As someone who knows a thing or two about Psychology, let me tell you these:

1. There is nothing called “Mass Psychoanalysis.”

If there were any empirical studies which showed that Gujaratis suffer from self hatred, the anti-Modi media would’ve let us know it already.

This is armchair scholarship - conclusions based purely on subjective personal opinion, not objective empirical findings.

2. Psychoanalysis as a scientific tool has long been discredited and is today considered pseudoscience. In the United States, Ashish Nandy would’ve been a psychologist of the lowest standard.

Before the advent of Behaviorism on the scene in the 1950s, Psychoanalysists enjoyed a lot of respect. There was this aura about them - as if they are Gods or something - because their “science” was new, different and very interesting. Maybe Nandy still lives in that era.

Psychoanalysis is discredited today because the theoretical basis of Psychoanalysis cannot be falsified - meaning the claims that are made by it are not testable empirically.

It is a bit like Astrology. Acc. to Astrology, certain combinations and alignments of heavenly bodies cause changes in human behaviour. For us, there’s no way of testing these claims in an experimental setting because we lack control over positions and movements of heavenly bodies.

Similarly, it is not quite possible to observe, measure and control things like sex and aggression drives objectively.

3. Even when they themselves do not embrace violence, they vicariously enjoy it. They enjoy it even when the violence is directed towards them.

What rubbish! Nandy is basically talking about repression. Acc. to this pseudoscience, human beings have two basic drives - sex and aggression. These drives come from the immoral Id and are balanced by the moral Super Ego. The control between the two is exercised by the Ego.

Impulses from the Id, which are painful when measured against the moral standards in the Super Ego, are repressed by the Ego. It is a defence mechanism. These repressed impulses enter the unconscious mind and are not usually accessible to the conscious mind.

However, there are times at which these impulses burst their way into consciousness through various ways. One way which is very popular is “slip of the tongue.” Other ways in which these repressed impulses manifest is abnormal behaviour, depression - improper psychological condition basically.

So what Nandy is effectively saying is this - Gujaratis are humans, they have aggression impulse, they have repressed it all along, now they see Modi, they can set these natural aggression impulses free, though only in a vicarious manner (by seeing violence.)

However, I still cant fathom how Gujaratis can satisfy their aggression impulses by enjoying violence directed towards themselves! What rubbish!

I wouldn’t comment on the psychoanalysis aspect since I don’t know about it much myself. However, his books are thought-provoking. You will find answers to questions you posed:
* What exactly is folk Hinduism?
* Who are “ordinary” Hindus? Are there any extra-ordinary Hindus, or is that extraordinary Hindus?
* What is Hindu self-hatred? Why do Hindus hate themselves if they indeed do? How did you deduce that? How can you prove that?
* Again, just show me exactly one sign that defines folksy, anarchic, non-rational style of Hinduism? While you are at it, please also share your wisdom on the rational style (sic) of Hinduism?
* How is the RSS an “alter-ego” of the Leninist Left? More importantly, as a clinical psychologist, do organizations have egos, and alter egos? Or did you use “alter ego” merely as a literary flourish?

I am not suggesting that this is the right explanation. However, Nandy believes that early Hindu reformers such as Raja Ram mohan Roy, Rev. Lal Behari Day, Dayanand Saraswati, in general the Bengali Bhardralok of the 19th Century were influenced by West and tried to Christianise Hinduism by trying to mould it in a more monotheistic monolithic religion with everyone following the same philosophy/rituals and having a central authority etc. He contrasts these with Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar and and Dwarakanath Vidyabhusan. These men aimed to reform Hindu Society from within, hence they differed from both the Brahmo Samaj liberals and Gaudiya Samaj conservatives. These men found mythological stories and thus justifications for widow remarriage etc. as opposed to the liberals who transplanted European notions onto Hinduism using laws which interfered with the practice of Hinduism during the era.

Nandy says that these reformers were embarrassed by the folksy side of Hinduism which was rife with superstition, more concerned with the rituals of the Shakti sect rather than the philosophic side of the Vedas etc. According to Nandy, the everyday Hindu follows his own heart in matters of religion and rarely if ever involves himself/herself with the philosophical study of Vedas or Upanishads or Brahmanas. The distinction between Vedanta and vishista Advaita philosophy are not what the ‘ordinary’ Hindu is concerned with. Instead ‘ordinary’ Hindus will be more concerned with folk tales from the religious books and draw a lot of moral lessons from Hindu mythology. This was something the 19th century bhadralok had contempt for and hence they were self-hating Hindus who tried to forge their own religion to the one they admired (a monotheistic, monolithic religion having centralised authority; Christianity)

Anyways, Nandy further claims (a claim many anti-Hindutva writers have made before) that because of the diversity involved in the practices of Hinduism across India, it was difficult to forge a national identity using religion. Since the earlier revolutionaries such as Savarkar studied in Europe they were taken in by how religion could be used to forge national identities across Europe. (As an aside Nandy is a great admirer of Savarkar. He believes that RSS has twisted his ideas to suit their ends.) Savarkar and Hegdewar were atheists/agnostics who transplanted ideas of European revolutionaries such as Giuseppe Mazzini onto the Hindu populace in order to forge a national identity based on religion. Savarkar and Hegdewar were rationalists having contempt for superstition and rituals of Hinduism and they tried to highlight the martial side, more of the rational side of the philosophic Hinduism which was limited in appeal and only the intellectuals were acquainted with. About the Leninist alter ego this is what Nandy means: The founders of RSS were influenced by European revolutionaries, they were rationalists, atheists, had disdain for practices of their religion, were influenced by ideas of modernity and were willing to use violent means to achieve their ideals which were not resonant with the masses and majority practitioners of their own religion.

Anyways, I have taken up enough space. I would like to iterate that I have tried to present Nandy’s ideas as I understand them by reading two of his books and many of his articles online. If you find them illogical or raise someone’s hackles here because of his terming Arya Samaj founder as a self-hating Hindu trying to Christianise Hinduism, it is him you need to take issue with, not me.

BTW, Sandeep I don’t know whether you are aware of this guy Sid Harth who used to spew venom at Hindutva sympathisers on Society Culture India Marathi forums. That guy, though admittedly, not your ideological peer is a scholar on Savarkar. I haven’t come across anyone on the Internet who has studied Savarkar and his writings the way this guy has. He and Nandy share some of the views on Savarkar.

That was good!!

What he is doing here is bullshitting (of which pyschoanalyzing is a special case).