Stephen Chan: Religion and World Politics part 14: The Hindu State. Or is there actu­al­ly any such thing as a Hindu state? Mr. Modi, the Prime Minister of India is the rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the BJP, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which stands for Hindu val­ues. Hindu val­ues as foun­da­tion val­ues for the Indian state. And yet it’s very dif­fi­cult to talk about such foun­da­tion val­ues for an Indian state as if it had exist­ed since time immemo­r­i­al. But the very claim of the BJP and hin­dut­va, the ide­ol­o­gy of all-embracing, all-encompassing Hinduness, is very much that what we’re look­ing at in terms of an Indian iden­ti­ty is some­thing which is holis­tic, encom­pass­ing, and stretch­es back through time.

Trying to make this into a nation­al ide­ol­o­gy for the mod­ern age, but also using this as a mod­ern ide­ol­o­gy of exclu­sive­ness, of stand­ing apart­ness, of being in some way com­pet­i­tive with oth­er iden­ti­ties (for instance the Islamic iden­ti­ty of neigh­bor­ing Pakistan, and by direct exten­sion the Islamic minori­ties with­in India), pos­es all kinds of dif­fi­cul­ties for how we con­ceive of an inter­na­tion­al rela­tions and a cit­i­zen­ship built upon belief that has sev­er­al very very over­ar­ch­ing reli­gious ele­ments to it.

And yet when we look at the his­to­ry of India, we’re actu­al­ly look­ing at a his­to­ry of frag­men­ta­tion. Even the British Raj, the British colo­nial exper­i­ment over India, divid­ed India into two very very large por­tions. One was under­neath direct rule from the Raj. The oth­er was the indi­rect rule via 175 prince­ly states. With 175 prince­ly states, with many lan­guages being spo­ken, with many dif­fer­ent his­to­ries, the claim of one India is one which has to over­come and nav­i­gate a past his­to­ry full of mul­ti­plic­i­ty. And this mul­ti­plic­i­ty stretch­es back through time. So the idea of a Hinduness from time immemo­r­i­al is some­thing that deserves interrogation.

What you’re look­ing at in fact is an ear­li­est civ­i­liza­tion in India real­ly from about the 4th mil­len­ni­um BC. But real­ly it’s from about 2000 BC that we start to see some­thing which can be iden­ti­fied as a mark of Indian orga­ni­za­tion­al capac­i­ty. And that’s the foun­da­tion of cities all built along sim­i­lar lines. Cities built around rec­tan­gles and squares on low­er ground, and an acrop­o­lis or pub­lic space—an admin­is­tra­tive space—of gov­ern­ment build­ings, of tem­ples, of meet­ing halls, and pub­lic baths on upper ground.

So the orga­ni­za­tion of soci­ety, the orga­ni­za­tion of urban soci­ety, was a char­ac­ter­is­tic which was iden­ti­fi­able in many parts of India in 2000 BC. But those were not the Indians that sur­vived down unsul­lied until to the present day. Because what you had from about 1700 BC were major waves of migra­tion. Aryan migra­tions from Mesopotamia, from what is today Iran. And they brought with them all kinds of new influ­ences. They brought with them for instance ear­ly forms of Sanskrit. So that what is regard­ed as the her­itage lan­guage of India is in fact some­thing which was brought in in orig­i­nal form by out­siders, then dilut­ed, mixed, and devel­oped in terms of its inter­ac­tion with local influences.

It was real­ly only about 1000 BC, just 3,000 years ago, that the Vedas, the holy songs, the holy poems, are [?] char­ac­ter­is­tics of a Hinduness began to be com­posed and began to be sung, and began to form some­thing of a sacred canon. At each stage of Indian his­to­ry, one encoun­ters admix­tures of the exter­nal and the inter­nal. You have the advent of Buddhism in 400 BC fol­lowed very very quick­ly by the inva­sion in the Northwestern part of India of Alexander the Great and his Macedonian pha­lanx army. It was fol­lowed by the nation­wide adap­ta­tion and adop­tion of Buddhism under­neath the Emperor Ashoka.

Underneath Ashoka we have the very first man­i­fes­ta­tion of some­thing that resem­bled a unit­ed India. A polit­i­cal­ly United India won by con­quest, and giv­en a nation­al doc­trine (in this case Buddhism) adopt­ed by Ashoka because he was so hor­ri­fied at the car­nage he had caused in unit­ing India that he turned to the ways of peace in his late age. But that was as recent­ly as about 268 BC. So all of the great man­i­fes­ta­tions are recent and in fact the Indian pan­theon of gods like Shiva, gods like Vishnu, real­ly only took place at the turn of the mil­len­ni­um between 200 BC and 200 AD. The writ­ing of the great books, the Mahabarat, the Bhagavad Gita, all of those come from that point in time, con­sol­i­dat­ed final­ly into an insti­tu­tion­al­ized ethos in tem­ple Hinduism only about 1,000 years ago.

So look­ing back you see Hinduism as recent, even of course if 1,000 years is a long time for some­thing to set­tle and con­sol­i­date. But we’re not look­ing at some­thing his­tor­i­cal­ly mono­lith­ic. And the idea of using Hinduness as a nation­al ide­ol­o­gy, and its con­se­quences for inter­na­tion­al behav­ior against all of those with dif­fer­ent con­fes­sion­al beliefs, can be some­thing which is seen as prob­lem­at­ic. The rela­tion­ships with Pakistan for instance—Pakistan and India achiev­ing rival inde­pen­dences after much com­mu­nal blood­shed in 1947. Those two coun­tries con­tin­ued since that point in time to lead fraught com­pet­i­tive existences. 

The Indians devel­oped nuclear capac­i­ty and the bomb first, the Pakistanis some years lat­er. Particularly going onto a crash course after the wars with India over the inde­pen­dence of Bangladesh. So that now you have nuclear stock­piles in the two coun­tries of rough­ly about 120 nuclear war­heads for India and about 130 nuclear war­heads for Pakistan. It’s entire­ly pos­si­ble to artic­u­late the rela­tion­ships between the two coun­tries along the lines of bal­ance of pow­er. It’s also entire­ly pos­si­ble to inter­pret the Indian assis­tance for the inde­pen­dence strug­gle of Bangladesh in terms of weak­en­ing what was once a unit­ed Pakistan by sep­a­rat­ing from what is now Pakistan its Eastern por­tion and turn­ing that into a state which could be more eas­i­ly dom­i­nat­ed by India.

India in any case has had many prob­lems on its bor­ders quite apart from Pakistan. The 1962 war with China, which India resound­ing­ly lost, is a case in point. But what is the real prob­lem­at­ic aspect of rela­tion­ships between Pakistan and India remains today the sta­tus of Kashmir. There’ve been a num­ber of wars between the two coun­tries over Kashmir: 1947, 1965, 1999, each of the two met­ro­pol­i­tan states claim­ing that they should be the right­ful gov­ern­ment of the trou­bled province. But with­in the trou­bled province itself, a very very strong and very very vis­i­ble minor­i­ty but insur­gent group of Kashmiris, want­i­ng to go to learn and have inde­pen­dence under­neath their own rubric, under­neath their own identity.

What you have in the Indian sub­con­ti­nent are the pol­i­tics of con­tes­ta­tion. An unset­tled region after the depar­ture of com­mu­nism, after the end of the British Raj which once stretched as far as Burma, which tried to take Afghanistan. Which in the end gave inde­pen­dence to rival coun­tries eking out their rival­ry now almost as sacred totems, that rival­ry being almost as sacred a totem as Hindutva is claimed to be one for India.

Further Reference

Religion and World Politics course infor­ma­tion

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.