Yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi presided over the consecration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Executive power symbolically fused with the Hindu religion — harking back to myths of Indian rulers as incarnations of Supreme Lord Vishnu — at the former site of the Babri Mosque, demolished by self-styled “angry Hindus” in 1992.
Indian children would celebrate the mythological Lord Ram. State-owned railways have promised to transport more than a thousand trainloads of pilgrims to Ayodhya, boosting tourism-related stock prices. Possibly a hundred private jets flew in tycoons and notables. This ecstatic moment capped an unyielding century-long journey to a vision forged by the anarchist ideologue Vinayak Damodar (Veer) Savarkar.
In his 1923 booklet, Hindutva, Savarkar presented an audacious Hindu-centric Indian nationalism. Breaking from the Hindu religion’s message of transcendental equality, he divided the world between friends — those rooted in India through ancestry and devotion to the Fatherland — and all others, who were deemed enemies. A decade later, the German jurist and prominent Nazi Party member Carl Schmitt advocated the same friend-versus-enemy conception of politics.
Illustration: Yusha
In 1925, the Savarkar-inspired Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) became Hindutva’s military wing. Recruiting and training youth in martial disciplines and the glories of India’s past, it promoted political violence and intolerance inherent in the friend-enemy distinction. Perhaps the most famous RSS graduate is Modi.
Initially, the Indian National Congress party, led by Mahatma Gandhi, countered Hindutva’s appeal to India’s Hindu majority with a unifying secular ideology anchored in freedom from British colonial rule.
However, Hindutva forces saw Gandhi’s call for religious harmony as pandering to Muslims, and in 1948, a Savarkar-inspired ideologue assassinated him.
Jawaharlal Nehru, independent India’s first prime minister, promoted a progressive secular Indian ideal precariously held together by the hope for material and social progress. However, after Nehru’s death in 1964, communal forces within and outside the Congress party gained momentum. Secular ideals suffered a major blow on April 19, 1976, when the younger son of former Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi used the dictatorial powers of emergency rule to brutalize Muslims. The day began with humiliating forced sterilizations near Delhi’s Jama Masjid and culminated in a massacre of slumdwellers resisting eviction in neighboring Turkman Gate.
As Muslim electoral support for the Indian National Congress party waned, Indira Gandhi shifted her focus to the Hindu vote, thus opening the door wider for hardline Hindutva forces. She established back channel communications with the RSS and increased her use of Hindu symbols as Hindu-Muslim riots became more frequent in the early 1980s. Her pandering to Hindus in the Jammu and Kashmir elections, and her support for the Sikh militant Sant Bhindranwale in Punjab further stoked Hindu identity politics. After her assassination by her Sikh bodyguards, the anti-Sikh violence orchestrated by Indian National Congress party leaders catalyzed mobs of unemployed — even unemployable — men as Hindu nationalism’s foot soldiers.
Two key developments in the 1980s gave vivid reality to Savarkar’s vision of an India united by politicized Hinduism. In 1983, emboldened hardline Hindutva forces launched the “Ekatmata Yatra,” loosely defined as a “march to celebrate India’s one soul.” Organized by the Sangh Parivar, the umbrella term for Hindutva groups, multiple processions crisscrossed the country with Hindu emblems. In 1987 to 1988, instructed by former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi (Indira Gandhi’s older son), state-owned television broadcaster Doordarshan serialized the much-loved Ramayana epic, which spawned a Rambo-like iconography of Lord Ram as Hindutva’s avenger.
Rajiv Gandhi also reignited the Hindu-Muslim contest for the site on which the 16th-century Babri Masjid stood. With Hindu zealots claiming that it was Lord Ram’s birthplace, Gandhi declared himself a champion of Hindu ideals and opened its gates, sealed since 1949 to contain communal passions. Then, in December 1992, then-Indian prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao’s Indian National Congress party-led government dithered as frenzied Hindu mobs demolished Babri Masjid, triggering bloody riots and further bolstering the Hindutva cause.
Only 16 years separated the Turkman Gate massacre of Muslims in 1976 to their humiliation with the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992 and its gruesome aftermath. Indian secularism was a receding shadow. The Hindutva juggernaut was marching ahead, triumphing in May 2014, when the Bharatiya Janata Party — the political face of Hindutva — gained a large parliamentary majority under Modi’s leadership. With the hardliners in power, Hindu mobs have gained license to lynch Muslims and assassinate anti-Hindutva opponents.
Matters could worsen. Hindu symbols and sentiments have infused state conduct ominously. Modi has helped establish Savarkar as a demigod. Promoting a Hindu theocratic state, he inaugurated the new parliament building in a ceremony overshadowed by Hindu ritualism. In November 2019, the Supreme Court of India, despite the absence of historical evidence of Lord Ram’s birth on the Babri Masjid site, authorized the Ram Temple’s construction in deference to Hindu “faith and belief.” Similarly, the chief justice recently presented himself as a modern Savarkar, remarking that flags flying atop Hindu temples represent the Constitution of India’s unifying force.
Meanwhile, hate-filled H-pop and cinema are normalizing Hindutva’s hard edge, as are the Indian National Congress party’s “soft Hindutva tactics.”
Although Hindutva’s rise over the past century has occasionally paused, it has never reversed. It has accelerated at critical moments when putatively secular politicians used religion to gain an electoral advantage. They gave oxygen to Hindutva’s potent friend-versus-enemy narrative, which gradually overwhelmed the secular interlude of early post-independence India.
Today, violent Hindutva — far removed from the peaceful tenets of Hinduism — has infiltrated politics and culture, along with elite acquiescence. As Modi assumed the persona of a priest-like ruler yesterday, the idea of a theocratic India appears impervious to secular opposition, regardless of the outcome of the general election set for April and May.
Ashoka Mody, a visiting professor of international economic policy at Princeton University, is the author of India is Broken: A People Betrayed, Independence to Today.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS