Examine M.S. Golwalkar’s views on negative and positive Hindutva

M.S. Golwalkar, a prominent leader of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and one of the key proponents of the ideology of Hindutva, played a crucial role in shaping the discourse around Hindu nationalism in India.

Get the full solved assignment PDF of MPSE-004 of 2024-25 session now by clicking on above button.

His views on Hindutva, as articulated in his influential works like We, or Our Nationhood Defined (1938), provide insight into his vision of Indian identity, its relationship to the nation, and its political and cultural dimensions. Golwalkar’s distinction between negative and positive Hindutva is an important aspect of his thought and helps understand the nuances of his ideas on Hindu nationalism.

1. Hindutva: A Concept of Hindu Nationalism

Before delving into Golwalkar’s views on negative and positive Hindutva, it is important to understand his overarching concept of Hindutva, which he defined as the cultural and civilizational identity of India. Hindutva, in Golwalkar’s understanding, is not merely a religious concept but a broader cultural, social, and political vision for India that seeks to affirm the country’s identity as a Hindu nation.

• Cultural Unity: For Golwalkar, the essence of India lay in its Hindu culture, which he believed to be the glue that bound the diverse peoples of the subcontinent. He argued that all Indians, irrespective of their religion, were culturally and historically bound to the civilization created by Hinduism.
• Hindutva as Nationalism: Golwalkar contended that Hindutva should be understood as the ideology of a unified, Hindu nation-state. He rejected the idea of secularism as practiced in the West, instead advocating for a polity in which Hindu cultural values and practices were central to the national identity.

2. Negative Hindutva: The Exclusive Vision

Negative Hindutva refers to the exclusionary and defensive aspects of Golwalkar’s vision of Hindu nationalism. This aspect of Hindutva is more focused on delineating who does not belong to the Hindu nation, thereby creating a boundary of what Golwalkar saw as the ‘true’ national identity.

• Exclusion of Non-Hindus: Golwalkar’s negative Hindutva primarily revolves around the exclusion of Muslims, Christians, and other religious minorities from the Hindu national identity. He argued that those who did not accept Hindu culture and its civilizational values could not truly be considered part of the Indian nation. In his view, India was a land for Hindus, and those who did not identify as Hindus were essentially outsiders. For example, in his book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar famously stated that India was the land of the Hindus, and anyone who did not consider themselves part of the Hindu fold was essentially an outsider.
• Critique of Religious Minorities: Golwalkar’s approach was starkly different from the secular nationalism promoted by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru. He believed that religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians, were disloyal to India and, in his view, should be either assimilated into Hindu culture or leave the country. Golwalkar’s negative Hindutva promoted the idea that only those who fully accepted Hinduism as the foundation of the nation could be true citizens of India.
• Defensive Nationalism: This version of Hindutva was defensive in nature, reacting against the perceived foreign influences of Islam and Christianity, which, according to Golwalkar, had eroded the indigenous Hindu identity over centuries. In this sense, negative Hindutva can be seen as an attempt to protect and preserve the “purity” of Hindu culture and resist the influences of external religions.

3. Positive Hindutva: The Inclusive and Constructive Vision

Positive Hindutva, on the other hand, presents a more inclusive and constructive vision of Hindu nationalism. While negative Hindutva emphasizes exclusion and the boundaries of the Hindu nation, positive Hindutva focuses on building a society grounded in Hindu cultural values and practices, while simultaneously incorporating diverse groups into this vision, albeit on Hindu terms.

• Cultural Unity and National Integration: Golwalkar’s positive Hindutva advocates for the unification of the Indian people under the banner of Hindu culture. He believed that the Hindu way of life could accommodate diverse communities, as long as these communities accepted Hinduism as the core of Indian civilization. In this vision, all religious and cultural practices should be viewed as subordinate to the greater goal of preserving the Hindu identity of the nation.
• Respect for Diversity within Hinduism: In contrast to negative Hindutva, positive Hindutva recognizes the plurality within Hinduism itself, acknowledging that there are different sects, traditions, and interpretations within the Hindu fold. However, Golwalkar argued that these differences should not lead to division or conflict; rather, they should contribute to the rich diversity of Hindu culture that would form the bedrock of India’s national identity.
• Inclusive Nationalism: While negative Hindutva focuses on exclusion, positive Hindutva calls for the building of an integrated nation where people from various communities—Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and even people from other religions who acknowledge Hindu cultural supremacy—can live together. In this vision, the Hindu nation would not merely be a religious entity, but a cultural one that incorporates the contributions of all those who accept the Hindu way of life, even if they practice different religions.

4. Hindutva as a Political Ideology:

• State and Religion: Golwalkar’s vision of Hindutva was inherently political. While the idea of a Hindu nation was grounded in cultural and civilizational unity, it also sought to create a political structure that would reflect Hindu values. This would involve promoting Hinduism as the guiding cultural principle of the state and prioritizing the interests of Hindus in national politics, while keeping other religious groups in a subordinate position.
• Cultural Revivalism: Golwalkar’s positive Hindutva advocated for the revival and promotion of Hindu culture, language, and traditions. He sought to establish a political system that would foster the values of Hindu dharma (righteousness), discipline, and unity. In this vision, India would be a nation defined by Hindu civilization, with policies and social structures that reflect Hindu values.

5. Criticism and Controversy:

• Exclusionary Politics: Critics of Golwalkar’s ideas, especially those from secular and left-wing perspectives, argue that his distinction between negative and positive Hindutva is ultimately exclusionary and divisive. The emphasis on Hindu cultural supremacy marginalizes religious minorities and creates a climate of intolerance.
• Religious Nationalism vs. Secularism: Golwalkar’s rejection of secularism and his promotion of religious nationalism are central to the criticism against Hindutva. Critics contend that this vision contradicts the inclusive and pluralistic ideals that are enshrined in India’s constitution.

Conclusion:

M.S. Golwalkar’s views on negative and positive Hindutva reflect the dual nature of his ideological vision for India. Negative Hindutva focuses on exclusion and resistance to non-Hindu influences, while positive Hindutva emphasizes the integration of all Indians under the umbrella of Hindu cultural values, promoting national unity based on a Hindu identity. Despite its attempts at inclusivity, Golwalkar’s Hindutva remains a highly controversial and contentious ideological framework, with critics arguing that it undermines India’s pluralistic traditions and fosters religious exclusivity.