The pendulum swings to the centre

The fight between Nehruvian ideology and Hindu nationalism is not new, but never has it emerged so sharply. For the first time people have a serious choice.

Hybridness has been the key of Nehruvian ideology. Nehru’s socialism was a halfway house. His nonalignment was not honest and his westernism was hypocritical. A style of governance emerged which blended Indian superciliousness with western pseudo-intellectualism and frowned equally on genuine Indianness and thorough westernism. The worst aspect of Nehruvianideology was its deliberate attempt to belittle Hindu nationalism as dangerous and marginalise stalwarts like Ram Mohan Roy, Tagore, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who sought to be modern without being socialist.

Jawaharlal Nehru, as Sonia Gandhi now, relied heavily on impression. Much effort went into sustaining a superhero image through policy, publicity and cohorts. It is a frightening thought that Sonia Gandhi, just because of her name, could become Prime Minister without any political experience.

Similarly her children, of no proven merit, have received tremendous publicity. Their elevation is an insult to every intelligent young Indian who has to struggle so much to get so little. Is this the great Indian democracy?

Hindu nationalism in the past has played into the debunking hands of Nehruvian ideologues. Despite the pluralism of Hinduism, the nationalists were narrow in their outlook, confining themselves to certain castes and classes. Their intolerance negated the liberalism of Hinduism. There is needfor the proper blending of Hinduism and nationalism if it is to be a guiding ideology.

Partly this was a reaction to centuries of subjugation and humiliation. first by the Muslims, then the British and finally by indigenous socialists. `Hindu’ became a dirty word. Sanskrit culture thrived in Harvard and Oxford but was almost forgotten in India. Hindu nationalists were impatient and as they grew more militant, so their base narrowed. Till Hindu nationalism became marginalised and Hindu politics self-defeating.

For the first time Hindu nationalism is swinging back to some normalcy. From the eclipse and degradation of the past to the militant chauvinism of the last decades to perhaps the maturity of the present. But the swing of the pendulum is yet to stabilise. It can do so only be stressing pluralism and liberalism, both hallmarks of essential Hinduism.

India can never be a Hindu nation, thanks to its diversity. What is required is tolerance of minorities, towards whom the majority have a specialresponsibility. In a way Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and others are all Hindus because they are Indian and have chosen to live in a country where 80 per cent of the population is Hindu. What could be a better compliment to the Hindu’s tolerance and liberalism? That is the difference between India and a fundamentalist state like Pakistan. The other important challenge is to bring all castes into the mainstream. Casteist parties cannot speak for the country. The alienation of the backward castes is a disgrace for nationalist Hindus. The BJP’s alliances with regional parties is a step in the right direction. They should not be seen as mere poll pacts but a more long-term process of cultural assimilation.

This is a national watershed. On the one hand is Nehruvian succession based on the divine right of kings and Nehruvian ideology, ad hoc, partially socialist and partially hocus-pocus. The hybridness of Nehruvianism is best illustrated by its latest protagonist who is Italian and a relation by marriage. On theother hand is Hindu nationalism, new, untried and yet undefined. If the dynasty belongs to the past, nationalism is in the realm of the uncertain future.

Is this really a choice?

The writer was a fellow at the Institute of International Studies, Berkeley, California