We now discuss the distinct characteristics of fundamentalism within Hinduism. To understand these specifics, it is necessary to examine the history of the rise and consolidation of Hindu fundamentalists in India. Unlike other faiths, Hinduism lacks a single set of written instructions or mandates in a specific holy book. Consequently, Hinduism recognizes the coexistence of diverse and even contradictory views. Across various historical stages, these conflicting positions have evolved into peaceful compromises and coexistences. From this perspective, fundamentalism in Hinduism is a relatively modern phenomenon, beginning under the colonial rule of India at early years of the last century.
Generally, the distinctiveness of Hinduism is established upon two pillars: the recognition of the Vedas and the Varnashrama (Jativeda or caste system). However, the Vedas differ from scriptures of other religions. They were composed over nearly five hundred years in various parts; places, time, and identities of authors of Vedic texts are not precise and were based only on conjectures. For this reason, Vedic mandates also lack specificity. While certain practices are considered valid (or invalid) across various branches of modern Hinduism, in the past the Vedas explicitly did assume contrary positions on them. For instance, while in some Indian provinces or regions currently Brahmins follow religious prohibition of eating nonvegetarian food including meat, fish, egg, etc., there are accounts of Vedic sages consuming meat in their rituals and Yagnas[1]. Even today, in India's eastern provinces, consumption of meat and fish by Brahmins is accepted with certain restrictions. The Chandogya Upanishad even states that for sustaining life (pran), any eatable in the world including meat and vegetables, are permissible as food.[2] Cow slaughter is another example; while virtually prohibited by religious decrees in modern Hindu society, examples of cow slaughter do exist in the Vedas and Hindu epics.[3] Because of this, unlike other religions rooted on specific holy books, such as Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, Hindu fundamentalism could not become centered on scriptural sources.[4] It is primarily a reaction to the fundamentalism and aggression of other faiths.
The rise of this fundamentalism in India is a product of the concept of “Hindutva”. It is true that under the influence of Western education, a conflict existed from the beginning between conservative Hindu society and liberal Hindu intellectuals. However, as grievances against colonial rule grew and Hindu nationalism rose, a compromise emerged between these two sections, leading to the birth of the Indian National Congress (for convenience to be simply called “Congress” in subsequent discussion) in 1885 and galvanization of anti-colonial movements. At this juncture, a Bengali monk, Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), played a vital role in constructing a new brand of Hinduism, combining both liberal and conservative Hindu nationalism. On one hand, he preached the tolerant Hinduism of his spiritual mentor Ramakrishna Paramahansa (1836–1886); on the other, he became an ardent proponent of the Advaita Vedanta[5] rooted in Brahminism. Thus, while Vivekananda inspired the unification of India by calling for a “Shudra[6] awakening” from the slums of the marginalized people, he also championed Varnashrama of Hindu society.[7]
Colonial rulers did not remain idle during the rise of this Western-educated Hindu nationalism. They became more active in the “divide and rule” policy to split the Indian mass along religious lines. In this process, on October 16, 1905, Bengal was partitioned into two parts: Muslim-majority East Bengal and Assam, and Hindu-majority West Bengal. While a significant portion of the Muslims joined the movement[8] in protesting against this partition, an influential section among them supported the partition in hopes of political and economic development among the community. Encouraged by British assurances, the All India Muslim League was established in 1906 under the initiative of Nawab Salimullah[9] of Dhaka.
The British government's favorable view of the Muslim League became an eyesore for conservative Hindu nationalists, many of whom were members of the Arya Samaj[10]. In 1906, they felt the need for a separate organization to protect Hindu interests and established the Hindu Sabha. This process was accelerated by the Morley-Minto Reforms[11] of 1909, which recognized separate electorates for Muslims. Furthermore, the 1911 census categorized Hindus into three groups: Hindus, Depressed Classes (Dalits), and nature worshipping Tribes. This institutionally established the internal division of Hindus.[12] These events accelerated the demand for formation of an organization protecting communal interests and religious rights for Hindus[13], leading to the formation of the Nikhil Bharat Hindu Sabha in 1915, renamed the Hindu Mahasabha in 1921. Although the British revoked the Partition of Bengal[14] in 1911 due to intense opposition, they ultimately succeeded in planting the “poisonous tree” of communalism in Indian society and politics.[15]
Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) (or Gandhiji) gradually became the established leader of Congress. He called for national unity across all religions through the lens of liberal Hinduism. In December 1916, at a joint session of Congress and the Muslim League in Lucknow, both parties agreed through a pact to allow religious minority representation in provincial legislatures. Muslim League leaders agreed to join the Congress movement in the demand for Indian self-rule.[16]
As Congress agreed to the right of separate representation for Muslims, Dalit organizations also began demanding similar rights. Along with this, they began raising demands for the abolition of untouchability, education, and government employment. It should be noted that the Morley-Minto reforms had granted these classes a separate identity outside of upper-caste Hindu society. However, if they moved outside the Hindu fold, it would have been difficult for Congress to maintain proportional dominance compared to the Muslim League. Consequently, Congress endeavored to bring them into the fold of caste-Hindu society and maintain the unity of the Hindu community as a whole. Between 1917 and 1920, at least four major Dalit conferences were held in Maharashtra under the leadership of Congress, attended by prominent leaders including Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920). These conferences raised demands such as reserved seats, temple entry, and the removal of caste-based barriers, which directly struck at the roots of Varnashrama (caste) system of the Hindu social order. The conservative Hindus within Congress were reluctant to implement such reforms.[17]
These events terrified conservative Hindu organizations. They viewed these demands as a direct threat to their social dominance and political hegemony. As a result, they felt the need for a strong and separate political platform for preserving the unity of “Hindu community” as well as maintaining the upper-caste Hindu hegemony, in opposition to the Congress politics.
The Non-cooperation and Khilafat movements
Gandhiji formulated the framework of ‘Satyagraha’ or ‘Non-violent non-cooperation’ based on the principles of ‘Adherence to Truth’ and ‘Non-violence’ to demand self-rule (Swaraj) against the colonial rule. By 1920, Congress under his leadership succeeded in spreading this movement across the country. In this national movement, he also took the initiative to involve people of other religions, especially Muslims. At that time, following the end of World War I, the fall of the Ottoman Empire led to the abolition of the Caliphate system in the Islamic world.[18] Ottoman Sultans had ruled West Asia, North Africa, and parts of Europe for centuries, holding the status of ‘Caliph’ (Religious head) for Sunni Muslims. Their fall ended the Caliphate, and victorious Western powers appointed local rulers of their choice.
In protest, Muslims worldwide launched movements in their respective countries to restore the Caliphate. Since Great Britain played a major role in the fall of this system, Indian Muslims launched an anti-British movement demanding the reinstatement of the Ottoman Caliphs. Gandhiji integrated this Khilafat movement into the Non-cooperation movement, bringing various Islamic organizations, including the Muslim League, under one platform. However, in 1922, after protesters set fire to a police station in Chauri Chaura, Bihar[19], Gandhiji called off the nationwide movement due to the violation of the principle of non-violence, despite opposition from other leaders and the movement being at its peak. Although the Khilafat movement continued, its strength diminished significantly and ended completely in 1925 with the establishment of a secular government by Kemal Atatürk in Turkey.
Initially, the Hindu Mahasabha participated in various movements alongside Congress, and many of its leaders were also Congress members. However, as the Muslim League grew stronger and Congress did not protest when the British government accepted demands for increased Muslim representation and separate electorates, the Hindu Mahasabha gradually distanced itself from Congress. They sought to establish themselves as the true protectors of Hindus. Like the Muslim League, they eventually abandoned anti-British resistance and adopted a policy of cooperation with the colonial government in exchange of safeguarding interests of their community.
The Emergence of “Hindutva”
Many Muslim leaders of the Khilafat Movement later joined the Congress, making it more acceptable to a large section of Muslims in India, and temporarily fulfilling the goal of Gandhiji’s efforts for uniting people of all religions under one platform against the colonial rule. However, the Khilafat Movement was essentially a fundamentalist, and an anti-modern movement swearing on Islam. Communal feelings and mistrust were expressed during this movement, and anti-Hindu communal riots occurred in several Muslim-majority regions.[20]
Conservative sections of Hindu nationalists became particularly alarmed as Indian Muslims participating in this movement prioritized Middle Eastern culture and religious identity over indigenous culture. They feared that Islamic hegemonism would swallow India's ‘Sanatan’ (ancient / traditional) culture and that the Hindus would eventually become a minority in the country.[21]
Driven by this fear, conservative Hindu nationalism took a more communal form, abandoning the Congress policy (inspired by Gandhiji) of equal recognition of all religions. This conservative Hindu nationalism is known as “Hindutva”. Its theoretical foundation was laid by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar (1883–1966). In 1923, he wrote the book “Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?”, outlining the framework of Hindutva ideology. Like the Arya Samaj, he believed India was the original homeland of the Aryans and that Indians were their descendants. He believed all Indian languages originated from Sanskrit and that Indians should be identified as the bearers of this ancient culture rather than just as an inhabitant in this land of ‘Hinduism’. Savarkar believed that anyone who was a descendant of this land’s ancestors was duty-bound to follow ‘Hindutva’.
His view toward converted Muslims was that they could only live in this country, if only they viewed it as a ‘holy land’ (Punyabhoomi); furthermore, they should intermarry with Hindus, and raise their children imbibed with the same ideology. However, the attachment and fondness of conservative Muslims to the culture and rituals of Middle East, and their perceived aversion to indigenous Sanatan culture made Savarkar anti-Muslim. He viewed Hindu civilization as a symbol of Indian identity for which Muslims posed a threat. Therefore, Savarkar's priority was to organize the Indian mass (the majority of whom were Hindus), who were unprepared to resist what he saw as Islamic aggression.[22]
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
To achieve this objective, Savarkar's follower Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (1889–1940) founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Nagpur in 1925. M. S. Golwalkar (1906–1973) played a vital role in the expansion of this organization. He became the chief of the RSS after Hedgewar's death in 1940 and remained in that position until his death in 1973. In 1939, in his book, “We or Our Nationhood Defined ”, he provided an even clearer explanation of the RSS's Hindutva. In it, he refused to accept not only Muslims but also Christians as true Indians. He even mocked the secular principle of Congress, under Gandhi's leadership, to recognize all people living in India regardless of religion as an “amazing theory”. He believed that Muslims must either surrender or leave:
“[They] must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture... or they may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.”[23]
Thus, in his view, they had two choices: either total assimilation into Hindutva or a status inferior even to the second-class citizenship. The first option meant that while Muslims could practice Islam privately, they would have to express loyalty to Hinduism in society.[24]
Post-independence and the ban on RSS
The RSS did not actively participate in the anti-British movement; rather, it maintained a distance from Congress and refrained from political participation. It refused to join the Quit India Movement of 1942 and directly opposed it. Because of these roles, and because the majority of Hindus generally held a tolerant stance toward other religions, their influence remained limited.
Meanwhile, the Muslim League expanded its organization under pan-Islamic ideology, establishing itself as the political rival to Congress in Muslim-majority provinces. In 1940, they proposed the creation of Pakistan as a separate sovereign state comprising Muslim majority regions of British India. When the British announced their intent on granting India's independence after the second World War, the Muslim League launched violent agitations, and communal riots spread fiercely. Despite Mahatma Gandhi's opposition, Congress eventually agreed to the partition, and in 1947, India and Pakistan emerged as independent countries. In 1946-47, there were terrible communal riots in the eastern and western parts of British India, and many from these regions, who have been living in generations with communal harmony and peace, fell victim to those terrible attacks. During the partition, Hindus and Sikhs from East and West Pakistan migrated to India in droves. On the other hand, many Muslims migrated from India to both sides of Pakistan. These migrations were not peaceful. Many people fled overnight to escape the attacks of the rioters and many were attacked on the way. During the horrific communal riots of 1946–47, the RSS and like-minded organizations (such as the Hindu Mahasabha) managed to establish an image of themselves as protectors of the Hindu community.
However, communal harmony among Hindus and Muslims in independent India returned soon due to Gandhiji's efforts, and the interim government under the premiership of Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964) with a vision of formation of a secular state quickly took control of the situation. Consequently, the influence of the RSS remained limited compared to the popularity of Congress. The event that rapidly isolated them from the public was the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse on January 30, 1948. Godse was a member of the RSS, inspired by Savarkar, and a member of the Hindu Mahasabha. This event created widespread outrage. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Vallabhbhai Patel (1875-1950) arrested 20,000 swayamsevaks [25] and banned the RSS.
The Formation of Jan Sangh
Golwalkar realized that their ideology was politically isolated and decided to counter the situation. Despite a personal lack of interest in active politics, he approved the formation of a new party in 1951, the Bhartiya Jana Sangha, commonly known as the Jan Sangh. Golwalkar supported the joining of several pracharaks (preachers) to form this organization but maintained a clear line of division between the RSS and the Jan Sangh, so each could operate independently.[26]
As a political strategy, the Jan Sangh opposed Congress but was willing to compromise and join movements with other opposition parties to gain public acceptance. Meanwhile, the RSS maintained its organizational activities to propagate the ideology of a “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu State). The core of the RSS's Hindutva was to establish the primary identity of the inhabitants of the subcontinent as a “Hindu Nation”. According to this view, it is a nation, which has been living in a specific territory extending from the Sindhu (the river Indus) [27] to Sindhu[28] (Seas) surrounding the peninsula with the same language and cultural traditions since ancient times. These are the Hindus. The term ‘Hindu’ is not a religious identity; it is related to a person following the traditional way of life of this land. This includes followers of Sanatan (Meaning traditional) or Vedic religion, Brahmo[29], Kabirpanth[30], Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, as they have embraced this land as their mother land, and coexist with the ancient culture.
Conversely, the RSS do not want to include Muslims and Christians in this nation because, these religions were seen as hegemonistic and intolerant. Golwalkar only wanted to recognize Muslims as Indians, if they are assimilated into Hindu culture.[31] The demand for Pakistan, communal riots, and the subsequent partition made the RSS even more staunchly anti-Muslim. They also became opposed to liberal Hinduism and the Congress policy of “unity in diversity”. Consequently, they opposed the constitutional provisions for secularism and minority rights (such as managing their own educational institutions). They even fiercely opposed the Hindu Code Bill introduced by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956) to fight caste discrimination and gender inequality.[32] Under their pressure, Nehru amended some clauses, but the bill could not be passed at that time, leading to Dr. Ambedkar's resignation from the cabinet.[33]
Opposition to Federalism
The RSS also opposed granting special rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Another significant objection was toward India's federal structure. They did not want to recognize the rights of states (or provinces) to have their own governments, language, education, or administration, as they dreamed of a Hindu State characterized by “One Nation, One Language, and One Territory”. In 1961, at the first session of the National Integration Council, Golwalkar explicitly opposed the federal structure in his letter, stating:
“Today’s federal form of government not only contributes to and defends the feelings of separatism. This is also a refusal to recognize the idea of India being one nation. It must be done away with and we should go for a unitary form of government.”[34]
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)
The RSS established itself as a Hindu nationalist organization, with its activities centered on Hindutva and the ideal of a Hindu state. However, presenting itself directly as a platform of social movements centering on sensitive religious issues and sentiments was challenging for protecting its primary identity of a non-political organization. Consequently, with the goal of building a social movement directly exploiting religious sentiments, they formed another affiliate organization in 1964: the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). The idea behind this organization was to bring together the heads of various branches and sects of Hinduism. A RSS pracharak, Shivram Shankar Apte (1907–1985), became its president. The leadership envisioned building this organization on the model of international Christian networks.
Initially, the spearhead of their movement was directed against the conversion of Hindus. Historically, Hindu society had no formal mechanism of conversion for accepting people of other faiths; the complexity and rigidity of the caste system acted as a barrier. Conversely, Hindus are regularly converted to Islam and Christianity. In this regard, the active initiatives of Christian missionaries were particularly visible, as they succeeded in converting a large section of the tribal population in various parts of India. The VHP continuously opposed their activities related to conversion, making Christian missionaries their prime targets. Additionally, they adopted programs to ‘rehabilitate’ (re-convert) people of other faiths into Hinduism. Among the tribals (whom they refer to as 'Vanvasis' or forest-dwellers), they established organizations for religious propagation alongside various social welfare works. Among all RSS affiliates, the Bajrang Dal is prominent; it was established in the 1980s as a youth movement under the VHP. One of the primary tactics of their movement is to create volatile situations out of sensitive religious issues, and to suppress their opponents in these conflicts by resorting to violence.[35]
The Emergency and the rise of the Janata Party
The organizers of the RSS realized shortly after independence that their ideology of “Hindutva” and a “Hindu State” would struggle to make an impact in the mainstream politics in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country like India. It was from this realization that the Jan Sangh was founded. This party, hiding its true objectives, adopted a program of allied movements with other opposition parties against undemocratic and anti-people policies of the Congress government. However, their link to the RSS was so apparent that even then, they remained isolated by the major opposition parties. During this time, the leftist movement was growing stronger, and socialist ideology influenced the politics of backward Hindu caste groups. Because of this, these parties also avoided the “contagion” of Hindu communal politics.
However, the event that brought all these rival parties under one roof was the declaration of ‘Emergency’ [36] by the Congress government in 1975—an extreme autocratic step. Concerned by the growing strength of opposition parties and seeking to suppress nationwide movements facing a severe economic crisis, Indira Gandhi's Government issued this ordinance on June 25, 1975. By this declaration, repressive laws were introduced to suppress descents and opposition under the pretext of national defence. Major opposition leaders were imprisoned, and the freedom of the press was snatched away. All political movements and protests were suppressed with an iron rule. This situation lasted for nearly two years. Finally, hoping for a favourable situation for the reigning government, even without any effective political pressure and mass movement, Indira Gandhi (1917–1984) announced parliamentary election in January, 1977, and lifted the Emergency.[37]
While participating in this election, in order to defeat the autocratic Congress government, almost all major opposition parties kept aside their ideological differences and came together on one platform to form a single political party: the Janata Party (People's Party)[38]. Leftist parties (except for the Communist Party of India (CPI)) allied with this party.[39] The Jan Sangh also became a partner in the Janata Party, and provided the highest number of Members of Parliament (MPs) for this new party in that election. The Janata Party formed the first non-Congress government at the Center under the premiership of Morarji Desai (1896-1995).
Formation of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
Within that new government, former members of Jan Sangh took initiatives to implement various projects of 'Hindutva' agenda of the RSS. Three such major missions were:
1. Banning cow slaughter.
2. Banning religious conversion.
3. Revising contemporary accounts in textbooks of history through the lens of Hindutva—i.e., portraying Muslim rulers, especially Mughal emperors, as foreign invaders and denying their contribution to the development of Indian culture, while glorifying the history of Hindu kings, who resisted their imperial expansion.
The first two were direct interferences in the dietary habits and the freedom of religious preaching of non-Hindu communities. The third mission undermined the national identity of Indian pluralism and was hateful toward Indian Muslims. All three initiatives were contrary to the fundamental rights and secularism recognized in the Indian Constitution. As a result, the former Jan Sanghis became isolated within the Janata Party. Around that time, the government collapsed due to power struggles between various factions. In the wake of that event, they left the government in 1980 and formed the ‘Bharatiya Janata Party’ (BJP).[40]
The RSS also changed its strategy for implementing the Hindutva agenda. To make issues related to Hindutva more explicit in politics, they decided to use the VHP platform. At a VHP conference in 1979, RSS chief Balasaheb Deoras (1915–1996) suggested that sensitive Hindu issues should be brought forward in a way that could provoke Hindu emotions in electoral politics. He believed this would make other parties hesitate to speak against those issues, as they would not want to hurt religious sentiments of Hindus to win over voters. Thus, they too would be forced to participate in the process of communal polarization. Since the BJP is the political front of the RSS and adopts a strategy of ‘soft’ Hindutva to form alliances with other parties whenever necessary, they gave the VHP the responsibility of campaigning to create this “Hindu Awakening” subscribing to the ideology of highly communal and conservative Hindutva.[41]
Ram Janmabhoomi movement
In March 1981, the VHP formed a ‘Margdarshak Mandal’. This is a platform for religious leaders to provide guidance on Hindu philosophy and codes of conduct. The following year, the group established a ‘Dharma Sansad’(Religious Parliament). This was an attempt to set up an organization of Hindu religious leaders aimed at discussing and forming opinions on social and political issues related to the Hindu community. In January 1983, the VHP launched programs to counter religious conversions among the backward classes of the society. As mentioned earlier, Christian missionaries had attracted these financially weak and socially neglected groups toward Christianity through various social services, education, and financial aid. To counter this influence and bring these groups into the Hindu fold, the VHP planned to establish branches (Ashrams) in those regions for social reform and the propagation of Hinduism. They started a fundraising campaign for that purpose. Following this, in late 1983, they conducted a month-long nationwide program called the ‘Ekatmata Yagna’ (Unity worship). As parts of this celebration, they organized various processions to propagate Hindutva. Finally, processions carrying portraits of ‘Bharat Mata’ (Mother India[42]) and pots filled with holy Ganga water [43] converged from three major routes at the RSS headquarters in Nagpur. Encouraged by the success of such activities, they moved toward even larger programs. In 1984, the VHP reignited the demand for the restoration of the Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya,[44] which played a crucial role in establishing Hindutva in Indian politics, governance, and the judiciary.[45] While the BJP had only two representatives in the Parliament from the 1984 parliamentary election, that number rose to 85 in the election of 1989. They supported the formation of a non-Congress government under the leadership of V.P. Singh (1931–2008) from the outside.
The Mandal Commission and the politics of casteism
Another important development in Indian politics at this juncture was the empowerment of various caste-based political parties and the introduction of separate reservations for those castes in government jobs and higher education. Immediately after independence, the constitutional framework recognized reservation for backward classes. A special list of various lower-caste groups within the Hindu community was prepared, and a 15% reservation was implemented for government posts and higher education seats. The castes and communities on this list are called Scheduled Castes (SC). Similarly, a list of tribal groups was created, called Scheduled Tribes (ST), with 7% of seats reserved for them. The founders of the Constitution initially specified this arrangement for 10 years, but the time limit was subsequently extended and remains in effect today.
On January 1, 1979, the Janata Party government under Morarji Desai formed a commission chaired by B.P. Mandal (1918–1982), a member of parliament (MP), to identify Other Backward Classes (OBC) outside of the SCs and STs and to provide recommendations for their development. This commission is called the ‘Mandal Commission’. In 1980, the commission submitted its report and recommendations. Based on certain economic and social criteria, they published a list of various castes and groups categorized as OBC. One of their key recommendations for their development was to keep a separate 27% reservation in government jobs and education. This was in addition to the existing 22% reservation for SCs and STs. Due to the premature fall of the Janata Party government and the return of Congress to power, the Mandal Commission report remained ignored. On August 7, 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced the implementation of the Mandal Commission's recommendations. One of his primary objectives was to secure the support of backward-class voters in future elections.
Hindutva proponents were alarmed by this separate reservation for a large section of Hindus. Ideologically, they are opposed to reservations of any kind, based on caste divisions within the Hindu society. This is not because they seek the abolition of the caste system; rather, their stance in favour of the Varnashrama (or the Caste) system is quite clear. According to them, the existing caste divisions in society are a decayed form of the ancient (Vedic) Varnashrama system. Its utility and effectiveness are only possible when our society truly resembles the Vedic society. In 1965, Deendayal Upadhyaya (1916–1968), a key ideologue of the RSS, presented this argument in favour of the Varnashrama system within the political philosophy of the Jan Sangh known as Integral Humanism. He argued that the Varnashrama system bound social life together through a natural process and that this inherited system should not be disrupted:
“In our concept of four castes, they are thought of as analogous to the different limbs of Virat-Purusha... These limbs are not only complementary to one another, but even further, there is individuality, unity. There is a complete identity of interest, identity of belonging.”[46]
This Vedic mantra (hymn) was mentioned in a previous blog in the discussion of how religious texts validate social inequality.[47] Deendayal Upadhyaya’s effort, like that of other fundamentalists, was to glorify the inequality in the Caste System in the context of modern outlook. Even after this argument, he could not deny the existence of high-and-low social status and discrimination among upper and lower castes in the Hindu society. This is where the hollowness of the theory of 'Integral Humanism' gets exposed. The RSS have never been able to give full theoretical recognition to casteism in the intellectual exercises of modern India; however, whenever the issues leading to abolishing this system and its inequalities, have come in the forefront of social movements, they have used various strategies to support the dominance of upper-caste in Hindu society. Where it was not possible for the Jan Sangh (or later the BJP) to offer direct support to its preservation for political opportunism, the RSS itself stepped forward, or sometimes pushed forward its other fronts like the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, etc., to take a more conservative stance. Thus, while the RSS reacted fiercely to the Mandal Commission’s proposal for special reservations for OBCs, it was not possible for the BJP to oppose it directly.[48] Instead, they provided direct support to students spontaneously protesting against these reservations and thought of other strategies to keep the larger section of Hindu society within their fold. In this context, they decided to capitalize on Hindu emotions through the Ram Janmabhoomi movement to make them acceptable across all castes in the Hindu community.
On September 25, 1990, BJP President L.K. Advani (b. 1927) launched a massive nationwide ‘Rath Yatra’ (Chariot March). The goal was to mobilize Hindus in support of rebuilding the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, even though a Supreme Court ruling had maintained the status quo on the Babri Masjid premises. Advani’s objective was to join the Bhoomi Puja (Groundbreaking ceremony[49]) for the temple and lay its foundation stone.
The Rath Yatra started from Somnath in Gujarat and travelled through several cities. From the outset, communal tensions escalated between Hindus and Muslims across the country. Riots broke out in various cities along the route, resulting in the loss of 547 lives nationwide.[50] Before reaching his final destination, Advani was arrested in Samastipur, Bihar during the early hours of October 24. Despite this, the movement continued. Eventually, the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav (1939–2022), ordered the arrest of all activists heading toward Ayodhya. Nevertheless, a section of the activists managed to attack the Babri Masjid. About a dozen people died in the police firing that followed. The VHP honoured them as martyrs, and processions carrying their ashes were taken across India—igniting further riots. Immediately following Advani’s arrest, the BJP withdrew its support for the V.P. Singh government, leading to mid-term parliamentary election in 1991. Although Congress did not achieve a majority in that election, it formed a coalition government under P.V. Narasimha Rao (1921–2004). The BJP succeeded in increasing its number of parliamentary seats from 85 to 119.[51] Furthermore, in Uttar Pradesh, they formed a government for the first time with a single-party majority under Kalyan Singh (1932–2021).
The demolition of the Babri Masjid
Encouraged by their success in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP and VHP intensified the Ram Temple movement. Finally, they called for a massive gathering on December 6, 1992, where over 150,000 activists assembled. BJP and VHP leaders adopted a double-edged policy regarding the mosque—on one hand, they incited the crowd to extreme levels, while on the other, they gave mild advice not to break the law or damage the structure. The paramilitary presence around the mosque was extremely insufficient. Under intense pressure from the activists, they retreated and fled. The Ram Temple movement culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
Although the BJP leadership claimed the event was an act of spontaneous activism, the report of Liberhan Commission[52] published in 2009 revealed that the then BJP government and administration in Uttar Pradesh had participated in planning the destruction. The commission identified 68 individuals, including leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1924–2018), L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi (b. 1934), Vijaya Raje Scindia (1919–2001), Kalyan Singh, and Uma Bharti (b.1959).
The demolition of the Babri Masjid was an event that brought Hindu communalism directly to the center stage of Indian politics. Previously, Hindu communalism was considered marginal and untouchable in the political landscape of India, even though strong currents of Islamic communal politics had existed since the British era. The events of December 6, 1992, erased the ‘Laxman Rekha’[53] (moral boundary) that many secular citizens thought was impassable. This not only weakened India's standing as a secular state, but also exposed the fragility of the post-independence constitutional framework.
Aftermath and the rise of Islamic extremism in India
The reaction sparked outrage among Muslims nationwide, leading to communal riots that lasted for months. Hindus and Muslims attacked each other in various regions, burning homes and shops. The Congress government detained several BJP leaders and temporarily banned the VHP. Nevertheless, riots spread to Mumbai, Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Delhi, Bhopal, and other cities, resulting in the deaths of over 2,000 people. In Mumbai alone, 900 people died, and property worth approximately 9,000 crore rupees was destroyed.
This surge in Hindu communalism also activated Islamic militant groups, increasing their influence within the Muslim community. The 1993 Mumbai bombings and a series of riots in the following decade cited the Babri Masjid demolition as a primary cause. Jihadist groups, including the Indian Mujahideen[54], mentioned the demolition as a justification for their terrorist attacks.[55] The repercussions were felt beyond India; in neighbouring Pakistan and Bangladesh, minority Hindus faced communal attacks in several places.
A Shift in Political Strategy of BJP
The demolition temporarily isolated the BJP in national politics, but they were largely successful in communal polarization in the Hindi-speaking belt of North and West India. This was reflected in the 1996 Lok Sabha elections, where they emerged as the largest party with 160 seats. However, although Atal Bihari Vajpayee formed a government at the President's invitation, he failed to secure the support of other parties and was forced to resign after 13 days. Subsequently, a non-Hindutva minority coalition government was formed with outside support from the Congress. The BJP learned a lesson from this. L.K. Advani later remembered it as a turning point:
“Though we were the largest party, we failed to form a government. It was felt that on an ideological basis we couldn’t go further. So we embarked on the course of alliance-based coalitions.” [56]
After the 13-day BJP government in 1996, two short-lived non-Congress and non-Hindutva governments held power at the Center with outside support from Congress. However, after Congress eventually withdrew its support, another Lok Sabha election was held in 1998. Once again, the BJP emerged as the largest party with 178 seats. To form a government this time, they adopted a more flexible stance, setting aside their Hindutva-centric policies. Accordingly, they formed the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) based on a ‘National Agenda’ acceptable to various regional parties and formed a government under Vajpayee's leadership in March 1998. Notably, the points excluded from this agenda were: (1) the reconstruction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, (2) the abolition of Article 370 of the Constitution which granted special rights to the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir, and (3) the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code [57] in place of the existing system of separate personal laws recognized by the Constitution.[58]
Despite this, the government lasted only 13 months. Their coalition partner from Tamil Nadu, the AIADMK, demanded the dismissal of the rival DMK government led by M.K. Karunanidhi (1924–2018). When the Vajpayee government refused, they withdrew support. Consequently, elections were held again in 1999. This time, the BJP contested as part of the NDA alliance using a coalition agenda rather than a party-specific one, which continued to exclude the aforementioned controversial issues. In the turn of events, the DMK, known as an anti-Brahminical party, became an ally of the BJP and joined the NDA. In reality, Indian political parties realized that the BJP could no longer be treated as a pariah (untouchable) in power-sharing. From this point of view, coalition politics became central to the country's electoral landscape: the BJP-led NDA on one side, and the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on the other.[59] Regional parties drifted between these two alliances to secure power as they saw fit.
In the 1999 elections, the BJP won 182 seats, and the NDA collectively secured 294 seats. Atal Bihari Vajpayee formed the government once more with his allies. This government completed its full five-year term by keeping Hindutva largely in the background. During this favourable political period, the RSS and its Hindutva affiliates strengthened their organizations and activities. The VHP mobilized volunteers nationwide for the construction of the Ram Temple. It was during this time that a mob of angry Muslims set fire to a train carrying volunteers returning from Ayodhya at Godhra station in Gujarat.[60] 59 karsevaks (volunteers for the manual service of temple), including women and children, died in the fire, and 48 were injured. In response, horrific communal riots broke out across Gujarat, primarily targeting Muslims, causing massive loss of life and property. At that time, the BJP government led by Narendra Modi (b. 1950) was in power in Gujarat. His government and administration were accused by the media not just of inaction, but of active participation in the riots. The central BJP government also refrained from taking significant action, showing a subtle indifference toward the state government's failure. This event again isolated the BJP from some allies; for instance, the Trinamool Congress[61] from West Bengal left the NDA, though the government did not fall. Unexpectedly, the 2004 elections led to the formation of a UPA government under Manmohan Singh (1932–2024) as Prime Minister. After this defeat, the BJP tried to push its coalition policy further to maintain solidarity in NDA, but they failed to form a government in 2009 as well, as the UPA returned to power.
The rise of Narendra Modi and the 2014 shift
In the 2014 elections, seeking to capitalize on the strong public sentiment against the Congress government at power then, following various anti-corruption movements, the BJP shifted its strategy to bring Hindutva-based polarization to the forefront. The RSS gave its full support and, replacing the relatively moderate Advani, projected Narendra Modi as the face of Hindutva. Because of the 2002 Godhra riots, Modi had been a pariah to almost all political parties and was unwelcome internationally, with several countries banning his entry. However, he had been the Chief Minister of Gujarat since 2002, winning three consecutive elections, and utilized the media to rehabilitate his image. Extensive campaigns regarding ‘Gujarat's development and good governance’ were launched in media, even as he directly championed Hindutva issues like the Ram Temple, the abolition of Article 370, and the Uniform Civil Code. In 2014, by criticizing the corruption of the Congress government, he held up a vision of a ‘clean’ government in line of the ‘Gujarat Model’.
By then, the BJP's coalition partners had become accustomed to either accepting or ignoring Hindutva for the sake of power-sharing. Their strategy was simply to secure power while keeping their own vote banks intact. It was not always possible for them to directly oppose the BJP's sensitive Hindutva agenda. Consequently, they moved between alliances wherever the opportunity for being in power was better. Only those parties whose vote banks relied heavily on Muslim voters refused to join a BJP led alliance.
Thus many factors contributed to the success of the BJP in India today, such as the increasing influence of RSS-driven Hindutva ideology, continuation of religious polarization through communal politics, Congress's loss of popularity due to undemocratic politics and corruption in the past, a similar unprincipled decline among Leftist parties,[62] and the power-hungry nature of leadership of regional parties. The BJP secured single-party majorities in 2014 and 2019. In 2024, they formed the central government again as the largest party with their allies. Over this decade of rule, they have been using various strategies to maintain a majority within a political alliance divided by caste and religion, which has further broadened the foundation of Hindutva-centric fundamentalism. Their fundamentalism is essentially a conservative, Brahminical, Hindutva-centric ‘One Nation’ nationalism that stands against the idea of a liberal, secular, multi-ethnic and democratic nation.
(Translated from a Bengali article written by the author with the help of Google Gemini.)
9/4/26
[1] Offering and worshiping centering a makeshift fireplace.
[2] Chandogya Upanishad – 5.2.1: States that for the sake of life, all food is valid.
[3] Rigveda – 10.28.3, 10.86.14; Yajurveda – 35/20; Mahabharata – 29/117.
[4] In Bali, Indonesia, over 80% are Hindu, but their rituals and priesthood are significantly different from those in the Indian subcontinent. Perhaps for this reason, even international Hindu organizations in India have not been able to have any impact on Bali's Hindu society.
[5] A major non-dualistic school of Hindu philosophy, primarily expounded by Adi Shankaracharya, teaching that the individual soul (Atman) is identical to the ultimate reality (Brahman). It asserts that only Brahman is real, while the world is an illusion (Maya). The goal is to realize this oneness and attain liberation (Moksha). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
[6] People belonging to the bottommost section of the Hindu society in the caste centric order of Varnashrama.
[7] Kumbhakonam Lectures, Vivekananda in India, Udbodhon Karzaloy, Kolkata, 14th edition, July, 1973, reprinted October 2012, pp. 65-70. (in Bengali)
[8] Called ‘Banga-Bhanga movement’.
[10] A monotheistic reformist organization founded by Dayananda Saraswati in 1870.
[12] Anand Teltumbde, The RSS Was Also a Reaction to Early Dalit Mobilisation, The wire, 25/Oct/2025
https://thewire.in/caste/the-rss-was-also-a-reaction-to-early-dalit-mobilisation
[13] Bidyut Chakrabarty and Bhuvan Kumar Jha, “Hindu nationalism in India”, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2020, (pp145-147).
[14] At the same time, they moved the capital of India to Delhi from Kolkata (then Calcutta).
[15] In 1947, British rule of the Indian subcontinent ended with its partition in two independent countries in religious line, namely Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan. Bengal was also divided in two parts. The western part becomes a province of India, ‘West Bengal’. The eastern part went to Pakistan as ‘East Pakistan’, which sought separation in 1971 and became an independent country ‘Bangladesh’.
[17] Anand Teltumbde, The RSS Was Also a Reaction to Early Dalit Mobilisation, The wire, 25/Oct/2025
https://thewire.in/caste/the-rss-was-also-a-reaction-to-early-dalit-mobilisation
[19] On February 4, 1922, at Chauri Chaura in Gorakhpur district, United Provinces (now Uttar Pradesh), protesters set fire to a police station, killing 3 civilians and 22 policemen. Gandhiji took moral responsibility and stopped the movement on February 12, 1922.
[20] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-12).
[21] Decadal census statistics show that while Hindus were 74.3% of the population in 1881, the figure dropped to 68.2% by 1931.
[22] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-12-13).
[23] MS Golwalkar Collected Works (Hindi), Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, 1978, Volume 3, p. 109.
[24] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-14).
[25] Meant ‘volunteers’ in Sanskrit, as the members of RSS identify themselves in this way.
[26] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-18).
[27] The term "Hindu" originates from the river "Sindhu" (Indus); hence, they argue it refers to the original inhabitants of the geography, not a specific religion. (Author)
[28] In Sanskrit, the word ‘Sindhu’ means ‘sea’. The peninsula of Indian subcontinent is surrounded by the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea.
[29] A religion of monotheism following the Advaitabad of Vedic School founded by Raja Rammohun Roy in 1828. This religious movement against Castism, Idolatry and Institutional Religion of Hinduism was strong in the 19th Century and the early 20th Century in Bengal and Eastern India among the Bengali Elites. However, gradually the followers got immersed in the greater family of Hinduism.
[30] A religious sect that followed the philosophy of the 15th-century poet and philosopher Kabir (1398–1448). His philosophy was based on monotheism, devotion, and religious harmony. He preached that even in a simple household life, one could attain 'self-knowledge' (awareness of one's true self) by following a 'Sadhguru' (true spiritual teacher). He was also a staunch opponent of institutional religion. The influence of Kabir's teachings can also be seen in Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak.
[31] This philosophy is also hegemonistic, seeking to dominate Islam/Christianity and assimilate Buddhism/Sikhism—an effort those communities often reject. The rise of Sikh militancy in the 1980s was partly a reaction to this. (Author)
[34] MS Golwalkar Collected Works (Hindi), Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, 1978, Volume 3, p. 109.
[35] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-17).
[36] An order giving the Prime Minister of India power to rule the country by decree, suspending fundamental rights. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India)
[37] The parliamentary election was announced on Jan 18, 1977, and the Emergency officially ended on March 21.
[38] Formed on Jan 23, 1977, by the merger of several anti-Congress parties including the Jan Sangh.
[39] The CPIM allied with Janata, while the CPI supported Congress and the Emergency, a move they later called a mistake.
[40] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-18-19).
[41] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-20).
[42] During the colonial rule, the Nationalists belonging to Hindu faith referred India as their ‘Mother land’ as a mark of patriotism and symbolised the country as a Goddess. Inspired by the poem ‘Vande Mataram’ (Praise to Mother) written by the Bengali novelist Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay (1838-1894) in his novel ‘Ananda Math’, this eulogy caught the imagination of the mass. ‘Vande Mataram’ became the iconic chant and slogan in the freedom movement. After independence, the first stanza of ‘Vande Mataram’ is recognized as the ‘National Anthem’ of India.
[43] The river Ganga or Ganges is worshipped as a Goddess in Hinduism.
[44] It is said that in the 16th century, the building was replaced by a mosque after the Mughal dynasty came to power, and was named ‘Babri Masjid’ after the name of the first Mughal emperor, Babur. In 1949, idols of Ram mysteriously appeared inside—actually placed there by Hindu nationalists. Authorities locked the site to prevent tension. Decades later, the issue regained prominence due to Ram's immense popularity in North India.
[45] Bidyut Chakrabarty and Bhuvan Kumar Jha, “Hindu nationalism in India”, Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2020, (pp 177-178).
[46] Quoted from Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-23).)
[48] In 1993, supporting anti-reservation protests and implicitly accepting the stability of caste divisions, RSS General Secretary H.V. Seshadri stated: "In any conflict with the rest of society, the weaker sections always lose... This is possible only when society is inspired by a spirit of unity and harmony among all sections... This is exactly how Hindutva works for our society." (Quoted from “Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-24)”).
[49] A Hindu ritual of worshipping God on laying foundation for any building or structure.
[50] https://www.deccanherald.com/india/advanis-ram-rath-yatra-the-chariot-of-chaos-on-the-road-to-disorder-2858918
[51] “Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-21)”
[52] The central government formed this commission immediately after the demolition and dismissed Kalyan Singh’s government to impose President’s Rule.
[53] A proverb originated from the story of Ramayana where Laxman, the youngest brother of Rama, drew a circle around their hut in the forest to protect Sita, Rama’s wife from any danger and requested her not to cross it.
[56] Quoted from “Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-22)”
[57] A proposal to formulate and implement personal laws to applicable equally to all citizens of India, regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of different religious communities in India are governed by their religious scriptures, such as Sharia laws for Muslims. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Civil_Code
[58] Christophe Jaffrelot, “Modi’s India: Hindu nationalism and the rise of ethnic democracy”, (translated by Cynthia Schoch), Princeton University Press, 2019 (pp-22)
[59] In 2023, this alliance renamed itself INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance).
[61] An offshoot from Congress formed this political party under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee in 1st. January, 1998. Eventually it became the main opposition part in left ruled West Bengal and came to power in the state in the assembly election of 2011. Since then the party has been ruling the state.
[62] The role of the Left is often overlooked in this rise. In independent India, they have mostly engaged in reactive politics against communalism rather than playing an active, transformative role. Particularly after 1977 in West Bengal, Kerala, and Tripura, their governments focused more on administrative measures to prevent tension rather than building ideological movements against fundamentalism. To maintain their vote bank, they often provided silent support to Islamic communal politics, which Hindutva forces later exploited to expand their own influence. (Author)
