Customer Reviews

The Hindu Nationalist Movement in India

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

For the scant amount of literature on the Hindu Nationalist Movement(BJP and RSS) this book should have filled in many gaps, and in some ways it does but in its biased, elitist manner it misses the point. In condemning the destruction of the Babri Masjid this book doesn't seem to point to any of the reasons for it. Not once is one given the context of the rise of Hindu movements. No one is told that millions of Hindus were killed in Genocidal operations in Pakistan in 1948, ethnically cleansed from their ancient homes. Not once are we reminded of the 1000 years of British and Muslim imperial domination and colonialism of India.

Rather this book assumes the Hindu movements and their chauvinist nature came from no where and thus the author takes them to task and skewers them for their militancy. While this book seem to understand and commiserate with Muslim militancy, it never once excuses the same violence in communal riots from the other side, although the statistics are usually shown, giving evidence of the two sided nature of the rioting, where members of both communities are killed.

The tragedy of this book is that it is very detailed but overwhelmingly biased. Many times we hear that the Hindu movements are `elitist, brahmanical' without any correleatons to he reasons why. The book says the movements harked back to a fake `golden age' but doesn't think to describe the reasoning for this. Thus anyone interesting in the BJP and the like will be displeased here unless you are fanantically anti-hindu.

Seth J. Frantzman

This was part of required readings for one of my university courses on India. It provides a great deal of information for discussion for scholars and those interested in South Asia. The RSS, BJP, Jana Sangh, VHP, and Janata Party are all discussed, as well as key issues such as the temple/mosque contreversy in Ayodhya, and cow protection movement in Madhya Pradesh. Jaffrelot draws upon classic social science literature, including books by Peter van der Veer, Victor Turner, Paul Brass, and Benedict Anderson. In all, a good source for understanding some of the issues surrounding Hindu nationalism in India, but should be placed into a broader context (read some of the books by the authors listed above, for example) for complete understanding.

Yesterday, I saw God's warriors about christian organization and Islamic organizations on CNN by Christian Amanpour. Christian missionaries have converted pooor pooooor people in front of my eyes in India, there are cheap cheap humans who tell lies that show on stage that cancer is cured, blind gets eye, people who were handicapped could walk after the stage drama etc. If it is all legal, if BJP or RSS opposes and if its illegal, then what is illegal to you is legal to us, in India.

Shameless guy who wrote this should be part of the same network. Look at secret mix of religion and politics in legal system, in everything, in west and in middle eastern countries and then talk about India. No body is going to buy your piss poor taste book for 28$ for things that you write are in bad taste and also of things that new generation that do not even know or want to know. See how hinduism is reviving...

I just finished reading this book. I am surprised that it was used an academic text for a class! This person has no understanding of the roots and beginnings of RSS et al. I could not agree more with Seth Frantzman's remarks. As for R.S. Ali--check you umbilical cord (my review below will clarify this clearly).

The problem with such authors is their restricted understanding of Hinduism as a religion before the advent of Islam and Christianity. Another problem in assessing Hindu Nationalism is in understanding Hindus in context vis-à-vis their immediate environment and neighboring countries. Wearing religion, faith and culture are somehow accepted realities for the adherents of Abrahamic faiths and also the Buddhists; however, in the name of religion, for instance a show of faith by Hindus is not acceptable.

The common expectation is, "are you not a submissive and non-violent group of people who accept and embrace everyone at the expense of your own identity?" Further, "are you not a group of people who allowed the freedom to all other religious groups who came in and converted many of your own people; why do you worry about it now?" Continue to forsake yourself! Is it not pertinent to examine history in which thousands of Zoroastrians fled Islamic persecution in Persia and arrived in India; and, Jews fleeing both Christian and Islamic persecution arrived in India?

Perhaps, Hindu Nationalism is less about Hindu chauvinism and more about others in the country still acting as transient takers? It is less about Hindu intolerance and more about making India a battleground between Islam and Christianity where both religions, fearful about losing in numbers, are interested in either multiplying through progeny or conversion. So, in this globally religiously charged environment, why is Hindu Nationalism so offensive? Democratic Muslims want to better their societies by imposing varying forms of Shariah, identifying it as better than any other socio-political prescription; Christians can elect George Bush with Evangelical support, Buddhists can kill Hindus in Sri Lanka and yet in the original and perhaps only authentic ancient real-estate available to Hindus, "why should the Hindus not want a socio-political environment more conducive to their existence?"

It is time perhaps for the non-Hindu Indians to examine carefully and truthfully where their umbilical cord is connected to and then examine carefully and truthfully if Indian Hindu accusations against the non-Indian Hindu communities, by-and-large, are or are not true. This honest self-examination, without the feeling of proselytizing will be one adventure for non-Hindus to contend with...some examples to look at -- no problems between Jews and Hindus and no problems between Parsis (Zoroastrians) and Hindus. How about it, Muslims and Christians? Is there something inherently dangerous about proselytizing?

I wonder which RSS leaders Jaffelot has talked to, in depth. I have talked to many RSS people and have understood their ideology to the best of my ability. Jaffelot's view of hindutva is extremely flawed. he doesn't seem to realize how important the hindutva movement is. It is NOT a militant movement like Taliban, and groups that practice rank terrorism. The amount of schools and social service projects run by VHP, RSS, etc. is incredible. I saw the statistics in a book titled "Seva Disha 97" or something like that. I have visited a couple of RSS run schools and seen a slide show which showed photographs of the various service projects run by RSS sponsored organizations. It is the hindutva based organizations like VHP and RSS that have worked relentlessly to eradicate evils like untouchability and casteism that creeped into the Indian society. Reformist is a far better term to use than militant, aggressive, etc in describing the hindutva movement, but Jaffelot gives that flawed impression. Zakir Hussain, a muslim and former president of india had praise for the RSS as did Mahatma Gandhi. India is fortunate to have organizations like the RSS, VHP, etc. which are revitalising India for the better. Jaffelot has not done a good job in emphasizing the positive, but rather portrays the whole hindutva movement as if it is something that is potentially dangerous. Quite a dissapointing book.

This work is an instrumental and precise review of the rise of fascistic movements in the formation of the Indian state. Groups like the RSS, which can be collectively brought under the umbrella moniker, "Sangh Combine", continue to operate today with the strength of other groups like the VHP ever increasing. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the current Hindu nationalist party in power in India, and represents the kinder, gentler, more compromising face of Hindu nationalism that has fascistic groups like the RSS and VHP controlling them behind the scenes. The particular danger of supporting bsastry's views are that they play into the RSS's hands. The RSS has been particularly effective in states like Maharashtra, and the same involvement in education he is talking about has to do with the manipulation of childrens' educations to raise new Hindu nationalists. These textbooks are particularly instructive in demonstrating how children are brought up to think of Muslims as "others", with word problems and demonstrations often comparing productive people with Hindu names with lazy and slow people with distinctly Muslim names. Poems children recite in school smack of Nazi-type nationalist language that picks out images like "Mother India (Bhaarat Maataa)" as the national goddess (a particularly "Hindu" image). Gandhi has been wiped out of textbooks in this state completely (an RSS member assassinated him for "pandering to Muslims"), and the RSS continues to think that was a good decision. This is a very complicated topic to deal with in a book review, but Dr. Jaffrelot's dissertation is a brilliantly written analysis of how this movement has paced along in the past 75 years. Indeed, Hindu nationalism has been part of the formation of the Indian state from at least the 1870's, and rests heavily on colonialist discourse about Hinduism as a unified tradition, and of "Hindu" scriptures like the Vedas as India's original religion. The search for origins has much more to do with 'othering' minority groups--in this case Muslims--and putting forth a nationalist agenda that attempts to 'protect threatened majorities' from 'unfair' quotas for minorities. Hindutva is not a call to true 'Indian-ness', but rather a particular rhetoric for putting forth fascistic ideas in a democratic state. I encourage anyone looking into this topic seriously to read Achin Vanaik's "The Furies of Indian Communalism" (London: Vasco Inc.(?)), a Marxist critique of the possibilities of Indian fascism and the resetting of a sane picture of Indian politics wrested from these nationalists, traditionalists, and subalternists. Jaffrelot's work is seminal and important for evaluating the history and current development of post-colonial formations of religion in politics in India.

As a muslim whose parents come from india i never really had an interest in my homeland until the late 1990s. I started to pay more attention to news coming from india, but my love for india was shortlived. In 2002 a muslim mob set fire to a trainful of indians who were reportedly holding two muslim girls hostage. I was naturally upset about reading this and i prayed the indian government would find the people responsible for the train fire and bring them to justice. I was not prepared however, for what happened next and the wave of hindu nationalist violence that followed. I was thinking surely the government will step in and stop this but then i read a statement from the BJP leader of Gujarat Narendra Modi, who said he was pleased with the way hindu nationalists were handling the situation (while reports were streaming in about gang rapes of women who were then set on fire). I was genuinely disgusted by those comments. Suffice it to say the incident encouraged me to learn more about the darker side of india and this book has helped me learn a great deal. It is very informative and comprehensive. I also recommend a book called "Saffron Wave" which was three years after this book.

This book is a perfect example of the double standards being used in the narratives on the erstwhile colonies. Indian nationalism is to be termed fascism whether it flies in the face of facts or not. Jaffrelot's scholarship is biased and he is not able to rise above the one-sided Leftist critiques that are to be encountered in the English press in India. This book fails to show the light.