The failure of the BJP to secure an absolute majority in this Lok Sabha election is also being seen as an apparent failure of radical Hindutva, especially in Uttar Pradesh. The party lost its electoral hegemony in the state, unable to even win the symbolic Faizabad (Ayodhya) seat. This is also true about Varanasi. Although Prime Minister Narendra Modi won comfortably, the vote share of the party fell in this constituency as well. This is also true of a few other key constituencies. Does this mean that Hindutva has lost its capacity to mobilise voters? This question has also become relevant because the party relied heavily on radical anti-Muslim Hindutva to defend and protect its political hegemony this time.
To answer this question, one must pay attention to two meanings of the term “Hindutva” in contemporary Indian politics. First, Hindutva is an unofficial political ideology of the BJP (it is unofficial because the BJP’s party constitution does not mention Hindutva as an ideological reference point). The party invokes Hindutva to assert its commitment to cultural nationalism. The electoral success of the BJP in the last ten years has transformed Hindutva into the dominant political narrative of Indian politics. Non-BJP parties take the BJP’s Hindutva strategy seriously to maintain their pro-Hindu positions. The Hindutva versus Hinduism debate initiated by a section of non-BJP intellectual politicians in the last few years is a good example in this regard. It simply means that the political class has accepted Hindutva-driven nationalism as a legitimate template for political-electoral transactions.
There is another and rather more complex meaning of Hindutva as well. It is used to reclaim the Hindu cultural identity. There is a popular argument that after Independence, Hindu interests were ignored by successive regimes to appease Muslims. Therefore, the argument goes, there is a need to protect Hindu identity and culture. This sentiment has been expressed in a variety of ways in recent years. The inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya is a good example. The CSDS-Lokniti pre-poll survey, which was conducted just before the elections, shows that around 54 per cent Hindu respondents feel that the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has consolidated the Hindu identity.
These two meanings of Hindutva — an acceptable political narrative and a cultural expression of Hindu identity — have been a source of political inspiration for the BJP for almost a decade. This time, however, the party failed to understand the evolving political scenario and the electoral viability of its Hindutva strategy.
Why Opposition’s ‘nyay’ narrative hit a chord
The Congress, for the first time in the last ten years, tried to set the terms of political discourse. The party invoked social justice and economic inequalities as electoral issues without making any direct comment on the BJP’s Hindutva narrative. The other parties in the INDIA bloc also adopted similar political strategies. Many Opposition leaders openly reclaimed their Hindu identity while raising the question of social justice, employment generation and economic equality. Although the term “secularism” was not directly used, there was a lot of emphasis on inclusivity and social harmony.
This new Opposition-led electoral discourse was compatible with the emerging social realities at the grassroots. CSDS-Lokniti surveys show that substantial issues such as price rise, unemployment and growing poverty emerged as important political considerations for the voters. On the other hand, the assertion of Hindu identity could not become a reason for ignoring the plights of Muslims and other marginalised sections of society.
Almost 80 per cent of respondents claim that India belongs to all communities. There was also overwhelming support for secularisation of affirmative action policies. Over 57 per cent Hindus supported the idea that Muslim Dalits should be included in the Scheduled Caste list — a category where only Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist Dalits avail reservation. These findings underline the fact that sincere Hindu cultural-religious expressions must not always be reduced to anti-Muslim religious communalism.
The BJP establishment misread these developments. The party ignored the radical potential of the Opposition’s nyay (justice) discourse. It continued to highlight the success of its charitable state model to legitimise Modi-centric welfarism. That was one of the reasons why the Congress manifesto, especially the Nav Sankalp economic policy, became a serious challenge for the BJP. The party also failed to realise that it had converted the Ram Temple issue into a cultural-religious achievement and precisely for this reason, the direct political use of this holy place of worship in election campaigns would be counterproductive. Interestingly, the BJP establishment did not reinvent itself. It decided to invoke Hindutva in a negative manner to ridicule the Opposition as well as demonise Muslims. In fact, it tried to convert the reservation debate into a communal question. This aggressive and highly centralised politics of Hindutva went against popular sentiments.
What the BJP got right
Is it appropriate to call this the failure of Hindutva? The answer is yes and no.
The BJP has worked very hard to evolve a non-contradictory meaning of Hindutva to provide a template for Hindu religious and cultural anxieties. The party could not manage to make it an inclusive concept that could accommodate India’s cultural and religious diversity. As a result, an aggressive imagination of Hindu political identity has turned out to be the focal point of the BJP’s politics. This intellectual weakness became quite apparent this time. It is, in this sense, the Hindutva of the BJP that lost its capacity to influence political discourse.
However, we should not ignore the fact that the BJP has also managed to form the government under the leadership of PM Modi. Most importantly, the party has an impressive vote share this time as well. The geographical spread of the BJP is also noticeable, especially in Odisha where it has formed the government for the first time. This performance also indicates that the party’s Hindutva-centric political strategy has not yet become completely outdated.
The present debate on the political viability of Hindutva makes the contemporary moment of Indian democracy very interesting — the existing narrative of politics is no longer capable of dominating the electoral arena, while the emerging narrative of politics has not yet found a concrete shape.
The writer is associate professor, CSDS
