India's Faith and Nation — Hindu Nationalism

Last time, in the Middle East, we saw faith emerge as a question concerning the very form of the state. In India, the great nation of Asia, religion and politics have met in yet another way. What is at stake here is not whether the state becomes a religious one. It is the question of ‘who is an Indian’ — the question of the very outline of the nation. India is known as a society where many religions live together, and at the starting point of its independence lay a vow to build a country where no one would be killed over a difference of faith. Yet a current seeking to place the faith of the Hindu majority at the center of what it means to be a citizen is said to have shaken that ideal from within. In this episode, we trace, from both sides of the argument, the tension between an India born as a secular state and the force that questions it anew.

A secular state born of tragedy

In 1947, India became independent from British rule. Yet that independence was not one of joy alone. For it took the form of the so-called partition, in which the region holding many Hindus and the region holding many Muslims were divided into the two countries of India and Pakistan. At this time fierce violence over the difference of faith broke out in many places, and an immense number of people are said to have lost their lives and been driven from their homes.

This tragedy left a heavy lesson for the leaders of the new country. The first prime minister, Nehru, is said to have placed at the foundation of the independent state the building of a country where no one would be killed over a difference of faith. Under the constitution that took effect in 1950, India set out as a secular republic that did not tie any particular religion to the state. To bind the country into one in this society where diverse religions stand side by side, the state must not favor any single faith — that is, the separation of religion and politics was necessary. That was the road India’s founding chose.

What is important here is that India’s secularism was not an attempt to drive religion out of society. Rather, the emphasis was placed on respecting every faith equally and on not making any one of them the state religion. The people would keep their faith devout, while at the level of the state there would be no leaning toward any particular religion — upon this delicate balance, the unity of independent India was built. For precisely this reason, how to maintain that balance would continue to be a central task of Indian politics thereafter.

‘Being Hindu’ and ‘being Indian’

Against this form of the secular state stood a current that set up a different image of the nation. It is the thought called Hindu nationalism. At its core lies, it is said, a way of thinking that regards Hindu culture and tradition as the foundation of the country called India and seeks to make them the wellspring of national unity. This view, which grasps Indianness by overlapping it with Hindu tradition, is sometimes spoken of with the word Hindutva.

The organization known for carrying this current is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the so-called RSS, founded in 1925. And the party that has raised this ideal on the political stage was the Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP, founded in 1980. How to assess their claims is sharply divided. Those who support them see it as a rightful reclaiming of long-belittled Hindu culture and pride, and as a source of national unity and vitality. Those who criticize them, on the other hand, worry that placing the faith of the majority at the center of the nation pushes minorities — Muslims foremost among them — to the margins and may erode the founding ideal of secularism.

One event in which this conflict appeared in its sharpest form was the destruction of the mosque at Ayodhya in 1992. That site is held to be the birthplace of a god revered in Hinduism, a land where faith and history are complexly intertwined. This incident, in which a mobilized crowd tore down a historic mosque, set off serious conflict in many places and would cast a long shadow over Indian society. Regarding this event too, the way its course and responsibility are received differs by standpoint, and the assessment remains unsettled to this day.

Within a wavering balance

The BJP, which carries Hindu nationalism in its background, gradually grew in political presence thereafter. In the late 1990s it became the center of a coalition government, and in the 2014 general election it is said to have won an outright majority in the lower house and taken power. Behind this, various factors have been pointed to — discontent with the long-continued politics of secularism, expectations for the economy, and more — and the reasons people chose this current are not uniform.

People receive this change each in their own way. From the standpoint of supporters, it is assessed as a movement that broke out of stagnation and brought confidence and momentum to the country. Some voices cite economic growth and a rising international presence as its fruits. On the other hand, from the standpoint of those who worry about a retreat of secularism, there is talk of growing unease among minorities and of harm to the harmony of a diverse society. The same event is received both as hope and as anxiety — this, one might say, is the present face of India.

What we want to pause and confirm here is that this is not a problem of the Hindu faith itself. What is in question is the structural problem of what the political choice of placing a particular faith at the center of citizenship brings to a society where many religions live together. Many of the people who believe in Hinduism quietly carry on their daily faith apart from such political movements. It is important not to confuse faith itself with the politics carried out in its name.

The story of India teaches us that the relationship between religion and politics appears not only in the form of whether a state becomes a religious one, but also as the question of the outline — ‘who is the nation.’ How a society holding diverse faiths reflects that diversity in the form of the country — to that question, no single right answer has yet been found. Now, let us turn our gaze to Europe. There, religion put down quiet roots in postwar politics in a far gentler way than through revolution or conflict. Next time, we follow the model of that settled relationship.