Romila Thapar is one of the most famous critics of Hindutva politics. Often criticized by the right wing for her independent views, Thapar still raises her voice for pluralistic India. his new book, future in the past, a collection of essays on the issues and ideas that have kept him busy as a historian. In a conversation, Thapar explains how the politics of Hindutva seeks legitimacy to the exclusion of others from a perceived Hindu past. Excerpts:
How do you see Hinduism’s approach to history?
The approach to history usually includes a theory of explanation. It means collecting reliable evidence on the subject to be researched, which is then analyzed, and a logical explanation is sought for past events. None of this is needed for the Hindutva approach to history, which is largely a narrative of a past constructed in such a way that it lends legitimacy to present-day ideology. There is no examination of whether the evidence is reliable and the explanation based on well-thought-out arguments. That’s why professional historians don’t take it seriously.
A view of the gathering at the Hindu Rashtra Sammelan in New Delhi. , Photo Credit: Getty Images
The purpose of Hindutva history is to maintain that the proposed Hindu nation is a predictable result of India’s past. The focus is on the history of Hindus considered most relevant than others. The recent deletion in history textbooks such as Mughal history is an example of this. Contributions to the past came from different sources, but for Hinduism only the past of Hindu communities is of any real consequence. For Hindutva, the current politics should be conducive to bring about a Hindu Rashtra.
Modern scientific achievements are said to have been known to Hindus millennia ago – an idea that inevitably gives rise to incredible claims, such as the antiquity of flying machines, the use of plastic surgery to literally create the god Ganesha. To be used for, or the birth of Kauravas in stem cell research. None of these claims is based on proven evidence. This underlines the difference between trained historians and those who claim to write history.
Why this desire in a section of academics and a significant section of politicians to embrace the Aryans and emphasize their supposed indigenous origins?
Ruins of the Stone Gate at Persepolis, the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire, declared by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in 1979. , Photo Credit: Getty Images
words in pre-colonial times Arya It was applied to those people whose language had evolved from the Aryan language and who were socially respected. the king is sometimes called arya-putra, In the culture of the Iranian Aryans in ancient Iran, the Achaemenid rulers took pride in identifying themselves as Aryans and Aryan speakers. Culturally, shows some interesting connections with the Iranian Avesta. Rigveda,
The term ‘race’ came into prominence in the 19th century and the study of people around the world was named ‘race-science’. The division of people into castes introduced a hierarchy and the Aryans were given a high position in it. It was taken to a horrifying extreme by Hitler and the Nazis supported by Mussolini and the Italian fascists. Indians associated with Hindutva such as BS Moonje were greatly influenced and aimed to model their own organizations on these lines. Added to this was colonial scholarship that regarded the Aryans as superior.
In the Indian context, the Celtic culture of the British Isles was considered to have some affinities with Indo-Aryan cultures. The speakers of the Indo-Aryan language, Sanskrit, were projected as native Hindus and their religion, Vedic Brahmanism, was foundational to Hinduism.
Savarkar defined a Hindu as a Hindu who can claim that India is the land of his forefathers. FatherlandAnd that was also where his religion was born, holy land, That’s why Aryans must have originated within India. Hence the Aryans’ desperate search for an Indian homeland, and the Hindutva denial of migration from Central Asia to India by Aryan-speaking peoples.
Illustration titled ‘Caucasian Race, Hindu’, 1800-1900. , Photo Credit: Getty Images
The creation of a national culture was anti-colonial in nature. How has this evolved into the concept of Hindu Rashtra today?
Historically there have been two categories of nationalism in India. The former, which was much larger, more inclusive, and supported by a majority of Indians across all communities, has been called – and rightly so – the nationalism of the Indian national movement that was sown in the late 19th century. As a movement it was inclusive and appealed to every Indian irrespective of religion, language, class or caste and other identities. It had one of the main objectives which was to end the colonial rule and to convert India into an independent, independent nation-state. I would call it inclusive, integrated nationalism. A nation-state was achieved in 1947. The essential features of this nationalism were democracy and secularism which would help in ensuring equality of all citizens.
Mahatma Gandhi with Muhammad Ali Jinnah (left) in 1946. , Photo Credit: Getty Images
Alongside this unifying nationalism was another movement called religious nationalism. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, two movements began to take shape. They called themselves nationalism but they were based on a limited majority and fit into a single religious identity. Hindu identity was the religious majority of the population, and Muslim identity was the largest religious minority in India. Neither of them was concerned about organizing against the colonial power. Each of them planned to establish two successor states after the departure of the colonizer. One was Pakistan which would cater to the Muslim majority among the minority communities, and the other was a Hindu nation which would cater to the Hindu majority in the population.
How did this come about?
Their origins lie in the colonial study of the Indian past. Colonial scholars argued that pre-modern Indians lacked a sense of history because India had no history before the British period. So he began to investigate India and came up with the theory that there were two religious ‘nations’ – Hindu and Muslim – that dominated history, and were deeply hostile to each other. The manifestation of this principle takes shape in various parties supporting two nationalisms qualified by religion – such as the Muslim League supporting Muslim nationalism, and the Hindu Mahasabha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh etc. supporting Hindu nationalism. The chickens of colonialism came home to roost in these religious nationalisms.
Huge crowd to witness the closing ceremony of the three-day district convention of the Indian Union Muslim League in Malappuram. , Photo Credit: Saqer Hussain
In contrast to inclusive, integrative nationalism, religious nationalism has been defined as being exclusive and separate, largely concerned only with the welfare of those who identify with its religious identity, or for that matter Any other single identity of any language or caste for .
Religious nationalism is a party of co-religionists. Because it is exclusive, it separates itself from other nationalisms, and to that extent it can be called isolated nationalism. Its central objective is to establish a nation-state for the welfare of the people belonging to the religion of the demographic majority, usually the religion of the demographic majority, in the case of Hindu nationalism. It seriously contradicts two essential characteristics of the nation-state – that it should be democratic and secular in its functioning. In the absence of this methodology, there is always a possibility of such states turning into political authoritarianism.
Is the modern concept of nationalism a ploy of the politics of exclusion?
It depends on what kind of nationalism one is talking about. It is important to distinguish between integrated nationalism and isolated nationalism. As long as unified nationalism persists, there is unity of purpose, as in India initially after 1947. We were then concerned with building a society that ensures the welfare of all and takes at least some steps to do so. It was not just a matter of giving a speech for electoral support and leaving it there. After all, we have a constitution to guide us in what we are doing or planning. Integrative nationalism does not differentiate between ‘us’ and ‘them’ as it includes every citizen. But segregated nationalism discriminates, giving priority and privilege to ‘us’ and subordinating ‘them’. Sometimes it is even a violent subordination that the distinction between the dominant majority and the lesser others becomes apparent. This does not happen in unified nationalism because in this form the majority consists of people of mixed abilities. In this the composition of the majority is not permanent and is based on a single identity as it may change when the topic of discussion changes.
The Future in the Past: Essays and Reflections, Romila Thapar, Aleph, ₹999.
ziya.salam@thehindu.co.in