River as Hindus. Initially, "Hindu" was merely a geographical designation. Only later did it become a religious category encompassing the various traditions that had developed in the region. Those oppressed by the caste system often sought liberation by embracing Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and later Sikhism.

Within what is now called Hinduism, two broad streams evolved: Brahmanism and Shramanism. The Shramana traditions rejected Brahminical authority and opposed the caste system. Alongside Brahmanism flourished many other traditions, including Tantra, Bhakti, Shaivism and Siddhanta. While Brahminism classified religious practices according to caste, the Shramana traditions rejected caste distinctions altogether.

Brahminical Hinduism gradually became the dominant form because it enjoyed the patronage of rulers. Over time, the religious traditions of lower castes and heterodox movements were marginalised, and Brahminism came to be identified as Hinduism itself. This process accelerated after the decline of Buddhism and Jainism following the Magadhan and later political developments. During British rule, colonial administrators, seeking to classify Indian society, constructed a broad Hindu identity based largely on Brahminical norms for all those who were neither Muslims nor Christians. The Vedas and other Brahminical texts came to be presented as the defining scriptures of Hinduism. As a result, the immense diversity of Hindu traditions was obscured, and Brahminism emerged as the dominant representation of Hinduism.

In this historical context, Bhagwat's fourfold classification raises an important question. Given the centrality of caste in the evolution and practice of Hinduism, how does his typology account for these deep social and historical divisions? Until he addresses this question, his classification remains more rhetorical than analytical.

---

*Well known political analyst