The
term ‘Hindutva’ was coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923. He used it for
the first time in a pamphlet on Hinduism. It refers to an ideology that aims to
define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values and unite all of Hindu society
into one State. According to Hindutva, Hindus are people who consider ‘Bharat’
their motherland, fatherland and holy
land. Today, Hindutva is a widely used term, recognized and understood by most
Indians today. It has gained a wide subscription, especially after the rise of
India’s current Prime Minister from the ranks of a Hindutva organization into
political prominence.
Hindutva
is advocated and spread in the form of Hindu nationalism; one that often turns
militant and violent. Hindutva nationalism carries many characteristic
trademarks of nationalism: it speaks of grievances against past injustices
committed against Hindus, offers a teleological interpretation of history,
propagates the idea of Hindu superiority through history, and it appeals to the
masses primarily on the basis of race and masculinity.[1]
Hindus are characterized as being masculine, aggressive, emotional and
sentimental men, obsessed with protecting ‘Mother India’ and the virtue of their Hindu women. The archetypal Hindu
is generally a man. It propagates the idea that the reason India has been
invaded by foreign forces so often, and continues to be populated by Muslims,
is because Hindu India is feminine by nature. It is believed that in order for it
to become more assertive and stronger, it is essential that it become more
masculine. Thus, ‘Bharat Mata’ is portrayed as a woman who needs to be
protected from invasions by her sons, who need to assert and embrace their
masculinity.
The
primary target of Hindu nationalism is the Muslim community. Hinduism is
associated with creation, while Islam is associated with destruction.[2]
Muslims are presented as a barbaric, primitive community whose sole objective
is to ‘breed’ in large numbers. Hindu nationalism persists and maintains its
popular appeal through the idea of this Muslim enemy.
The
first Hindutva organization was the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), founded
in 1925 by KB Hedgewar in Nagpur, Maharashtra. Today, a ‘family’ of organizations,
including the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal (the youth wing of
the VHP), and the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (overseas branch of the RSS), are
members of the Sangh. Most of these organizations were either started by the
RSS, as subsidiary organizations, or were inspired by its ideology. The RSS is
also considered by many to be the ideological wing of the political party BJP,
with many prominent BJP leaders being former RSS cadres.
Although
Hindutva ideology and nationalism existed since at least the 1920s, it rose to
prominence only in the 1980s. This was caused by a number of factors, such as
the decline in the power and appeal of the Indian National Congress (INC), the
economic effects of liberalization, several separatist movements involving
minorities, the rising ambitions and grievances of the lower class and the
moral decay of Indian political life, in general. The first real demonstration
of militant Hindu nationalism was the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Various
organizations, like the RSS and BJP, claimed that the spot on which Babri
Masjid, a mosque in Ayodhya was built, was also Hindu god Ram’s birthplace.
They claimed a Hindu temple had existed there before it was torn down by
Muslims and replaced by a mosque. This movement led to the demolition of Babri
Masjid in December 1992 by a large mob. This resulted in widespread riots all
over the country, with more than 3000 lives lost and numerous people being
displaced from their homes.[3]
Another significant Hindu-Muslim conflict was the burning down of two train
cars carrying Hindutva activists in Godhra, Gujarat, killing 58 passengers. In
the communal riots that followed as a form of retaliation, homes and shops of
Muslims were looted and burnt, Muslim women raped and mutilated, with a death
toll of around 2000.[4]
Any
discussion on Hindu nationalism, especially of the militant sort, must begin
with an understanding of the RSS and its pivotal ideologies and operation. The
RSS has been an all-male organization since its inception. The ‘shakha’ is the backbone of the RSS.
Shakhas are daily gatherings held for RSS workers. They meet for marching and
lathi practice, group singing, ideological dialogue and para-military exercise.
Through this regular training, the swayamsevaks are supposed to gain masculine
traits such as strength, resolve, fortitude and intellectual acumen—all traits
possessed by the Kshtariya (warrior) class.[5]
The RSS has different classes of workers—sevaks and pracharaks. Pracharaks are
full-time, unmarried male workers who devote all their time to the RSS. Their
celibacy and non-involvement in family life are viewed as vital for their
concentration in furthering the Hindutva cause. The current Prime Minister Narendra
Modi, for example, lied about being married for the longest time. He said that
people should vote for him because he is an unmarried man, and therefore, has
no family to steal government money for and no familial distractions in the way
of his political life.[6]
He said that the nation is his family—something that is a prominent part of the
RSS’ ideology.
The
RSS does not believe in the idea of non-violence. This has repercussions for
the lives of women, as violence is constantly inflicted on them in particular. It
legitimises violence in situations where someone is believed to behave in a ‘un-Hindu’
manner, making it easier for men to physically and sexually abuse their wives.
Since
Hedgewar insisted that the RSS remain an all-male organization, the Rashtra Sevika
Samiti was started by Lakshmi Bai Kelkar in 1936, as the women’s wing of the
RSS. The Samiti takes part in all the same avenues as its male counterpart. It
conducts daily shakha sessions and the sevikas are trained along the RSS’s
physical and ideological lines.
The ideal RSS swayamsevak has often been
portrayed as Lord Ram, who is presented as the primary Hindu god, and therefore,
the epitome of good Hindu conduct. His wife, Sita, who is believed to have
sacrificed her life to preserve her family’s honour, is presented as the ideal sevika.
Hindu nationalism has given this ideal woman, who earlier only had a place in
the home and family, a space within the political as well.
There are certain female members of the
Hindutva brigade who exemplify this conception of female political assertion. The
Rath Yatra in 1990, in particular, saw women emerging in a space that was
earlier uncharted territory for women—the space of militant political activism.
A few women played an especially
prominent role in this movement, emerging as both the engineers and
facilitators of the movement. The BJP recorded and distributed audio tapes with
speeches of two such women: Sadhvi Rithambara and Uma Bharati. In their
speeches, they urge Hindu men and
women to join the mission to restore the Ram temple to its rightful place. Through
their speeches, which are extremely violent, sensational and persuasive, these
women manage to reverse several traditional constructions of gender that exist
in Hindu culture. They are no longer compliant, peaceful and non-confrontational
as Hindu women are generally expected to be.[7]
Sadhvi Rithambara is one of the leading
cultural activists of the RSS. At the age of sixteen, Rithambara is said to
have had a ‘strong spiritual experience while listening to a discourse by Swami
Parmananda, one of the many “saints”’ in the forefront of Hindu revivalism.’[8]
She then left her home and family in the village of Khana, Punjab and joined
Swami Parmanand’s ashram in Haridwar. She travelled through North India,
attending religious meetings and taking lessons on oration. She developed sound
oratory skills, and Samiti officials, impressed by her oratory skills, invited
her into their organization. She became very important within the VHP and was
their chief spokeswoman for the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. Her speeches were
recorded and broadcast across the country and dispersed within the homes of
people in the form of audio tapes. Rithambara renounced worldly life, and
adopted the name ‘Sadhvi’, which is a term used to address a female saint. By
abandoning worldly, material life, she projected a certain selflessness and
sense of purity reflected by the ideal Hindutva woman.[9]
While she may not really represent the traditional Hindu woman, who identifies
primarily as a mother or wife, she still finds her place within the home and
within conventional Hindu society.
Studying Rithambara’s iconic speech
which was broadcast across India is useful in identifying the gender role of
women perpetuated through Hindu nationalism, as well as the space that Rithambara
creates for herself, and other women, within Hindu nationalist society.
Rithambara begins her speech saying, ‘Hail
Mother Sita!’ calling for the restoration of Ram’s place in society. This
implies that women need to play a role in the re-establishment of the Ram
temple. She goes on to say that in the Hindu epic Ramayana, Sita disobeyed her
husband’s orders to return to Ayodhya after her exile from the kingdom and
instead committed suicide. Sita does this in order to maintain the honour of
her household, as she is no longer a chaste and pure woman after being
kidnapped by Ravan.[10]
This portrays Hindu women as having a greater role or responsibility than men
to ensure that Hinduism and Hindu culture is maintained as it should be. This
greater responsibility makes each Hindu woman feel like it is her personal
responsibility to ensure that the Hindu nation is restored to its former glory
and that therefore that the Ram temple is reconstructed. Thus, women are
portrayed as being essential to the building and progression of the movement,
defining its boundaries along the way. They are told that they should sacrifice
their domestic roles as mothers and caregivers and become militants in order to
preserve the virtue of Hindu society; that the duty they have to Hindu society,
like the duty Sita had to Ayodhya, overrides their domestic duty. Although this
empowers women in the public sphere, it does not empower them within their
homes and families, as they still do not have control over their own
sexualities, nor is there equal division of labour. Their sexuality is kept
completely out of the discourse and they are presented as celibate soldiers. In
her speech, Rithambara uses language that would be construed as very crude and
vulgar, indicating that she takes on traits that are associated with men and
masculinity. She effectively de-sexualizes herself through this process,
indicating that women’s sexuality must be left out of this entire discourse.
The story of Ram and Sita presents the
ideal Hindu society and family, intact with all the expected gender roles of
women. Essentially, Rithambara, and other female Hindutva leaders, are used to
recreate gender roles so that other woman can be mobilized to act militantly in
Hindu nationalist movements.
Rithambara also narrates a story about
Akbar, a Muslim king, and Birbal, his favourite Hindu minister. Akbar and
Birbal are going riding when they pass by a Tulsi plant. Birbal gets off his
horse, kneels, and says ‘Hail Mother Tulsi!’ Akbar makes fun of him, saying ‘Let
us see how strong your mother is.’ He gets off his horse and pulls the Tulsi
plant out of the ground. Birbal does nothing as he feels helpless, being the
subject of a Mughal empire. Later on, they see another plant and Birbal kneels
down in front of it too, praying. Akbar again pulls the plant out of the ground
and throws it away. This time around, since the plant is a nettle, Akbar’s body
begins to itch badly and he has a bad allergic reaction. Seeing this, Birbal
says, ‘Oh, protector of the world, pardon my saying that our Hindu mothers may
be innocent but our fathers are hard bitten.’ To this, Birbal responds, ‘Go and
ask forgiveness of my mother Tulsi. Then rub the paste made out of her leaves
on your body and my father will pardon you.’[11]
In this story, the Hindu woman is
epitomized by the Tulsi plant, which is known for its medicinal and spiritual
properties. The woman is portrayed, much like Sita, as being a balm to soothe
the pain of society. She is able to cure the wounds of a destructive masculine
world. Although she lies outside the political realm, she is the best cure for
it. The woman is also presented as docile and a little repressed, as she does
not hurt the king. Her male counterpart is aggressive and unrelenting. This too
reaffirms gender roles.
Another prominent Hindutva leader is
Kamlabehn, a dedicated female volunteer of the RSS. She comes from a family of
dedicated RSS cadres. Kamlabehn owes her empowerment and emancipation from the
confines of traditional Hindu society to the RSS and Hindu nationalism. She
specifically speaks of the admiration she has for her mother and the strength
that she required to break free from her orthodox upbringing.[12]
She says that it is because of the RSS that her father sent her to an
English-medium school and let her enter what were otherwise all-male domains,
like engineering. Growing up, Kamlabehn dressed in ‘male’ clothes—her staple
clothing was an oversized men’s shirt, trousers and tennis sneakers.[13]
Her female family members disapproved of the fact that she did not wear a
saree, which they considered the ideal dress for women. Kamlabehn refused to
marry an RSS sevak whom she got to know during her college days, telling him, ‘I
am already married to the Samiti, I am married to the Nation, not to any man.’[14]
Through all this, Kamlabehn effectively denies all gender stereotypes and tries
to create a space for herself, which is not associated with her gender or
sexuality.
After this, Kamlabehn became a full-time,
celibate, and single pracharika. Pracharikas are responsible for organizing
daily shakhas and coordinating various campaigns. Their work requires that they
travel frequently, often alone on public transport. These women therefore
become extremely spatially mobile, moving well beyond the confines of the home,
unprotected by any male companions. Pracharikas like Kamlabehn thus challenge
existing patriarchal norms of society.
Kamlabehn, however, later proposed to
the same sevak she had initially spurned and they got married. Her proposing to
him is also unconventional in her society. Their marriage did not take the
usual course of marriages, either. The couple never lived together. Kamlabehn
lives in a flat in Ahmedabad, while her husband lives in Mumbai. She continues
to impart para-military skills at her local shakha, although she is no longer a
pracharika. Unlike other marriages, her marriage gave her more freedom and
space rather than less. She was no longer answerable to her family, as they
expected her husband to protect her and care for her. However, since her
husband was rarely ever there, she was not really answerable to him either.
Unlike most women who are viewed as being a danger to society when they are not
under the control of a man and are fairly sexually free, Kamlabehn is regarded
with respect and even revered by many for her dedication to the cause of Hindu
nationalism. Like Rithambara, Kamlabehn refuses to put herself into the box of
traditional Hindu femininity, while remaining respected in Hindu society.
For both Kamlabehn and Rithambara, the
RSS was the primary route to empowerment. However, all this empowerment and
emancipation are only justified because women are believed to need to protect
herself from the licentious Muslim so that they may continue to perpetuate
Hindu culture and society. Thus this emancipated position of women is
inherently tied to the demonization of another: the Muslim, whose communal
identity is fundamental to the existence of a Hindutva politic.
For
many Hindu women, the Ram Rath Yatra gave them an opportunity to break out of
their homes and come into the public sphere. It has given them freedom and a
purpose beyond the confines of their homes.
However,
their actual role in these riots comes into question. Some ethnographic
research suggests that ordinary women rarely participate in communal riots or
communal violence of any sort. When they do, it is generally when they feel
threatened and act in defence. Mostly, it is the women leaders of these
movements and the sevikas and pracharikas who participate robustly in violent
Hindutva activism.[15]
The inflammatory speeches given by women like Rithambara give the illusion that
there are many women fighting Muslims vehemently. But when women do
participate, their participation tends to be passive, rather than aggressive
and forthcoming. For example, in the Bombay riots of 1993, female Shiv Sena
supporters stood and watched on the sidelines as violence was perpetrated on
Muslims. However, they were not actively involved in the looting and murder
that took place.[16]
There
remains some dispute on this front, though. Some studies show that around
20,000 women participated in the Ayodhya massacre over the course of a single
day, many of whom were trained by the Samiti. Around 55,000 women from Durga Vahini,
the female youth wing of VHP also participated in these demonstrations.[17]
Therefore, it is not possible to reach any real consensus on whether or not the
participation of women like Rithambara and Kamlabehn in militant Hindu
nationalism effectively mobilizes other women to participate in it as well or
not.
The
idea of the endangered Hindu woman who needs protection is, however, an
extremely useful tool in mobilizing people to act violently by re-invoking and
playing on emotions. Women are essentially used as a weapon for violent mobilization
against Muslims and as a symbol of the threatened Hindu culture and religion. There
is a lot of talk about women being brutally sexually assaulted and mutilated by
Muslim men. Rithambara’s speech, for example, refers to women’s thighs being ‘burnt
with red hot irons.’[18]
This disturbing imagery is used to persuade people to act violently and in ways
that they would not perhaps have rationally chosen to do.
On
the one hand, Hindu nationalist politics has created opportunities for women
and emancipated them. On the other, it has reinforced existing gender roles and
identities in Hindu society.
Just
as Muslim males are always viewed as persons who want to ‘breed’, populate the
country with Muslims and outnumber Hindus, and they are believed to all have multiple
wives, be lecherous and constantly out to seduce women and abuse them, the
Hindu identity is by contrast thought of as a vulnerable, threatened Hindu
woman. Violence is therefore viewed as essential in re-asserting the honour of
the Hindu male and his ability to protect that which is his, Hindu women. This
objectifies women as they seem to hold the same value and ability as the man’s
property which he alone can protect; which cannot protect itself. Therefore, by
joining the Hindutva brigade, women subscribe indirectly to a system entrenched
in patriarchy and male superiority. Hindu nationalism legitimizes the dominance
of men over women by giving it a political platform.
Before
concluding, a little more needs to be said about the paradox of Hindu nationalism.
On the one hand, the Sangh encourages women to break away from gender
stereotypes and participate, albeit violently, in strident Hindu nationalism.
However, it also strongly defends conventional ideas of a woman’s ‘place’ in
society. For example, the BJP strongly supported the sati of Roop Kanwar, a
17-year-old wife in Rajasthan, citing various Hindu scriptures that justified
the banned practice of sati.[19]
They maintained that the ideal Hindu woman is always a dutiful wife, ready to
die at her husband’s funeral pyre. Work by female poets like Shraddha Suman
Mala (sold in the VHP office) venerates sacrifices by mothers and martyrs’
wives. Generally, militant political mobilization is left primarily to the RSS,
while members of the Samiti focus more on disseminating Hindutva ideology
through neighbourhood contact with non-Samiti women.[20]
Often, women themselves retract into the domestic space and choose not to
engage in more dominant political assertion as they are uncomfortable with the
inherent violence present in and propagated by Hindutva ideology. Although Hindutva
groups often draw attention to the inherent inequalities between man and woman
present in Islamic scripture and practices, they remain silent on Hindu
practices and laws that are derogatory to women.
Thus,
although involving women in Hindutva politics might empower them in the public
sphere, the gender roles and imbalances within the typical patriarchal Hindu
family are not confronted. This might be because exploring these domains of domestic
inequity would undo the nationalist narrative of the spiritual, harmonious,
just Hindu family. In order to protect this narrative, Hindu women are
encouraged, through nationalist Hindutva discourse, to sacrifice their
individual rights at home in the name of a greater cause—the establishment of a
Hindu nation. They are told that if they do not perform their culturally
established roles properly, then their families suffer and so does the entire
nation.
In
conclusion, the figure of the woman plays a prominent role in Hindutva politics.
It is used as a symbol for the injured and mistreated ‘Bharat Mata.’ In Indian
society, tarnishing what is construed as female honour is considered a much
graver offence than tarnishing ‘male honour’. Thus, Hindu men are effectively
mobilized to act violently against the Muslim through this image of the hurt
woman. The Hindutva movement has largely failed to mobilize women themselves to
participate violently and militantly in protests and riots. However, it has
helped to emancipate them from conventional Hindu society in many ways.
[1] Richard H. Davis, “The Cultural
Background of Hindutva,” in India
Briefing: Takeoff at Last?, ed. Alyssa Ayres and Philip Oldenburg (Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005), 107-139.
[2] Maya Azran,
“Saffron Women: A Study of the Narratives and Subjectivities of Women in the
Hindutva Brigade,” Columbia Undergraduate
Journal of South Asian Studies Issue II (Spring 2010).
[3] Richard H. Davis, “The Cultural
Background of Hindutva,” in India
Briefing: Takeoff at Last?, ed. Alyssa Ayres and Philip Oldenburg (Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005), 107.
[4] Richard H. Davis, “The Cultural
Background of Hindutva,” in India
Briefing: Takeoff at Last?, ed. Alyssa Ayres and Philip Oldenburg (Armonk,
NY: M. E. Sharpe, 2005), 107-139.
[5]Ibid.
[6] Anand Bodh, “I am single, so
best man to fight graft: Narendra Modi,” Times
of India, February 17, 2014, accessed April 23, 2016, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-am-single-so-best-man-to-fight-graft-Narendra-Modi/articleshow/30536843.cms.
[7] Maya Azran, “Saffron Women: A
Study of the Narratives and Subjectivities of Women in the Hindutva Brigade,” Columbia Undergraduate Journal of South
Asian Studies Issue II (Spring 2010).
[8] Sudhir Kakar, The Colours of Violence: Cultural
Identities, Religion, and Conflict (Chicago University Press, 1996), 153.
[9] Maya Azran,
“Saffron Women: A Study of the Narratives and Subjectivities of Women in the
Hindutva Brigade,” Columbia Undergraduate
Journal of South Asian Studies Issue II (Spring 2010), 56.
[10]Amrita Basu, “Hindu Women's
Activism in India and the Questions it Raises,” Appropriating Gender: Women’s Activism and Politicized Religion in
South Asia, ed. Patricia Jeffrey and Amrita Basu (London: Routledge, 2008),
167-184.
[11] Sudhir Kakar, The Colours of Violence: Cultural
Identities, Religion, and Conflict (Chicago University Press, 1996), 161.
[12] Paolo Bacchetta, Gender in the Hindu Nations: RSS Women as
Ideologues (New Delhi: Women Unlimited, 2004), 66.
[15] Kalyani Devaki Menon, Everyday Nationalism: Women of the Hindu
Right in India (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), 80.
[16]
Ibid.
[18] Maya Azran, “Saffron Women: A
Study of the Narratives and Subjectivities of Women in the Hindutva Brigade,” Columbia Undergraduate Journal of South
Asian Studies Issue II (Spring 2010).
[19] T.K. Rajalakshmi, “‘Sati’ and
the verdict,”Frontline accessed
on October 29 2014, http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2105/stories/20040312002504600.htm
[20] Syed Hussain Shaheed Soherwordi,
“Hindu Nationalism and the Political role of Hindu Women: Ideology as a
Factor,” South Asian Studies Vol. 28,
No. 1 (January – June 2013), 45
Amala Dasarathi is a student of the B.A.L.L.B Program at the Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat
The term ‘Hindutva’ was coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923. He used it for the first time in a pamphlet on Hinduism. It refer...
Posts
