Secularism, Democracy, and Hindu Nationalism in India

Abstract

This paper systematically analyzes the origins and emergence of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Indian politics, and its impact on secularism, domestic politics, and foreign policy. We contend that it was the institutional context of Indian politics in the 1980s, and not Hindu nationalist political ideology per se, that facilitated the emergence of the BJP. India's democratic institutions, particularly coalition politics, have moderated the BJP's radical policy goals. As such, the BJP does not pose a threat to the functioning of the Indian democracy. However, with its long-term goal to redefine Indian nationhood, and its dependence on the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) cadre for electoral success, the party's militant and violent agenda against minorities, especially Muslims, remains intact. The BJP's single major success has been the communalization of Indian politics by changing the discourse on secularism. In spite of its nationalist and aggressive rhetoric, there was no substantive change in India's foreign and security policies under the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (1999–2004). More broadly, this paper demonstrates that religion and democracy have always been in a dialectic in the Indian context. After all, India's nominally secular Congress party has used religious symbolism for electoral gains. As such, the equilibrium between religion and democracy needs to be constantly negotiated in India.

We would like to thank Sumit Ganguly for his feedback on multiple drafts of this paper. We also benefited from the comments we received from Miriam Elman and Carolyn Warner, the editors of this special issue of Asian Security. Finally, two anonymous reviewers provided excellent feedback. We take full responsibility for all the opinions expressed in this article and for any errors.

Notes

1. Jonathan Fox, “World Separation of Religion and State into the 21st Century,” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 39, No. 5 (June 2006), pp. 537–569.

2. Alfred Stepan, “A Conceptual Framework: Religion, Democracy, and the ‘Twin Tolerations,” in Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, and Philip J. Constopoulos, eds., World Religions and Democracy (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), pp. 5–6.

3. Stathis N. Kalyvas, The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996).

4. Nitish Dutt and Eddie J. Girdner, “Challenging the Rise of Nationalist-religious Parties in India and Turkey,” Contemporary South Asia Vol. 9, No. 1 (2000), pp. 7–24.

5. Kalyvas makes a similar argument in the Belgian case. See Stathis N. Kalyvas, “Democracy and Religious Politics: Evidence from Belgium,” Comparative Political Studies Vol. 31, No. 3 (June 1998), pp. 292–320.

6. Claude Markowitz, A History of Modern India 1480–1950 (London: Anthem Press, 2002), p. 354.

7. Markowitz, A History of Modern India, pp. 450–467.

8. John Keay, India Discovered: The Recovery of a Lost Civilization (London: HarperCollins, 2001).

9. D. A. Low, “Pakistan and India: Political Legacies from the Colonial Past,” South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Vol. 25, No. 2 (2003), p. 271.

10. Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 2001), p. 5.

11. Hindutva is not Hinduism. It is in fact a corrupted version of the religion. On the Hindu nationalists’ attempt to redefine Hinduism for their Hindutva agenda, see Romila Thapar, “Syndicated Hinduism,” in Romila Thapar, ed., Cultural Pasts: Essays in Early Indian History (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 1025–1054.

12. Christophe Jaffrelot, “From Indian Territory to Hindu Bhoomi: The Ethnicization of Nation-State Mapping in India,” in John Zavos, Andrew Wyatt, and Vernon Hewitt, eds, The Politics of Cultural Mobilization in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 208.

13. Thomas Blom Hansen, The Saffron Wave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in Modern India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 79.

14. Barbara D. Metcalf, “Hindu Ethnonationalism, Muslim Jihad, and Secularism: Muslims in the Political Life of the Republic of India,” in Rafiq Dossani and Henry S. Rowen, eds., Prospects for Peace in South Asia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), pp. 219–220.

15. Thapar has termed this phenomenon as the “Semitization” of Hinduism. See Thapar, “Syndicated Hinduism,” pp. 1025–1054.

16. Robert L. Hardgrave, “Hindu Nationalism and the BJP: Transforming Religion and Politics in India,” in Dossani and Rowen, eds., Prospects for Peace in South Asia, p. 186.

17. It is important to note that Gandhi and Nehru's views on secularism are distinct – Gandhi adopted an “equidistant model” that calls for the respect of all faiths, while Nehru adopted a more Western model stressing the importance of neutrality between the state and religion. Regardless of this distinction, Tambiah asserts that “both stood together in regard to the realization that India was pluralistic in religion, language, and customs, and that it was necessary for the Indian state of the future to be accommodating of religious diversity, while observing even-handed neutrality.” For more on the Gandhi–Nehru view of secularism see Stanley J. Tambiah, “The Crisis of Secularism in India,” in Rajeev Bhargava, ed., Secularism and Its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 420–423.

18. Sen argues that the politics of secularism in India received a significant boost in the sixteenth century under the Mughal Emperor Akbar (1556–1605) who emphasized religious “neutrality” of the state. Akbar was the first ruler in the world to codify minority rights. He issued a legal order stating that “no man should be interfered with on account for religion, and anyone is allowed to go over to a religion that pleases him.” Sen further argues that “in the case of Akbar there is a continuity of legal scholarship and public memory linking his ideas and codifications with present-day India.” Amartya Sen, The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture, and Identity (London: Allen Lane, 2005), pp. 76 and 288.

19. For a detailed description of secularism in India see Tambiah, “The Crisis of Secularism in India,” pp. 418–453.

20. Amartya Sen, “Secularism and Its Discontents,” in Rajeev Bhargava, ed., Secularism and Its Critics (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 456–457.

21. Pradeep K. Chhibber and John R. Petrocik, “Social Cleavages, Elections, and the Indian Party System,” in Zoya Hasan, ed., Parties and Party Politics in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 56–75.

22. Pradeep Chhibber, “Party Decline in a Mature System: The Congress Party of India,” Taiwan Journal of Democracy Vol. 1, No. 1 (July 2005), pp. 49–76.

23. Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. and Stanley A. Kochanek, India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation (Boston: Thomson Wadsworth, 2008), p. 261.

24. Chhibber and Petrocik, “Social Cleavages, Elections, and the Indian Party System,” pp. 56–75.

25. Chhibber, “Party Decline in a Mature System,” pp. 49–76.

26. Christophe Jaffrelot, India's Silent Revolution; The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).

27. Chhibber, “Party Decline in a Mature System,” pp. 49–76.

28. Hardgrave and Kochanek, India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation, p. 334.

29. The Akali Dal began as a socio-religious reform group during the 1920s but started playing an important role in the politics of Punjab after independence. For details see Baldev Raj Nayar, Minority Politics in the Punjab (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966).

30. This case is discussed in the section on the Uniform Civil Code. For details see Tambiah, “The Crisis of Secularism in India,” pp. 427–433.

31. The Hindu nationalist discourse wishes to recreate a mythical “golden age” of ideal rule of the lead character of the Ramayana, the Hindu god Rama. For further discussion see Sheldon Pollock, “Ramayana and Political Imagination in India,” The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 52, No. 2 (May 1993), pp. 261–297.

32. The Ayodhya controversy is discussed in the subsequent section. Also see Prakash Chandra Upahyaya, “The Politics of Indian Secularism,” Modern Asian Studies Vol. 26, No. 4 (October 1992), p. 845.

33. Hansen, The Saffron Wave, p. 150.

34. For an earlier review of the Mandal Commission see A. Ramaiah “Identifying Other Backward Classes,” Economic and Political Weekly, June 6, 1992, pp. 1203–1207.

35. Hardgrave and Kochanek, India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation, pp. 334 and 336.

36. For a district-wise breakdown of the India's Muslim population see Mushirul Hasan, Legacy of a Divided Nation: India's Muslims since Independence (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), Appendix A, pp. 329–340.

37. Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “The diversity in Indian Islam,” The Times of India, August 10, 2002.

38. Most of India's Muslim elite were members of the Muslim League that was at the forefront of the movement to create Pakistan.

39. Alistair McMillian, “The BJP Coalition: Partisanship and Power-sharing in Government,” in Katharine Adeney and Lawrence Sáez, eds., Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 17.

40. This section draws upon the work of Metcalf. See Metcalf, “HinduEthnonationalism, Muslim Jihad, and Secularism.”

41. Christophe Jaffrelot, The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).

42. Christophe Jaffrelot, “A Specific Party-building Strategy: The Jana Sangh and the RSS Network,” in Hasan, ed., Parties and Party Politics in India, pp. 190–231.

43. The BJP's 1998 Manifesto and the NDA's 1999 Manifesto can be accessed at www.bjp.org.

44. David Horowitz, “Electoral Systems for a Divided Society,” in David Horowitz, ed., A Democratic South Africa? Constitutional Engineering in a Divided Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 163–195.

45. George Tsebelis, “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism, and Multipartyism,” British Journal of Political Science Vol. 25, No. 3 (July 1995), pp. 289–325.

46. T. R. Ramachandran, “NDA crisis blows over: PM thanks Naidu on phone for continued support,” The Tribune, April 16, 2002. TDP's withdrawal may have led to the disintegration of the NDA government.

47. For details refer to McMillian, “The BJP Coalition,” pp. 13–35.

48. Marie Lall, “Indian Education Policy under the NDA Government,” in Adeney and Sáez, eds., Coalition Politics and Hindu Nationalism, pp. 153–170.

49. Christophe Jaffrelot, “Introduction: The Invention of Ethnic Nationalism,” in Christophe Jaffrelot, ed., Hindu Nationalism: A Reader (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 23.

50. Jaffrelot, “Introduction,” p. 24.

51. The Indian Constitution does not provide a mechanism necessary to resolve a dispute should fundamental individual rights clash with personal laws informed by religious practices. For further discussion see Tambiah, “The Crisis of Secularism in India,” pp. 427–433.

52. Hardgrave, Jr., “Hindu Nationalism and the BJP,” p. 196.

53. Sen, The Argumentative Indian, p. 304.

54. The Indian Constitution may be found at http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html.

55. Many Hindus believe that Babur destroyed a Hindu Rama temple and erected the mosque in its place. However, Eaton's historical study of temple destruction in India does not include Ayodhya. For further discussion see Richard M. Eaton, “Temple desecration and Indo-Muslim states,” Frontline, January 5, 2001.

56. After Hindu zealots placed icons of Rama in the mosque in 1949, the mosque was sealed off. For details see Sumit Ganguly, “The Crisis of Indian Secularism,” Journal of Democracy Vol. 14, No. 4 (2003), p. 18.

57. Hardgrave, “Hindu Nationalism and the BJP,” p. 196.

58. Hardgrave, “Hindu Nationalism and the BJP,” p. 199.

59. For details of the Ayodhya controversy and the demolition of the Babri Masjid see Hansen, The Saffron Wave, pp. 172–185.

60. Ganguly, “The Crisis of Indian Secularism,” p. 20.

61. However, there is speculation that the fire was in fact set off by local Hindu activists. See Ganguly, “The Crisis of Indian Secularism,” p. 11.

62. For details of the Gujarat violence, see Human Rights Watch, “‘We Have No Orders To Save You’: State Participation and Complicity in Communal Violence in Gujarat”, Vol. 14, No. 3 (C), April 2002. The report is available at www.hrw.org.

63. Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, “Modi in Gujarat: a Hindu ‘laboratory’ frightens Muslims”, International Herald Tribune, April 29, 2002.

64. Martha C. Nussbaum, “Fears for Democracy in India,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 18 May 2007. Available at http://chronicle.com (accessed June 16, 2007).

65. “While the national Indian press has played an important role in exposing the violence and official neglect or misconduct, sectors of the local press have been accused of inciting the violence.” See Human Rights Watch, “‘We Have No Orders To Save You’,” p. 34.

66. National Human Rights Commission, “Proceedings of the NHRC on the Situation in Gujarat: 1 March–1 July,” National Human Rights Commission of India, New Delhi, 2002.

67. Nussbaum, “Fears for Democracy in India.”

68. For a comprehensive view of European ideas in general and German romanticism in particular on Hindutva, see Chetan Bhatt, Hindu Nationalism: Origins, Ideologies, and Modern Myths (Oxford: Berg Publishers Limited, 2001).

69. Hansen, The Saffron Wave, p. 247 (footnote 26).

70. Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (New Delhi: Picador India, 2007), p. 755.

71. Guha, India After Gandhi, p. 756.

72. Hardgrave, “Hindu Nationalism and the BJP,” p. 203.

73. The Indian Constitution may be found at http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/welcome.html.

74. Ellen Kattner, “The Union Territory of Lakshadweep: The Social Structure of Maliku (Minicoy),” IIAS Newsletter Vol. 10 (Autumn 1996), p. 19.

75. On this issue, see Sumit Ganguly, The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace (New York: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Cambridge University Press, 1997).

76. According to scholars, a small number of Sanskrit-speaking Indo-Aryan groups migrated into the subcontinent around 1500 BC from eastern Iran. See Michael Witzel, “Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts,” Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3 (May 2001). Available at www.people.fas.harvard.edu.

77. For the controversy over this allegedly conflated and dubiously invented “Indus-Saraswati Civilization” see “The Harappa/Veda Discussion (2002).” Available at www.people.fas.harvard.edu (accessed May 18, 2007).

78. Islam has had a complex political legacy in the subcontinent and includes both of these dimensions. See Andre Wink, “Perspectives on the Indo-Islamic World” (Lecture Delivered at Tel Aviv University, April 2, 2006). Available at http://islam-center.huji.ac.il (accessed May 18, 2006).

79. Lall, “Indian Education Policy under the NDA Government,” pp. 153–170.

80. For a comprehensive overview of the “saffronization” of India's history, see “Communalization of Education: The History Textbooks Controversy” (Delhi Historians’ Group). Available at www.sacw.net (accessed May 18, 2006). This report contains the views of prominent Indian historians like Romila Thapar and Irfan Habib as well as the opinions of prominent journalists such as Vir Sanghvi.

81. C. Raja Mohan, Crossing the Rubicon: The Shaping of India's New Foreign Policy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

82. Dennis Kux, India and the United States: Estranged Democracies 1941–1991 (Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1993), p. 440.

83. For details on the historic Talbott–Singh talks, see Strobe Talbott, Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy, And the Bomb (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004).

84. For details on the civil nuclear deal, see Sumit Ganguly and Dinshaw Mistry, “The Case for the US–India Nuclear Agreement,” World Policy Journal Vol. 28, No. 2 (Summer 2006), pp. 11–19.

85. India is not a signatory to the NPT that came into effect in 1968. The treaty recognizes only those states as the legal members of the nuclear club that conducted nuclear tests prior to 1967. Having missed the earlier window, New Delhi was determined to conduct overt nuclear tests before the NPT could be extended permanently in 1995.

86. There is a vast literature on India's nuclear weapons program. For an excellent overview, see Ashley Tellis, India's Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2000). On India's May 1998 nuclear tests, see Sumit Ganguly, “India's Pathway to Pokhran II: Prospects and Sources of New Delhi's Nuclear Weapons Program,” International Security Vol. 23, No. 4 (Spring 1999), pp. 148–177.

87. India's Foreign Relations, 1998–99 (Embassy of India, Washington, DC) (n.d.). Available at www.indiaembassy.org (accessed May 18, 2007).

88. Members of two Pakistan-based and sponsored Islamist organizations – Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammed – carried out the attacks. India responded to these attacks with its largest ever troop mobilization along the India–Pakistan international border but refrained from taking punitive military actions. For details, see Sumit Ganguly and Michael R. Kraig, “The 2001–2002 Indo-Pakistani Crisis: Exposing the Limits of Coercive Diplomacy,” Security Studies Vol. 14, No. 2 (April–June 2005), pp. 290–324.

89. Shujaat Bukhari, “PM extends ‘hand of friendship’ to Pakistan,” The Hindu, April, 19 2003.

90. C. Raja Mohan, “Vajpayee's experiment with Pakistan,” The Hindu, December 4, 2003.

91. India and China agreed not to use military force against each other in order to settle their disputes.

92. “India and China ‘to double trade’,” BBC News, November 21, 2006. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk.

93. Pramit Mitra, “A Thaw in India–China Relations”, South Asia Monitor No. 62 (September 2003).

94. “India and China agree over Tibet”, BBC News, 24 June 2003. Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk.

95. On Indo-Israeli relations, see Efraim Inbar, “The Indian–Israeli Entente,” Orbis Vol. 48, No. 1 (Winter 2004), pp. 89–104.

96. On India's “Look East” policy, see Christophe Jaffrelot, “India's Look East Policy: An Asianist Strategy in Perspective,” India Review Vol. 2, No. 2 (April 2003), pp. 35–68.

97. Stepan, “A Conceptual Framework.”

98. Hardgrave and Kochanek, India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation, pp. 340 and 342.

99. K. N. Panikkar, “Down, but not out,” Frontline, Vol. 21, No. 12, June 5–18, 2004.

100. Edward Luce, In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India (London: Little, Brown, 2006), p. 312.

101. Scholars have described this phenomenon as ‘Sanskritization’. For a useful example of this complex social phenomenon, see M. N. Srinivas, The Cohesive Role of Sanskritization and Other Essays (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989).