Oh boy, people are gonna get MAD at me! For lots of reasons. Shoot. I hate that. But I also feel like I have to at least try to address bigger concepts in modern India sometimes, because otherwise you cannot understand the way Hindi Film fits within them.

Disclaimer: I am not qualified to write these posts, I am going to get so many things wrong, but at least I can start the conversation, right? And the Manikarnika discussion has made me realize that the whole network of Hindutva in Indian culture which, for most of us, is just an assumed area of knowledge, is not actually known in detail to some of my readers. Please please correct me in comments (respectfully) and add additional context if you have it.

Let’s start with some basic terminology. The “Sangh Pariwar” is the term for the massive network of loosely connected Hindu Rights organizations within India. The first of these, the birthplace of all the others, is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, generally called the “RSS”. The RSS is the militant branch. From it grew the spiritual and philosophical branch, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP). And the political branch, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Most recently, the Bajrang Dal was born, the young wing and the most violent of all these groups. And there is also the Durga Vahini, the female wing of the RSS. There are many other sub groups and related groups, like the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, that are all referred to by the “Sangh Pariwar” general term. These groups are general northern and Hindi speaking, they have had less success spreading into south India.

These various groups coordinate closely sometimes, and sometimes act as totally separate entities. But at their base, they all have the philosophy that they are defending Hinduism. “Hinduism” as defined by the basic Sangh Pariwar philosophy is all of what they see as “Indian” religions and cultures, so Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and Hindu. Not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian.

For an example of what this might look like, there is the California textbook debate. California revises it’s textbooks every six years. In 2005, 2011, and 2016 the group “Hindu Education Foundation” involved itself in the public commentary phase. There were, indeed, many things that needed to be changed in the textbooks. But there were also changes that were in line with the Hindutva philosophy more than with accepted scholarship. For instance, defining “caste” as a system of identifying trade groups rather than an oppressive system. Here is a summary of the issue from a group that protested the changes in 2005:

The edits proposed by the HEF and VF on questions of gender and caste in ancient India are highly tainted by ahistorical and reactionary claims.  By substituting the word “unequal” with “different,” or “rights” with “dharma” the authors of these edits recreate a past in which caste society and patriarchy appear unproblematic, almost benign.  Such acts of erasure and silencing of the ancient past represent a direct assault on struggles against gendered and caste-based forms of oppression in the present.  Rendering Dalits invisible in history and women visible only as contented bearers of “different” dharma, these edits reflect a view of society antagonistic to the rights of women and the historical victims of caste society.

http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/CasteandGender_AncientIndia.html

The challenge in the American context relates back to the way an oppressed minority sees itself and its identity. As the number of educated upper class Hindu immigrants rose in America since the immigration reforms of the 1960s, they more and more struggled to find ways to maintain their Hindu identity and pass it on to their children. The lower class immigrant communities would gather within urban enclaves, finding community through business districts and neighborhoods. But the wealthier classes spread out to suburban zones, they needed a central space in which to feel their culture could be maintained. With this situation in mind, the Hindu groups within America came to increasing prominence. Summer camps offer to teach your children about their culture, large temple complexes offer classes and cultural events, Hinduism becomes a firm anchor to hold onto and build an identity around. And this version of Hinduism maintains lessor and lessor connection to that which is lived every day in India.

But at the same time, these organizations are useful within in American culture. There WERE massive errors in those textbooks, and no other group was speaking up and filling the gap of advocating for the Indian community. They provide socializing and a sense of identity that is hard to find as part of the Indian minority within America. The problem is how to take what has value from what they do, and understand the problems that still exist.

For instance, quoted in the article on the textbook controversy is a young girl raised in the Houston suburbs and taught an American version of Hinduism, who declares “The textbooks bring up all these obscure practices, like bride burning, and like that happens everyday…The biggest mistake is that Hinduism is portrayed as polytheistic…[T]he caste system has nothing to do with Hinduism.” There is a problem here, the textbook she is describing is inaccurate if it simplifies bride burning and caste into religious issues. But the interpretation of this American raised Hindu is also dangerously unaware if she does not know that bride burning is a daily occurrence in India today (estimated one an hour by some groups), and that caste is, if not solely created by Hinduism, at least deeply tied into Hinduism as it is practiced in many parts of the world.

I start with the American context, because I think it is a good way to get a vision of the same issues that lead to the founding of the RSS back in 1925. India was under British rule, and there was a desire to find something to believe in, some element of pride to combat the British lesson that India had a history of failed wars and foolish mistakes, leading to the British “saving” the country. In terms of the actual experience with the RSS for many people, it is simply a matter of group gymnastic or yoga classes you may have taken at some point, a philosophy that was not really taken seriously, as it was represented in Bajrangi Bhaijaan for Salman, or in Dum Laga Ke Haisha for Ayushmann. And perhaps involvement in the good works that the RSS does, assistance after national disasters, blood drives, etc. But there is still a general underlying philosophy, an acceptance of basic tenants like that the Muslim and Christian communities are not “truly” India, which has spread and spread. And now there is a complicated ideological tangle in which certain trigger issues, or words, or phrases, will inspire support from a wide-range of people. Which is what brings us to the Manikarnika debate which started this topic, the way the controversy is being phrased can trigger, for some folks, a loyalty towards one side or the other based on their feelings about the RSS and Hindutva beliefs.

The original idea of the RSS was to create an organization to instill Hindu pride in the young people of India. It was not part of the movement to fight the British. Instead, the initial aim was to train young men to protect Hindus from Muslims. It was founded by Keshav Hedgewar, a long time fighter against the British. He had been imprisoned, been part of secret revolutionary societies, and worked with the Indian National Congress in the past. But he broke with the Congress on two issues, Gandhi’s failure to condemn the violence of the Khilafat movement, a Muslim lead revolution in the Malabar area of Kerala that descended into chaotic violence, and the failure of Congress to make “cow protection” a main part of its platform.

Instead, he founded the RSS. It gained many new members in 1927 when it lead a procession in honor of Ganesh, complete with beating of drums, past a Mosque in violation of the common practice of respecting the sanctity of the Mosque and not beating drums outside of it. His procession was blocked by Muslims, and rioting ensued. The RSS claimed credit for “protecting” Hindus in the riots and their numbers grew. This is a pattern that lasts to, well, this month, the elections in India of 2019. Inciting violence between religions generally results in swelling numbers and support for Hindutva groups such as the RSS.

As the 20th century wore on, the RSS increasingly allied itself with fascism and British interests, rather than with socialism and the anti-colonial movement. The second leader of the RSS after Hedgewar, MS Golwalker, was enthusiastic in his admiration for the tactics of Hitler and the Nazi party, saying in his book published in 1939:

To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic Races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by. Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening.

This was a period in world history when the world was torn between 3 competing forces, Socialism, Democracy, and Fascism. Most places had examples of all 3 philosophies present. And it was the Socialists and Fascists that were set up as the greatest conflicting philosophies with Democracy in the middle. The same was true in India, with the moderate Indian National Congress representing democracy, various organizations (such as Bhaghat Singh’s group) representing socialism, and the RSS representing fascism (although they may never have officially accepted that terminology). During this period, Golwalkar lead the RSS into an increasingly anti-socialist direction, presenting it’s philosophy as “Not socialism, but Hinduism”. The RSS became more and more popular among the wealthy classes of Hindus in the country who responded to the idea of everything staying the same, but more Hindu, rather than radical social reform.

Golwalker’s call for the RSS to respect British laws and focus on the goal of an all-Hindu India rather than driving out the British alienated some members of the group who wished to take direct action against the British. Nathuram Godse, one of the leaders of the RSS and a friend of Golwalker (they translated a book together), founded his own group in the early 1940s without letting his RSS membership go entirely. In January of 1948, Godse approached Gandhi at a prayer meeting and shot him 3 times, killing him. The RSS has long maintained that Godse was not associated with their organization at the time of his killing Gandhi, but Godse’s family claims that he was.

During the early years of India, there was a constant struggle between the idea of India as a strictly secular state and one with a Hindu identity. The two great figures of Indian history at this time representing the two ideologies were Nehru, who strongly believed in a secular India, and Vallabhbhai Patel, who was softer towards the idea of a Hindu India and the RSS. Patel is sometimes claimed now as an ally of the Hindutva RSS/BJP movement, their connection to the founding fathers of India. But Gandhi’s assassination by a former (or current) RSS leader hardened Patel. The RSS was outlawed, and Patel’s feeling towards it at the moment were expressed in personal letters as:

There is no doubt in my mind the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasabha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the Government and the State.

https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/the-rss-and-sardar-patel-a-curious-case-of-the-bjps-selective-blindness/cid/1673294

During this same period, the RSS refused to honor both the new Indian constitution and the Indian flag. As a flag, they preferred the saffron flag they had long used as an emblem. In the RSS headquarters in Nagpur, the tricolour was flown twice, once on the day of Independence in 1947, and the next on the day the constitution was accepted in 1950. After that, flying it was banned at the headquarters and the saffron flag flew instead (the same flag that we see in Bajirao Mastani, Padmavat, and Manikarnika). In 2001, on Republic Day, three activists forced their way into the RSS headquarters and raised the tricolour for the first time in 51 years.

The RSS refused to recognize the constitution as it did not use “Manu’s Laws” as a base. Manu’s laws are the code of conduct set out in ancient Hindu scriptures. Like most ancient codes of conduct, while some rules remain valid to this day (similar to the 10 Commandments of Judea-Christianity laws like “Thou Shalt Not Kill”), others are dangerously out of date (similar to the specific laws in the old testament related to such things as how to build a house), one of the most famous examples frequently quoted to show the way Manu treats both women and lower casts is:

Women, shudra (or sudra, lowest of four castes), dog and crow embody untruth, sin and darkness. ”

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/TWR-05.html

While the RSS called for the constitution to take Manu’s laws as a base, instead the drafters of the document tended to look towards other democracies already in existence in the modern world.

Following Gandhi’s assassination, the RSS was outlawed as an organization for two years. Its status was reluctantly reinstated by Patel upon the promise that it would not involve itself in politics, and remain purely “cultural”. There was an obvious concern that an organization which did not recognize the Indian constitution, or even the Indian flag, would be dangerous to the Indian state.