SV: [Y-Indology] an appeal to scholars

[Guest guest]

L. Suresh Kumar-LSK [sMTP:tolsk] skrev 12. juni 2001 11:39:

> My mail is not to put fuel into fire. So, please, no flames.

>

> I have been reading these phrase "hindu fanatics", "hindu

> fundamentalists", "hindu zealots", "hindu fascists", "hindu

> bigots" et al in so many forums, in the Indian english media and

> also in the western news media. And in Indology and other forums

> as well. So its usage is not by just one person alone in only one

> forum.

>

> I would like to know who these people are. What actions -

> speeches or writings or thoughts - should a person do to fall

> under this category ?

 

This is a fair question, and I'll try to give you a fair answer.

 

1. Hindutva and "Fascism"

 

It is quite popular today for enemies of Hindutva to call it a Fascist

movement. However, this not so simple from the point of view of political

science. I here refer to Christophe Jaffrelot: "The Hindu Nationalist

Movement in India". Jaffrelot has a chapter where he traces the

intellectual background of the RSS, the organisation that most often gets

classified as Fascist. To make a long story short, he rejects the

characterisation of the Hindu nationalist movement as "Fascist": "since a

characteristic of the RSS's Hindu nationalism has been to down-play the

role of the state we cannot classify it straightforwardly as a fascist

movement." Instead, he says: "the RSS can be classed as authoritarian in

its emphasis on discipline, in its refusal to recognise the specific

character of minorities and in its intention of reforming Hindu mentality

absolutely to prepare the advent of a new man..." However, it is

demonstrable that the RSS shares some of its ideological roots with the

Fascist movement, and also that leading members of the RSS such as

Golwalkar took a positive view of Hitler and his treatment of the Jews,

although he disagreed with Hitler on other scores.

 

Even if the RSS is not a Fascist organization according to Jaffrelot's

definition, some of its policies (also adopted by the Hindu nationalist

movement in general) have clear parallels in Fascist states. The most

important factor here is the victimisation of certain social groups, in the

case of India Muslims and Christians who are treated with active

intolerance and used as an "inner enemy" to rally the majority population.

(But so far, no concentration camps have been built, which is an important

difference between India and Nazi Germany!) It should be noted, however,

that the definition of "Fascism" among scholars is unclear, there are in

fact several definitions, and it is possible that organisations such as the

RSS or the Shiv Sena might fall within some such definition.

 

 

2. Fanaticism

 

A fanatic is a person who a) does not brook any opposition to his or her

views ("I am absolutely right always"), b) acts aggressively and invasively

to spread his or her conviction, and c) is intolerant of other convictions

("they have no right to be here"). Fanatics are obsessive and often

violent, or they readily accept violence performed by others in the name of

the "cause". Hindu fanatics are persons thus characterized. If you are

looking for concrete groups, I regard the Shiv Sena, the RSS and the VHP as

Hindu chauvinist organisations with a high fanaticism factor.

 

Outside these groups, you have people who share some of the views of the

groups mentioned above, but not all of them. Whether they should be termed

fanatics would depend upon the way they propagate their views as well as

the character of their view. Honestly believing in the Out-of-India theory

does not automatically make you a fanatic.

 

The remarks stated above also apply to Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist

fanatics. A fanatic is a fanatic, no matter what his or her creed is.

 

> Since all political parties in India use violence to settle

> scores, please, let us not isolate BJP alone in this answer.

 

I agree with this. BJP is not the only party or organisation in India that

uses violence to further its political objectives.

 

> Is there something logically wrong when labelling

> the followers of Christianity/Islam/Judaism as fundamentalists or

> fanatics, when these religions are non-inclusive of other

> faiths/Gods at their basic foundations ??

 

Yes, up to a point. All religious and political movements have a right to

regard themselves as "better" than others. The Christian view has since

antiquity been that the pagans got something right, but not all of it (St.

Paul's solution to the problem that some religions had similarities with

Christianity). When the religions you mention move from being non-inclusive

(e.g. Christianity tolerating the co-existence of other religions with

itself, but not accepting them as equal) to actively trying to suppress the

other religions, then you get a fanatical version of these religions. Both

Christianity and Islam have long and dismal histories of fanaticism.

 

> I think we must separate those who are respectful and tolerant of

> other religions and Gods/Goddesses from those who don't.

 

This is self-evident. However, in a democratic society, everything,

including religious views, may be open to criticism. Nothing is above

public debate.

 

> Is this applicable to only western societies and not to India ?

 

No. This should be universially acceptable.

 

>In this broader context, what Dr. LMF wrote is very very true.

> The only contentious issue remains, what can be categorised as

> just "nonsense" and what others can be termed as "truth" and by

> "whom". It appears we do not agree on "what" [information] here.

 

This is of course also true, and when I used the word "nonsense", I should

perhaps have hedged and said: "what I personally regard as nonsense" or

something to that effect.

 

I would also agree with you that the media give a slanted impression of

South Asia. This is partly due to the fact that they tend to go looking for

"sensations" and therefore have little time for analysis. But that is a

different debate. It is not a question of "Indologists" versus "Indians",

but rather of sloppy journalists versus everybody. In this respect, South

Asia is not the only victim.

 

Best regards,

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

Fax 1: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax 2: +47 85 02 12 50 (InFax)

Email: lmfosse