There has been a clear, multi-stage trajectory in which pro-Hindu political ideology and activism have progressed in the last 135 or so years. Before I discuss the nature of that trajectory in any significant depth, first I need to lay out the three general morphologies that most political formulations have historically taken. There are three general forms of political activity observable in modern politics: utopian, reactionary, and revolutionary.
Utopian designates a primarily futuristic-oriented politics that tends to be very unrealistic and fantasy-fueled. In many cases utopian-based ideologies tend to be eschatologically-driven and millennial in outlook, with the never-achieved (or achievable) promise of a perfect paradise on earth that can only be delivered by the particular political movement making the given promise. Such disastrously failed movements as Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, anarchism and the political Left in general are utopian in nature.
Reactionary ideologies, on the contrary, are primarily past-oriented[6] and look toward a “better, more ordered time,” that is historically usually no more than a few generations previous to the present era, as the archetypal hallmark and model for present-day cultural renewal. As Nicolás Gómez Dávila explains the mindset of the reactionary: “The reactionary is, nevertheless, the fool who takes up the vanity of condemning history and the immorality of resigning himself to it.”[7] American reactionaries, for example, tend to see the 1950s as the apex of American civilization. As is clear from the term itself, reactionaries are capable only of reacting to assaults on tradition that they detect around them, and are usually incapable of proffering proactive and positive ideas for how to transform society at its most fundamental level for the better in the face of modernity’s degenerate encroachment upon traditional values and culture. Reactionaries are especially known for timidity, intellectual incuriosity, lack of vision, as well as narrow parochialism and immaturely expressed xenophobia. Republicans, Tories, and the conservative Right in general fall under this general heading. Utopian and reactionary represent the two furthest opposing extremes of the political spectrum.
Revolutionary, on the other hand, describes a political stance that is proactive and constructive in nature, rather than merely utopian or reactionary. Rather than supporting either unrealistic utopian goals, or merely reacting in an ineffectively knee-jerk fashion to the incessant attacks of its opponents, the revolutionary perspective proffers positive systemic change designed to transform the basic characteristics of a presently-given social reality in a wholly original and fundamental way. Revolutionaries seek to alter society, not merely peripherally and incrementally, but foundationally and swiftly.
In the very specifically Hindu/Vedic context, the revolutionary perspective looks at the ancient past (and not merely two or three generations back, but millennia back) as the source from which to derive eternal principles that are designed to be used in the present day to create a radically better future. The Dharmic revolutionary subscribes to an archeofuturism, to use Guillaume Faye’s instructive terminology.[8] Rather than merely dreaming about an unobtainable future based upon blind faith and wishful thinking, or conversely, merely reacting in a frustrated manner to the negative occurrences happening around them, revolutionaries seek systemic (and not merely cosmetic) change in the here and now.
The term “revolutionary” tends to carry with it the stereotyped, and wholly inaccurate, notion of political violence, which is not at all the technical denotation of this word in the terminology of political science. Rather, by “revolutionary” is meant a concept, ideology or movement whose aim is to affect fundamental systemic changes (i.e., a change of the prevailing system itself), rather than merely cosmetic or surface change alone (i.e., minute changes and readjustments within the confines of the system). With this proper understanding of the terminology, the term “revolutionary” does not in any way denote violence.
In brief, a revolutionary movement must have the following features:
a) It is predicated upon a grand, but rationally achievable, vision.
b) It is led by a professional vanguard of elite leaders dedicated to achieving the vision, who are capable of intellectually formulating that vision into ideological form, who know how to organize the masses in both the largest and most effective ways necessary to achieve the vision, and who themselves wholly personify the vision of the movement in their own personal character and lifestyle; in other words, the leader is the movement.
c) It has a clearly and systematically formulated ideology that encompasses the totality of political concern, including a comprehensive and defensible internal ideological structure, a fully-realized economic plan, a philosophy of governance, social relations, geopolitical formulations, etc.
d) It has the ability to both formulate constructive alliances with like-motivated movements and organizations, and has a keen understanding of all aspects of the opposing forces.
e) Most importantly of all: a revolutionary has the resolute will to win.
As we look at the last 135 or so years of modern Hinduism, we see that Hindu forms of political expression have progressed roughly and sequentially, though certainly with significant overlaps, through the above three stages of utopian, reactionary, and revolutionary.
“We Are One” — Utopian Stage (1875–1925)
Beginning in the colonial era, and continuing until today, such historical trends as the nineteenth century neo-Hindu movements and Radical Universalism, as well as such historic figures as Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi, and many of the earlier gurus who came to the West, clearly represented an early, utopian stage of Hindu political expression. The concerns of such Hindu utopians included such unrealistic liberal Western notions as radical egalitarianism, universalism, evolutionary and historico-progressive world-views, temporal-centrism,[9] and such emotionally-driven eschatological visions as the future establishment of a pan-ecumenical world political order — what today would be more accurately termed the New World Order. Such intellectually puerile sentiments, however, did not (and could not) lead to the type of strong Vedic restoration movement necessary to revive Dharma globally.
Such a Vedic restoration is necessarily radically traditionalist in nature, and is thoroughly opposed to all the key corrosive elements that have rendered modernity non-viable. The German intellectual Edgar Julius Jung (1894–1934) presciently described a similar vision of such a restoration in the following way:
Restoration of all those elementary laws and values without which man loses his ties with nature and God and without which he is incapable of building up a true order. In the place of equality there will be inherent standards, in the place of social consciousness a just integration into the hierarchical society, in the place of mechanical election an organic elite, in the place of bureaucratic leveling the inner responsibility of genuine self-government, in the place of mass prosperity the rights of a proud people.[10]
For Sanatana Dharma to both survive and thrive in the coming decades and centuries, a thorough Vedic restoration along the lines of Jung’s words above must be brought about — a reaffirmation of Sanatana Dharma’s most ancient and orthodox cultural and spiritual expression in direct contradistinction to the values of both Western materialist modernity and shortsighted Indian nationalism (i.e., “Hindu” nationalism).
Most of the formulators and present-day thinkers of the “Hindu nationalist” movement represent, to one degree or another, a rather sharp historical and conceptual departure from the traditional Sanatana Dharma that had been taught by the Vedic Acharyas and that had been practiced by the common Hindu people for thousands of years. After a thousand years of genocidal rule on the part of Islamic invaders, modern Hinduism was definitely not at the height of its intellectual, cultural, spiritual, political and military glory by the time the British arrived on the scene. By the time the British had saved Vedic culture from extinction, a radically traditional Sanatana Dharma, in its unapologetic,
pristine, and consciously Vedic-centric form, needed desperately to be reconstructed by her intellectuals and spiritual leaders. Unfortunately, a serious process of traditionally-oriented reconstruction was not seriously attempted at that time.
Instead of seeing the dire problems with Hinduism that were present in it by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as something that needed to be addressed and cured from within the confines of Sanatana Dharma, the neo-Hindus instead turned to external, non-Vedic sources for their guiding inspiration. As a result, rather than attempting a true reconstruction of authentic Sanatana Dharma, which would have made Sanatana Dharma strong and pure once again, they instead attempted an unnecessary “reform” of Sanatana Dharma along the lines of Christian norms and ideals.
Thus we saw the Christian-inspired, neo-Hindu obsessions with eliminating “caste,” eliminating sati, eliminating murti (sacred image) worship, Christian style monotheism, “social reform” at the expense of intellectual and spiritual development, Hegelian historicism, and Radical Universalism. Attendant upon these superfluous “reforms,” we now witness the sad legacy of a Hindu world confused about what it believes, about what even constitutes a “Hindu,” about its future, as well as Hindu children who are not interested in Hinduism, and a Hindu community of almost one billion people, many of whom suffer from inferiority complexes and the psychological scars of a people disconnected from their true spiritual heritage. What Sanatana Dharma really needed was never “reform” along these neo-Hindu lines, but rather a positive, tradition-based reconstruction of its eternal ideals. “Hinduism” needed to re-embrace its true essence as Sanatana Dharma — the Eternal Natural Way.
What Sanatana Dharma needed — and still needs! — were two interdependent developments.
First, a reclamation of Vedic-based, traditional Sanatana Dharma, with a highly orthodox, Vedic-centric understanding of the unitive and integral Vedic culture that had sustained Sanatana Dharma for 5000 years. It needed a purely Vedic understanding of pramana (the valid means of knowledge and derivation of authority), of the nature of Dharma (in the strictest of philosophical senses, not just the popular sense), of what constitutes Vaidika (Vedic) vs. Avaidika (non-Vedic), and other issues.
Second, once the pure tradition of Sanatana Dharma was reconstructed, the next organic development needed to be a strictly Vedic-based strategy for both juxtaposing, but also actively interfacing, traditional Sanatana Dharma with the modern world.
The latter project of fostering dialogue between Sanatana Dharma and modernity needed to be done, not by falsely denying the differences between the two (as almost all of the nineteenth century proto-Hindutva figures attempted via Radical Universalism), but in the same manner that every other ancient culture had met the challenge of modernity: through recognition of most modern religions and ideologies as purva-pakshas — opposing ideological constructs; friendly and open debate with these purva-pakshas; and unapologetic assurance in the exceptional status of Sanatana Dharma, and a concomitant refusal to concede to the forced imposition of an inferior status.
Unfortunately, because the unneeded distraction of “Hindu reform” became the more easily accomplished dominant paradigm of the hour, to this very day the real project of Vedic reconstruction outlined above has barely gotten off the ground. It is now time to begin the process.
Many of the “Hindu reformers” were well-motivated and sincere persons who truly felt that they were acting in the interests of Sanatana Dharma. Many of Ramakrishna’s words are very inspiring and wise. Swami Vivekananda was a truly courageous and talented leader who the Hindu people can and should take immense pride in. Moreover, many of these personalities did accomplish good in providing at least some modicum of a vehicle for connecting Sanatana Dharma and modernity, however self-destructive this particular vehicle has ending up being in the long run. In formulating a Christian-inspired paradigm for Vedic survival with only short-term successes in mind, however, they did not realize the long-term implications of their syncretism.
“We Are Different” — Reactionary Stage (1925–1945)
Beginning roughly in the interwar period (the 1920s and 1930s), we then see the formulation of a strictly reactionary form of Hindu politics with the emergence of Savarkar, Savitri Devi (the European pagan author whose original name was Maximiani Portas, 1905–1982),[11] the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and others. The uniformed paramilitary formations, martial aesthetic, stress on character development, an egalitarian ethos combined with a rigid hierarchical structure, and much of the generic patriotic rhetoric of the RSS was directly appropriated from the newly-emerging nationalist movements that were sweeping the European continent during the 1920s.
Unlike their much more successful European counterparts, however, this new reactionary Hindu movement had very few innovative ideas, did not know how to successfully engage in politics either electorally (not until the 1980s) or in terms of mass mobilization (other than by borrowing heavily from the paramilitary structure developed by their European counterparts), were wholly disconnected from the traditionalist and orthodox Vedic understanding and practice of the Yoga tradition, had no clear understanding of Dharmic political theory, and most importantly, did not know how to construct an elite political vanguard capable of leading the people by their own spiritual example.
The RSS and Sangh Pariwar defined themselves, both historically and to this very day, exclusively in negative juxtaposition to what they were not: they were not Muslims; they were not Christians; they were not Marxists; thus, if only by necessary default, they were “Hindus.” However, to this very day, the RSS has found itself incapable of defining in positive identitarian terms what it actually means to be a Hindu in the spiritual sense. Savarkar’s blind imitation of then-fashionable European racialist theory in the formulation of his interpretation of “Hindutva,” or “Hinduness,” as designating a specifically racial group was doomed to failure from the outset. For Savarkar and all those who followed in his footsteps, being Hindu meant being Indian; being Indian meant being Hindu. Thus, Hinduism for the Hindu nationalists of that time was merely another term for the Indian race![12] Being a politician, and not a Vedic philosopher, Savarkar did not understand that Sanatana Dharma does not equate to the Indian race. Sanatana Dharma is a worldview and spiritual tradition. It is the sacred heritage, not merely of those people who happen to possess an Indian passport, but of the entirety of the Indo-European peoples.
To this day, rather than facilitating the radical, systemic change necessary to bring about a new Dharma civilization (which is clearly not at all the aim of these Hindutva movements, and never has been), the reactionary tendency in pro-Hindu politics has shown itself to be an un-visionary, anti-intellectual, philosophically impotent and currently irrelevant political force. It finds itself dedicated more to a rather light version of Indian nationalist conservatism than Vedic nation-building.
The deepest extent of their political program essentially consists of a return to an era more within the comfort zone of the octogenarian men who lead this reactionary movement — possibly a return to India circa 1855 for Savarkar and Hedgewar, or an India circa 1955 for an Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani. A Dharma Nation will never be achieved by the feckless reactionaries, if only because such a goal is not even within the scope of their actual aims or intellectual understanding.
Sadly, the vast bulk of so-called “Hindu activism” that takes place today still falls under the category of reactionary, and is more a reflection of amorphous Indian nationalism, and a general pride of place and ethnicity rather than any serious attempt to reorder society (either Indian, American, or global) in such a manner as to reflect Dharmic principles instantiated in concrete political form.
Many of the attempts at polemical and ideological writing that we have seen arising from “Hindu nationalists” make it all too apparent that they are not yet politically mature enough to either vie for pow
er or to govern a working nation-state. When, and only when, it comes to the point that self-described “Hindu nationalists” develop the philosophical maturity to engage in the nuanced ideological struggle necessary to win power, and only when they learn how to develop temporary and practical alliances with others while also keeping the greater goal of political power in mind, will they be ready to govern the current nation-state of India. Only then will “India” become Vedic Bharat once again! Contemporary “Hindu nationalism” needs to move away from the fantasy-rhetoric level that they have wallowed in for so many decades, and begin the hard work of engaging in real politics in the real world.
“We are Vedic!” — Transforming the RSS into a Revolutionary Movement
Without doubt, the current attempt at Vedic restoration is seen as almost being synonymous with the vision, leadership, organizational structures and ideological pronouncements of the RSS movement. With approximately six million dedicated activists, the RSS is officially the largest volunteer organization on the Earth today. Unfortunately, the RSS has served as a sadly flawed and ideologically challenged vehicle for Vedic restoration. The RSS will need to address the following problems if it is going to transform itself from a reactionary movement into a revolutionary one:
The Dharma Manifesto Page 5