The Need and feasibility of a Hindu Vote Bank

By Prakash Kumar

The other day, a diplomat from an important country was addressing a small
gathering at one of Nee Delhi’s intellectual nerve centres. It was his farewell
address to his Indian friends and colleagues after a six-year posting in India. He
described his “wonderful experiences” in “the great country of India”. But one
thing, he said, surprised him the most. “ I had heard a lot about Hindus and
Hinduism before I was posted in India. I thought during my stint in India I would
learn and hear more about one of the great and ancient religions of the world. But
what I found during my stay was that the leading Indians were more vocal about the
interests of Islam and Christianity than about the protection of Hinduism. In
fact, sharpest attacks on Hinduism come invariably from Indians themselves”.

The diplomat in him obviously did not give any impression that he was happy or sad
about the treatment of Hinduism in a country that is inhabited mainly by the
Hindus. But then he did make an important point, a point that was validated by a
“Hindu” journalist-friend of this writer the very next day. According to this
friend, Hinduism is the most absurd, unscientific and cruel religion of the world
that perpetuated casteism, inequality and exploitation. My friend was not
convinced when I pointed out that every great religion or civilization has its
pluses and minuses and as times pass by, the minuses get corrected. After all, it
is under Hinduism that people worship women as goddesses whereas the women are not
equal to men under Islam; even till recently the women did not have voting rights
in many developed Christian countries. I told my friend that catsteism, as a
concept, was highly scientific – since it espoused the principle of division of
labour, a principle that ensured that every section of society is “wanted”. True,
the concept got corrupted when one’s place in life depended not on one’s ability
but on ones’ birth. There is thus need to de-corrupt the principle; but it does
not mean that one should throw Hinduism in the Indian Ocean for good.

In fact, unlike any other religion the world, Hinduism promoted pluralism in the
forms of pluralities of Gods and Goddesses. There is no compulsion on Hindus to
worship a particular God or Goddess, nor does it compel one to worship his or her
God on a particular way or method; in fact, Hinduism even respects those who do
not want to worship at all. As a faith, Hinduism is inclusive, and inner-directed.
It does not impose itself on its own adherents. So no question of its imposing
itself on others arises.

This principle of life has been observed and unfailingly put into practice by the
inhabitants of this land since time immemorial. That was why they could receive
invading Sakas and Hunas and assimilate them and integrate them into their
society. That was why they could receive the Jews, Parsis, Shia Muslims and the
early Christians – all of whom came as refugees, with their thoughts and beliefs
orphaned in their own lands – and treat them as equal members of this ancient
society. There was no modern constitution that guaranteed rights to minorities
then; there were no secularists to protect them from the majority. It was the
majority inhabitants, seeped in their Hindu Dharma, who protected them. The non-
conflicting nature of Hindu Dharma is not just a matter of theory, but an observed
practice that has been followed and adhered to for ages. But my journalist friend
was not convinced of all these great attributes of Hinduism.

Incidentally, this friend of mine is a great admirer of Jawaharlal Nehru,

independent India’s first prime minister. And he stands for everything that goes
with Nehruvianism. It is instructive here to note that in 1949, Nehru had said
that 'to talk of Hindu culture would injure India's interests'. He had admitted
more than once that by Education he was an Englishman, by views an
internationalist, by culture a Muslim, and a Hindu only by accidental birth. In
1953, Nehru had written to Kailash Nath Katju in 1953: "In practice the individual
Hindu is more intolerant and more narrow-minded than almost any person in any
other country. " In fact, it is not wrong to say that Nehru had total contempt for
Hindu religion, for Hindu culture, for Hindu society and for the average Hindu.

The point that I want to make is that if the above mentioned diplomat heard more
concerns about the Muslims and Christians and if my journalist friend has such
nasty opinion about Hinduism, the main reason is the dominance of Nehurivan
thoughts in India’s politics, bureaucracy, intelligentsia and media since 1947.
Even during six years of NDA’s rule, Nehruvianism prospered like never before.
Most of the NDA ministers – and these included some BJP stalwarts - had a
tremendous sense of inferiority complex; they all wanted “recognition” and
“legitimacy” from their opponents by pleasing them. So Nehurvians and the so-
called secularists had a field day during the NDA regime. On the other hand, those
opposed to Nehuruvianism continued to suffer, as they are suffering now, during
the NDA rule.

This anti-Hindu trait of Nehruvianism has been dependent on the following strategy
- Make the Hindu community as weak as you can, by creating internal divisions in
it, by denigrating its culture, by inflicting insults upon it, and by whatever
other means you can afford. The results have been that Hindus, at present, are
passing through a serious crisis. They are facing the religious, social and
political problems and challenges both internally and externally of unprecedented
magnitude. On the other hand, the minorities, both Muslims and Christians, are
enjoying all possible economic and political patronage and religious advantages
much more than the Hindus.

To put the things differently, as long as Nehuriviansim continues to be the

guiding principle of India’s governing class, the plights of Hindus will worsen in
India in days to come. After all, in a democratic set up like ours, the legal and
administrative decisions of the government entirely depend upon the nature and
composition of the governing group, and if it is “pseudo-secular”, it will act for
the minorities, and against the Hindu cause. Therefore, the Nehurivian governing
class will do everything possible to divide Hindus and derive their strength from
the vote bank politics. And this notwithstanding the fact that this sort of vote-
bank politics is the greatest threat to national development, national unity,
national integrity and internal security because majority of the people feel
excluded and lacking in opportunity to help themselves to a better life.

What then is the solution? The adage that a thorn can remove another thorn from
the body is relevant here. The best way to combat the vote-bank politics centering
round the minorities is to create Hindu vote-banks so that the nature, and what is
more important, the mindset of the country’s governing class changes. But again,
is it feasible?
In my opinion, creating Hindu vote banks is feasible or doable. It is not that
ordinary Hindus are not aware of what is happening to their culture and religion.
At times, they have reacted and changed the governments – they did so in the just
concluded assembly elections in Punjab. The most important reason why the Congress
lost power in arguably India’s most prosperous state was the adverse reactions to
the UPA’s mindless appeasement and divisive policies on caste and religion basis
by the overwhelming majority of the Hindus in the urban areas. Congress lost in
Punjab by this angry reaction of the urban Punjab.
Even earlier, Hindus had politically reacted against V P Singh’s “Mandal
politics”. They had also shown solidarity in the last assembly elections in
Gujarat. But the problem with these stories of Hindu solidarity has been that they
have been mainly based on emotions, which, by nature, are temporary. As has been
argued above, the minority-centered vote bank politics will not end as long the
governing class of India does not shed Nehuvianism. And this governing class
includes not only the politicians but also the other wings of the society –
bureaucrats, educationists, journalists and artists etc.

In order to create sustainable, Hindu vote- banks, thinking Hindus must adopt an
all-inclusive approach. I may point out only some of them:

· There is a need for a comprehensive organisation to cater to the needs of

Hindu Religious Education, Research and Training encompassing the disciplines of
religion, philosophy culture and history in Indian languages in integrated manner.
· It is extremely important to propagate and condemn effectively in an
organised manner the social evils such as dowry, practice of sati and
untouchablity. These practices are unauthentic in the Hindu Dharma Shastras.
· It is absolutely imperative to establish sufficient mass media organisations
capable of conveying Hindu point of view on historical, cultural, religious,
political and social aspects of Indian people. At present, there is serious lack
of effective means of propagating the Hindu point of view on national issues, in
different regional languages, as print and electronic media, both, particularly
the English one, is deadly opposed to Hindu cause and Hindu organisations. What
one has to do is to unite – i.e., the middle class, the ‘intellectuals’, the
media, the business community, film & sports personalities, the NRI and any one
with a voice should think together and get together and kick up a storm sufficient
enough to change vote bank politics from being religion & caste based to being
based on performance and good governance.
· The Hindus must realise that they can now ill afford the absence of strong
political will to vote and support, en mass, only a pro-Hindu (which does not mean
anti-minority) candidate and the political party, during the local, state and
central Government elections. Besides, slackness in exercising the right to vote
in elections among the well placed, and middle class Hindus is a disease and that
must be cured.
----------------------------------------------------------
-