|
|
| MARGINAL NO MORE?
Will India's Hindu nationalist government walk a moderate line? March 20, 1998 |
|---|
Questions asked
in this forum:
Other political parties claim to have religious roots, but are not called fundamentalists. Why the double standard? Why is the BJP support of a uniform civil law considered an anti-minority position? What is the significance of small, independent parties in this election? Will the BJP embrace multinational organizations? Is a there any reason for minorities to worry about a moderate BJP government? 
Question:
The BJP is portrayed as a party of fundamentalist Hindus because of its ideology of Hindutva. I watched speaker after speaker at the Republican convention in San Diego a few years back talk about the Judeo-Christian roots and values on which America was founded, yet I have never seen the Republican party being referred to as a party of fundamentalist Christians.
Why the double standard?
Professor Varshney responds:
To call the BJP a party of Hindu fundamentalists is basically erroneous. One should separate the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) from the BJP. The former is a non-electoral, religious organization; the latter a political party. It is possible to use the term "fundamentalist" for the VHP, but not for the BJP. Indeed, the VHP has roughly the same relationship with the BJP as the Christian Coalition with the Republican Party.
Professor Brass responds:
Yes, this is exactly the way the BJP itself might respond. Its leaders claim that they want nothing more than to establish an Indian nation-state along the lines of the Western states, of which they are, however, more likely to mention France or Germany than the U. S. A. They say that France is a country for the French, Germany for the Germans, so why cannot India be seen as a country of the Hindus.
There are several problems with this argument, however, and also with the comparison with fundamentalist Christians. First of all, the BJP is not a fundamentalist party in the sense of wanting to take the country back to its religious roots in ancient times or to the "fundamental" values of the Hindu religion. They claim that they are a secular party and that their aim is to create a modern, powerful Hindu nation-state. They have openly acknowledged in the past that their use of Hindu religious symbols is a political tactic for the purpose of mobilizing Hindus and consolidating them behind the BJP so that the party and country can pursue this goal unitedly.
Second, whatever one thinks of the so-called fundamentalist Christians in the United States, the questioner notes that he/she heard them talk about the Judeo-Christian roots and values of America. The BJP does not talk about the Hindu-Muslim roots and values of India. They say that the Muslims on the whole have not acknowledged that they are Hindus, which they claim to define in political rather than religious terms while completely fudging any kind of meaningful distinction between the political and the religious. The author of this question, therefore, should ask him/her self what it would be like in America if there was a political party about to achieve power here whose aim was to turn America into a Christian nation-state in which Jews would have to acknowledge that they are political Christians to be entitled to full respect and rights as American citizens.
So, there is no double standard here. Anyway, who is applying a double standard? One might just as well reject both these Indian and American political orientations for different reasons peculiar to each group and each country.
Professor Embree responds:
It is absolutely incorrect to refer to the BJP as a party of "Hindu Fundamentalists." The analogy with Christian fundamentalism is based on a misuse of the term. "Fundamentalism" is a peculiar feature of American Protestantism with clear historical theological roots: a group of Protestant theologians who insisted in the early years of this century that Christian belief must be defined in terms of belief in the inerrancy of the Bible as God's word and on acceptance of the creeds of the early Church. This is now confused with the so-called "Christian Right," which defines certain political positions as "Christian" - opposition to gay rights, to abortion, welfare, "feminism," etc. (None of which, incidentally, figures in Indian political discourse.) Fundamentalism as used in the U.S. has no meaning in the Hindu context-- a religion with no one sacred book (it has a multitude), no creeds, no religious hierarchy, Hindutva takes its name from a book of that name by V.D. Sarvakar published in 1923. It is only in recent years that the word has become well-known. The book itself is not about religion - but about nationalism. The writer denies that Hinduism is the issue - the issue is in Indian history, nationalism, and culture. I prefer to speak, then, of "Hindu nationalism," not in any sense Hindu fundamentalism. The argument of Hindu nationalists - and this is what the book "Hindutva" is about - is that Indian values are those rooted in India itself, other values, other cultures, other religions, were brought in by invaders, Muslims and Christians. But.Muslims especially are seen as aliens, because they make up such a huge number - nearly 130 million. In Indian political discourse, politicians never appeal to "Hindu values" as our politicians do to "Christian values," nor, like our politicians, do they ever mention "God" in their speeches.
So there is not a double standard at work, but rather reporters using terms imprecisely. One of the unpleasant features of the current election was that Sonia Gandhi, with the support of the Congress Party, kept stressing the antagonism between Hindus and Muslims. This is precisely what the British used to do - stress the antagonisms and fears of the Muslims - and argue that India could not survive without them to protect the Muslim minority from the Hindu majority. This was also at the heart of Jinnah's demand for Pakistan - that one could not trust Hindu rulers. Sonia and the Congress are now saying: the BJP is Hindu, therefore Muslims will be persecuted. She did this, of course, to win Muslims' votes, but it is a very dangerous game to play, creating fear among the Muslims.
The Hindu nationalists have always claimed that the Indian National Congress built its support on religion and caste - an appeal to Brahmins, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, and "outcastes."
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
