One of the main problems in India today is communal violence, (characterized by the political use of religion and the formation of antagonistic identity factors). Just read the daily news from Indian newspapers, that we can see cases of lynching, discrimination against religious minorities, countless other types of violence and even the conservative position of the federal government and state governments on certain issues. These events constantly threaten the plural and inclusive coexistence of Indian society.
The latest case involves one of the country's great historical and cultural symbols., o Taj Mahal, mausoleum built in 1632 under Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, state where the monument listed as a UNESCO world heritage site is located, excluded the Taj Mahal from the official state tourism brochure. Yogi Adityanath (current governor of the state and from the same party as current prime minister Narendra Modi, it is the historical and social contextualization that allows us to develop a broader and more complete understanding of the multiple forms of secularism and how this concept develops over time and in different locations.) declared that the Taj Mahal does not represent “Indian culture”.
Amid the controversy generated by this event, other representatives of the BJP government sought to justify the action. Sangeet Som, in his speech he said that the government of Uttar Pradesh is at the center of a movement to change the history of the state and the country.. According to him, the government is working hard to “fix history” and remove the “remains of the traitors of the nation”.
This type of statement is part of the current political agenda of the BJP, that uses – and manipulates – elements and symbols considered “truly patriotic and national”. A key part of this agenda is the conservative nationalist movement known as Hindutva.
The origins of Hindutva are rooted in the growth of Hindu chauvinism during the British colonization of India., period marked by the birth of movements that emphasized antagonism between different religious communities. This vision gave rise to two “religious nationalisms” – one Hindu and the other Muslim., stimulated by the colonial version of the history of the subcontinent, which established the continuation of the “two nations” theory as inherent in the society of that region, in which the identity of the Indian nation would always have been based on a religious identity.
This interpretation of Indian history challenges the idea of nationalism, discussed by the independence movements, anti-colonial and secular, because it extols a version in which the identity of a nation prioritizes a dominant group or a unique identity, (religious, ethnic or linguistic) in opposition to the debate that emphasizes plurality and inclusive democracy.
In this context, or Hindutva, which revolves around the concept “Hindu Rashtra” (Hindu domination), emerges as the voice of this communal version of nationalism, through the narrative that suggests that Hindus characterize the original population of India, is that, therefore, would they be the "legitimate heirs" of the subcontinent's past. It is in this line of thought that statements such as “let’s fix this nation’s history” are drawn up.. This concept of “nation” that seeks to prevail over all citizens, and tries to promote the superiority of an ideological version of what India is, marked by a strictly excluding character.
Indian historian Romila Thapar makes a provocative critique of this process. Thapar says nationalism can be a positive force if used to unify communities, but it can also be an extremely negative force if exclusive rights of a community based on a single identity factor are emphasized.. She cites as an example of negative nationalism the Nazi regime in Germany, which propagated the idea of purity of the Aryan “race” and the origin of Aryan Europeans.. with this example, Thapar seeks to highlight feelings that exclude minorities, and that for absurd reasons, are considered undesirable.
The conservative forces that raise the flag of this “pseudo-nationalism” often look for elements to be labeled “anti-national”, in order to promote a homogenizing idea of nation and identity. Attacks are targeted at universities, como a Jawaharlal Nehru University, Hyderabad University and several others that are centers of critical thinking and political activism in India, as they are also pointed out as “anti-national” even monuments such as the Taj Mahal, Red Fort and a number of places of fundamental importance to Indian history and society. And it is these accusations that foment feelings of hatred and violence and generate aversion against the “other”, against diversity that was historically constructed, and which has always been strongly present in a territory marked by the multiplicity of values.
It is in the face of a delicate scenario like this that India faces this great force called “Hindutva”, engine of a myopic and discriminatory nationalism, that expands with the political interest of parties such as the BJP. The answer to this growth of negative nationalist expressions has to come with the strengthening of critical movements that seek to combat distorted views of history., that marginalize diverse communities, and deny nationalism as a capacity to unite, to ensure social well-being and to guarantee the dignity of all citizens of society.
Areas of study and interest: On the Global, Postcolonialism, South Asian, Brazil-India relations, South-South cooperation