In as much as ‘existing on extremes of ideological divides’ (Ashley Tellis), India and Pakistan seem to be treading similar courses with a time lag of half a century. The right in Pakistan prevailed in 1949. In India it existed since antiquity but became vigorous and prominent recently. The reasons for this drift in India are far different from Pakistan.
Both India and Pakistan followed a course of inventive nationalism built on religion and Fabian socialism respectively. The arrival of BJP meant that Nehru’s social theory would be tested and replaced by Hinduism. BJP rise is due to four reasons. First, Congress and other social democrat parties performed badly. After Indira they lacked a leader. Secondly, BJP capitalized on India’s economic success eclipsing its wizard Manmohan Singh of Congress. India’s dirty rich irrespective of ideology bankrolled the Right. Thirdly, the overblown Gujarat miracle by India’s corporate media eclipsed the Indian economic paradigm shift by Rajiv Gandhi. Lastly, in the social media, Hinduism themes went unchallenged by secular India that existed on keyboards and not cell phones.
In Pakistan, we need to understand the winds of change. Emotionalism, hackneyed mindsets and ill-informed choice of words inhibit comprehension. Reason and rationality must prevail to understand the implications on regional security.
When Modi and Sang Pariwar talk of a highly developed and scientifically advanced India of antiquity, analysts in Pakistan are at a loss to understand why? The glory they envision existed perhaps 5000 BC earlier or more. It finds mention in Sanskrit edits and Vedas. Modi’s hypothesis cannot be out rightly rejected. The Indus Saga, the best by Aitezaz Ahsan skips this point. Did it exist or not is a question geologists, anthropologists and archeologist will address in due course. However the existence of a culture that pre dates Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro cannot be denied. Most that forms part of this sparsely documented history now exists in what is now Pakistan.
Five decades ago the world was ignorant of the prehistoric sub-continent. Historical facts of oldest culture and civilisations were ignored. Professor Nani G.D. Joardar declared that, “Nowhere in the vast mass of Sanskrit literature have I come across a formal treatise on polity satisfying the inquiries of modern mind. Very little exists in the way of political theory or philosophy “. George W.F. Hegel dismissed “Hindu’s as incapable of reflection and without history”. Professor Arthur B. Keith commented, “India offers nothing that can be regarded as a serious theory of politics in the wider sense of that term.”
However, Professor Beni Prasad Sil had a contrarian view. He said, “Hindu political thought has a spirit, a milieu, an atmosphere of its own as different from their western counter parts as Hindu personality, temperament and outlook are different from what one finds in Western Europe. Hindu thought does not fall under any of the accepted categories of western speculation. It stands by itself”. The research on Arthashastra by Chanakya Vishnugupta Kautilya in the past fifty years has changed these views. However, Arthashastra is not exclusive to Hindu political thought. It is rather a reaction to abstinence of Buddhism and emphasised materialism rather than morality. It put politics above religion in Realist Paradigm.
The treatise had a secular offshoot in Nehru’s Fabian Socialism and a divergence in Vinayak Damodar Savakars’s concept of Hindu Nationalism. While Nehru had a secular bent and catered to a modern world, Savakar challenged the western theories to advocate Hindu Pluralism making law and penalty equal for Hindus and other religions. Whereas Arthashastra connects with contemporary international politics, Hinduvta can be in parentheses with Confucianism, Zionism and Islamic political thought. It describes the tolerant Right.
Kautilya in his treatise carries inputs from older Shastras and Mahabharata. U.N. Ghoshal sees a paradox in Kautilya’s thought by commenting, “We are struck with the blending in the authors make-up of the two opposite streams of his inheritance, namely the theological (after the Brahmanical standards), and the political (after the Arthashastra) pattern”. There is a conflict between Vaivasata Manu who believed in ethical behaviour and prevents Law of the Fish to prevail through Danda and Kautilya whose main concern was territorial and economic acquisitions through Danda. Traditional Hindus see this as sacrilege and depict Chanakya as intriguing and cantankerous to a touch of comedy. Therefore, being inherently opposite, all aspects of Kautilya may not be resonated by the Hindu Right.
But Kautilya does resonate in Nehru’s Fabian Socialism and Panchsheel. This made Congress look different from the Hinduvta espoused by Savakar. But Savakar was more into the culture and stopped short of the ultra-right by placing logic in law above religion. Therefore inasmuch as BJP espoused secularism as vehicle to power, it will glorify Savakar for as long as it suits. This is why the traditional Hindu right is different and evolving.
According to G.N. Pant, “Just as the Arthashastra has for many years been scanned for what it has to say about the development of Indian state-craft, the Mahabarata is now being explored for what it has to say about the ‘essence of Indian military mind”. Mahabharata School follows the strict Hindu precepts with high ethics, and political idealism based on morality. It is not secular and strives to look pragmatic. It follows the traditional Hindu Shastras and the codes of Manu, Shukra and Kamandaka.
The first political party that represented this school was Rashtriya Swayamasevak Sang (RSS). This party at the grassroots is fundamental, militant, radical and committed to the concept of Bharat Varsha (Greater India). Its role in the genocide of 1947 is known. Other parties are Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Virat Hindu Sammelan (VHS) and Shiv Sena. Late M.M. Joshi’s Ekta Yatra to Sri Nagar and Babri Mosque are recent. The radical and aggressive behaviour of Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), RSS and Shiv Sena reflect a union. Over the years, the representation of Jat and other Hindus in the defence services has increased leading to rebirth of the Kashtriya tradition and the emergence of a militant Hindu core. They nuclearized India; aggressively call for unification of Kashmir and ultimate annexation of Pakistan.
Hinduvta’s equivalent emerged in Pakistan in the form of Objective Resolution, a revisionist stance on the riots of 1857 and creation of ideology of Pakistan by Ayub Khan. Therefore before criticizing the emergence of the Hindu Right in India, Pakistanis must pause to think where its center and left been since 1949. In India, they are returning awards and fighting back.