This is where I wind up my previous post on Hindutva, which I had left unfinished. I pointed to a fundamental error in understanding Hindutva by comparing it to "militant Islam."

Islam in itself is militant. There is no other variant–moderate Islam is an oxymoron. Throughout its history, Islam has been characterized by violent imperialism. A "pure" Islamic state is guided by religion–its politics, laws, and society stems from the Prophet’s life, words, and deeds. There is nothing in erstwhile Hindu empire that conclusively points to a similar phenomenon. Hindu kings dispensed justice in accordance with not religious, but dharmic precepts, a vital but extremely healthy distinction. A Muslim subject under a Hindu king was treated not as dhimmi, or even as a second class citizen. He enjoyed equal rights as his Hindu counterpart. Do we have similar examples of Muslim kings implementing this kind of rulership in India or elsewhere? In India, Akbar perhaps distinguishes himself as one of very few honorable exceptions.

In our own time, every aggressive/violent act of Hindutvavaadis has been purely reactions to provocations. We need to yet have a record of unprovoked violence on the part of these folks. Yet we rarely speak about the provocations. When we set aside some silly demands–no Western music, dance, dress, art, etc–a clearer picture of genuine Hindu grievances emerges:

• A Constitutionally-sanctioned secular state that controls Hindu temples, institutions, and almost all aspects of the Hindu religion to the detriment of the religion.
• The same state, which does not enforce a similar control in the case of religious minorities (Haj subsidy, for example).
• Article 370

Other grievances are but offshoots of these three.

One of the primary aims of Hindutva is to build a strong Indian state with solely the Indian National Interest in mind. I’m unsure how this is dangerous. Again, most Hindu kings proudly wore their commitment to upholding the Hindu Dharma as their sacred duty. We have no record of these kings ill treating religious minorities under their rule. I’ve said earlier that Secularism–the Western/European variety–is a temporary solution to centuries of suffering under religious tyranny. Its inability to meet the challenge of increasing Islamization that has fed upon these very secularist ideals is a pointer to its partial failure. When you compare secularism and the behaviour of Hindu kings throws some light. Why didn’t Hindu kings ill-treat/kill their religious minorities? The answer is certainly their studious adherence to Hindu dharma, which offered a spiritual solution to a range of challenges in practical life. A large section of Hindutvavaadis want to revive this spiritual section. This doesn’t mean every means they adopt is right or pleasant but should we lose sight of the forest?

Finally, Hindutva arose as a result of the need to defend Hindu interests thanks to the Congress party, which bent backwards to please ruffians like Jinnah. This need exists till date, which also partly explains its continued appeal to a large section of Indians. What is also interesting is that the severest Hindutva critics uphold everything except the Indian national interest. The more vocal of this crowd openly advocate national interest of other nations. Instead of browbeating it to a corner, it is essential to examine it by reexamining our own perceptions and biases vis a vis Hindutva.

Postscript: On religious conversions, Swami Vivekananda said that every Hindu who converts to Islam or Christianity is an additional enemy. Fascist. Reactionary. Calls for his sudden removal…