This might have escaped the notice of political analysts and sociologists in India and abroad. A senior functionary of the RSS recently told me that out of the 15 jajmans—patrons who perform puja and pay offering to the priests—selected for the 22 January consecration ceremony of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, as many as 10 were from various marginalised communities like the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs, and Denotified Tribes.
This pran pratishtha programme was overseen by the top leadership of the BJP, RSS, and VHP. Their decision to ensure diversity even at an overtly religious programme is a clear indicator of the emergence of a new political Hindu order. Interestingly, the four Shankaracharyas and some religious gurus are opposing this transformation. Before the ceremony, Puri Shankaracharya Nischalanand Saraswati, while refusing to participate, had spoken about how the consecration was not being done as per the Shaastras (Hindu religious texts), saying Prime Minister Narendra Modi would be present inside the sanctum sanctorum and “touch” the idol while the Shankaracharyas would stand outside and clap.
What the BJP-RSS duo is doing is not a departure from or rupture of the old Brahminical Hindu social order per se. It’s a continuum of some sort of reform in Hindu society, where everyone will have their own compartments but still have opportunities to participate in some common spaces. So, the caste and the hierarchy remain at a broader level, but no overt exclusion is practised.
But my focus is not on the social-religious aspects of this procedural thing, which one may call reform; I want to concentrate on the political aspect of it. My argument is that inclusive Hindutva is not a choice for the BJP; rather, it is a compulsion. It’s not that the BJP and RSS are trying to be inclusive because of their benevolence and kind-heartedness. The idea of inclusive Hindutva is a prerequisite to becoming a ruling formation for them. The core idea of Savarkarite Hindutva, which is the ideological masonic stone of the BJP, is in play now.
Also read: Does Kapil Sibal want Dalits as ‘permanent bottom’? His AMU case for Muslims suggests so
Gandhian Hinduism vs Savarkarite Hindutva
It may sound strange and outrageous to many, but it’s a fact that in matters of Hindu social reform and eradicating untouchability, Savarkar was more progressive than Gandhi. Again, Savarkar was not being benevolent or kind-hearted. It was a political compulsion.
In 1927, much before Gandhi started his Harijan Sevak Sangh in 1932, Savarkar argued that Hindus must abolish untouchability. He said that refusing to touch someone based on their community while interacting with animals is a grave offence against humanity. He said that untouchability must be eradicated, as it goes against morality, justice, and humanism. So, Hindus must prioritise eliminating it as an absolute moral duty. “This question of benefit is an aapaddharma (duty to be done in certain exceptional circumstances) and eradication of untouchability is the foremost and absolute dharma,” he wrote.
In his essay “Seven Shackles of the Society” (1931), he mentioned seven fetters of Hindu society that must be abandoned. Here goes the list, which sounds revolutionary compared to Gandhi.
– Vedic monopoly: Restricting access to Vedic knowledge and rituals exclusively to the Brahmin community.
– Occupational bondage: Advocating that one’s profession should be chosen based on individual aptitude and skills, rather than being determined by birth.
– Social exclusion: Condemning untouchability as a societal sin and a stain on humanity.
– Caste at sea: Losing caste status upon foreign travel or crossing oceans.
– Conversion barriers: Opposing restrictions on re-conversions to Hinduism and questioning the need for such limitations.
– Dining divides: Prohibiting inter-caste dining.
– Marriage barriers: Restricting inter-caste marriages.
At that time, Gandhi was not endorsing the idea of temple entry for all. This is true also for inter-caste marriages and inter-dining. Despite all this, Savarkar remained a supporter of the Varna system, Manusmriti, and to some extent eugenics until his last days. A complex character.
It is easier to understand the actions of the RSS-BJP in the sphere of Hindu society in the Savarkarite Hindutva frame. According to this, Hindus are in constant confrontation with Muslims for centuries. The confrontation is happening in political, religious, and cultural spaces. To win this war of meta-narratives, there is a need for Hindus to be united. Only Hindu unity can provide the wherewithal to stop the advancing Islam, and to achieve Hindu unity, they have to forgo some or many of the caste and religious practices. For Savarkarite Hindutva, a divided Hindu is akin to a defeated Hindu. In that sense, ironing out caste fissures is a prerequisite for the Hindu Rashtra.
Here we can see two different ideologies and strategies to strengthen the Hindu order: Gandhian and Savarkarite. Gandhi wanted a united India based on Sarva Dharma Sambhav (all religions are equal), where Hindus will rule the unified India by virtue of their numerical superiority. He worked on this idea until the last legs of the Independence struggle but eventually failed. The Muslim League, while emphasising the concerns of the Muslim community, which was not entirely unfounded, demanded a separate electorate in the central and provincial legislatures (Lok Sabha and state assemblies, in today’s parlance)— that is, Muslims will elect Muslims. At the same time, they sought to retain weightage in representation in provinces where Muslims were in a minority—meaning, they could contest more seats than their proportion in population. Through such unrealistic demands, the League wanted to ensure the formation of Pakistan.
Savarkar, on the other hand, while also pitching for a unified India, rejected Sarva Dharma Sambhav and wanted to make India a Hindu Rashtra for the Hindus. His definition of Hindus is quite broad and also includes Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists. The Savarkarite definition of a Hindu is that India had to be a citizen’s pitribhumi (ancestral land) and punyabhumi (holy land). Obviously, this definition excludes Muslims and Christians. To operationalise this idea, Savarkar built Patit Pavan Mandir in Ratnagiri and opened the gates of the temple for all.
Also read: Congress is doing OBC politics half-heartedly. But I want it to win
Inclusive Hindutva in today’s politics
If this sounds too academic and akin to delving into some distant historical past, let’s deploy the idea of inclusive Hindutva to the current political scenario.
In states like Uttar Pradesh, the BJP secures nearly 40% to 50% of the votes and shows little concern for Muslims. The party has no Muslim MLAs in the state, yet this doesn’t hinder its success. The BJP has effectively cultivated a Hindu-Muslim divide, demonstrating that it can govern India without relying on Muslim voters. But this requires broader Hindu unity where caste fault lines are blurred, at least for the purpose of political mobilisation.
This creates a problem for the non-BJP parties. These so-called secular parties have grown complacent, receiving Muslim votes effortlessly, just by virtue of being the most powerful party against the BJP. In Uttar Pradesh, a party securing just 10 per cent of non-Muslim votes and 19.3 per cent of Muslim votes (based on the community’s share in the state population as per 2011 Census), will hypothetically become the main opposition party in India’s electorally pivotal state, ensuring its political survival, even if it can’t actually beat the BJP. This scenario may make them lazy.
In an earlier article, I used the football analogy to decode the puzzle. One must understand that Muslims cannot defeat the BJP. To defeat the party, the opposition needs to focus on winning Hindu votes in the midfield, just like in football, where midfielders create opportunities for forwards. Expecting Muslims alone to make moves in the midfield and score goals is not realistic. The crucial question isn’t which non-BJP party gets Muslim votes, but rather which secular party can secure sufficient Hindu support.
Meanwhile, the BJP is making inroads in the Hindu vote bank. It is no more a Brahmin-Bania Jana Sangh party of the yesteryears. The BJP has made as many as 27 OBC ministers in the Union cabinet, a Tribal woman the President of the republic, and a Rajasthani Jaat backward as the Vice President. The prime minister loses no opportunity to claim his OBCness. The latest is the case of conferring Bharat Ratna to the social justice stalwart Karpoori Thakur. Modi specifically mentioned that, as a fellow OBC, he can understand the struggle of Karpoori Thakur. “As a person belonging to the backward classes myself, I have much to thank Jan Nayak Karpoori Thakur Ji for… He was a true Jan Nayak,” he said.
When Modi was asserting his OBCness, Rahul Gandhi was being projected by the Congress as a janeu-dhari Hindu. All is not well with the so-called secular politics in India.
Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)
Well written article; however remark that Savarkar was supporter of varna system and Manusmruti seems your own extrapolation. In my opinion, based on Savarkar’s writings, he dismissed ALL scriptures if those are not useful in present world.
Kindly site references for your opinion.
well written Mr Mandal. Although I am disagree with your opinions most of the time. here I am 100% agree with you.
I don’t understand why you are attacking the author personally like this? Where in this article has he said anything against Brahmins? Please don’t be so thin skinned. That all Hindus should be considered equal should not be so difficult for any reasonable person to accept in the 21st century.
Well said
Shame on you and your slave mentality Mr Mandal
Can’t expect anything better from the author ( ! ) having slave mentality. Your type of people prefered to remain slaves of muslims and brits . You deserve that ! Bramhins have always worked and spend their lifetime for betterment of our Bharat for thousands of years. Unlike you people who prefered to work for muslim and brit invaders. Shame on You.