20 The making of Hinduism in colonial India

Manisha Lath

Introduction

The nomenclature Hindu and the corresponding religion called Hinduism are politically deeply problematic categories within the discipline of both political sociology and political science. Put simply the problem presents itself in two different ways; , the term Hindu is used in the culture / civilizational sense to denote the community of people whom the early Arabs believed were inhabitants of the regions beyond the Indus river Wink (2002). Yet, the subcontinental regions that the Arabs were referring to was a region filled with a vast diversity of communities none of whom addressed themselves as Hindus until the advent of British colonial rule. Secondly, Hinduism is the name of a religion born out of the efforts of a range of social reform movements that had emerged in 19th century colonial India. For these social reformers, Hinduism, represented a project of unification that would consolidate and homogenize the diverse sects and cults that prevailed across the length and breadth of the sub-continent. Such a project as is observed by King (1999), Lorenzen (2006), Fitzgerald (2000), Thapar (1997), was aimed at developing a Hinduism shorn of the barbaric and inhuman rituals and customary practices such as sati, child marriage etc. , that were widely prevalent in the India of this period. It was hoped that this revitalised Hinduism could be the basis for taking forward the movement for independence through the culture / civilizational lens of Hindu nationalism. Seen in this way, Hinduism as a religion sought to construct a religious and national community much like that of their Christian counterparts. Such a reference was presented to them by the colonial administration and the Christian missionaries. It would therefore not be incorrect to suggest that the making of Hinduism was a colonial project that was carried out by upper castes elites within Indian society who wished to see themselves, their religion and their nation participate in the project of the emerging modern world. Yet, here again as we shall see the project of Hindu unification faced insurmountable hurdles in coming to terms with the rich diversity of religion and culture that comprised the core of Indian society both past and present.

In this module, we shall look at how Hinduism came to be developed during the colonial period and how it went about building for itself a Hindu nationalist ideology. In section one we shall situate Hinduism in the modern discourse of that category we understand as Religion. In section two we shall look at the contributions of the Reform movement in colonial India and how these have shaped the religion of Hinduism. Finally, in section three we shall look at how efforts to construct such a Hinduism came to be linked up with the ideology of Hindu nationalism popularly known as Hindutva.

Section one: Situating Hinduism in the discourse of Religion

Since the category of Religion is central to the different ways that a community refers to itself in the modern world, it may be useful to account for its relevance and significance. Religion was traditionally a Christian category used to mean something like faith in God, the church and priesthood who serve him. Many deists have attempted to transform its specifically Christian elements, and extend its scope as a cross-cultural category. This transformation according to Fitzgerald (2000), has to be understood in the context of modern bourgeois ideology and the creation of a world market. Religion is used in a variety of contexts and include so many different things that they have no clear meaning. Fitzgerald (2000) further writes the construction of religion and religions as global, has been part of a wider historical process of Western imperialism. Thus religion, he argues is tied up with the growth of Christianity. He writes that the religion word is thoroughly imbued with Judeo-Christian monotheistic associations and that this category is deeply embedded in a legitimation process within western societies, in the dominant relation of those societies with non-western societies. According to him, there is a direct extension of Christian theism in religion and the term may also be used deliberately as a non-theological analytical category to make distinctions between religious and the non-religious.

Fitzgerald (2000) outlines certain assumptions that lie behind the phenomenology of religion, such as, it is a universal phenomenon to be found in principle in all cultures and all human experiences. Another pervasive assumption is that religions are defined by a common faith in the transcendent or the divine- belief in superhuman agencies, or preferably in one Supreme Being, who gives meaning and purpose to human history (2000:18). In his opinion, religion should be studied as an ideological category, as an aspect of modern western ideology and as a basis of modern form of theology, with a specific location in history. (2000:19) With the onset of the twentieth century, other faiths aspired for world religions and described their eligibility based on dominant characteristics of a recognized religion like Christianity.

Based on the discussion above how does one recognize the status of Hinduism as a religion. A critical review of Hinduism will not only help in grasping the complexities involved in religions but also in appraising whether it is a religion in the way that the scholars above have discussed the concept of religion. Existing scholarship on the subject involving scholars like David Lorenzen (2006), Vasudha Dalmia (1995), Robert Frykenberg (1989), Christopher Fuller (1996) are completely agreed on the fact that Hinduism as a category of intellectual exploration emerges in the 19th century as a result of certain historical developments that call for its construction. Clearly prior to the existence of this category we know that the sub-continent as Thapar (1997) points out is filled with a diverse range of sects and cults whose beliefs and practices have little to do with the category of Hinduism as it comes to be established in the 19th century. According to Madan (2006), Hinduism is not a religion, for it does not have a founder, or a single foundational scripture, or a set of fundamentals of beliefs and practices. A notion of the supernatural is not central to it, and the idea of moral law that may be considered a substitute is highly relativistic. These and other similar doubts have been around for a long time. Srinivas himself acknowledged them, and wrote about the ‘amorphousness’ and ‘complexity’ of Hinduism and the difficulty of defining it (1952, 1958; Srinivas and Shah 1968). (ibid). Clearly from the writings of these scholars it becomes evident that the category of religion that is being used to characterize Hinduism is one that is developed from an understanding of monotheistic faiths like Christianity and Islam. Weber considered reverence for the Vedas and belief in the sacredness of the cow as defining features of Hinduism (1958: 27), but he too noted the virtual lack of dogma in Hinduism (ibid: 21) and the fact that the term itself was a recent western coinage (ibid: 4). He observed: ‘Hinduism ‘simply is not a “religion” in our [Christian”] sense of the word but is a cultural tradition (ibid).Madan (2006) further writes, that some have objected that Hinduism is not an old tradition, that it is only a nineteenth century fabrication of Christian missionaries, Orientalists, builders of the colonial archive, and would-be makers of an Indian nationalism. ‘What has survived over the centuries’, Romila Thapar writes, ‘is not a single monolithic religion but a diversity of sects which we today have put under a uniform name’ (1997: 56).

Ambedkar (1987), on the other hand, writes, that in case of positive religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam where the origins can be traced to the teachings of great religious innovators one does not have to search for its scheme of divine governance. It is not like an unwritten constitution. On the Hindu scheme of divine governance is enshrined in a written constitution and anyone who cares to know it will find it laid bare in that Sacred Book called the Manu Smriti, a divine Code which lays down the rules which govern the religious, ritualistic and social life of the Hindus in minute detail and which must be regarded as the Bible of the Hindus and contained in the philosophy of Hinduism.

Clearly Ambedkar epitomizes the problem in a central way when he points out that Hinduism was not a religion because it lacked the principles that define and legitimize a moral and social order. Instead what was termed Hinduism was a set of prescriptions and prohibitions that framed along caste lines provided a vast diversity of beliefs, rituals and practices followed by diverse groups all over the sub-continent. In this sense, Hinduism could not be considered as a religion but it is important to note here that the diverse sects and cults that were a part of Indian culture were religious communities that practiced religion much like religion anywhere else. In other words, they comprised religious communities, they adhered to a set of ritual practices, beliefs, they subscribed to a doctrine of a transcendental, and in this sense they were deeply embedded to the idea of reverence for their Gods. Hence, while it may be difficult to comprehend Hinduism as a monolithic religion there is no denying the fact that the diverse existence of sects and cults clearly point to the existence of a rich religious diversity in the sub-continent. It is in this context of religious diversity that we shall now turn to an engagement with Hinduism as a religion in the way that this came to be constructed by the reform movement in 19th century colonial India

Section – II: The role of the social reform movement

By the mid-19th century, western ideas and their effects on social and political institutions in colonial India had begun to influence almost all spheres of public life in India. The transformations in the spheres of education, jurisprudence, administration, Professions, urbanisation and the Public sphere compelled sections of the Indian elites to engage with both intellectually and morally the changes that were taking place in their midst. Quite to the contrary traditional institutions of learning, legality, ritual worship and customary practices were faced with diverse criticisms from both traditionalists and modernists elites within Indian society. Faced with western ideas and radically different normative orientations from their own Indian elites could not help but come face to face with the immense backwardness and inhumanness of the social and religious practices in their own native society. Nobody was better exposed to the western ideas, and changes in effects, than the Hindu elites of the 19th century. These traditional practices which offered the picture of contrast, in relation to the values subscribed by the western societies, also represented the markers of backwardness of Indian society (Mcdonald E. E. 1966). The rigid hierarchy of the caste order, the prevalence of untouchability, precarious conditions of widows and women, child marriages, and unpractical and dogmatic restrictions on social and economic choices for the Hindus men were taken as the markers of backwardness of Hindu society. These stood in contrast with the ideals of the western societies which largely claimed to uphold freedom of individuals to enable them to pursue their social and economic life.

The emerging viewpoints on these markers of backwardness among the native Hindu elites are largely seen as the triggers for the Hindu social elites and social reformers to undertake reform activities in Hindu society which subsequently resulted into a series of social reforms movements (Kopf, D. 1969). Scholars have seen the growth of social reform movements in the above mentioned period in three stages. The first stage which is inaugurated with Raja Rammohan Roy is largely marked with the efforts on the part of enlightened individuals to order their personal lives in accordance with standards adopted from the western society (Kopf D. 1969).

The onset of the second stage is marked by the formation of sub-national groups and the growth of a new desire for unity between the scattered and culturally diverse social groups. Politically, this was the period when the first glimmer of nationalism appeared on the subcontinent. With the turn of the century, social reform came to mean a regeneration of the traditional spirit of the nation— a regeneration founded on religious revival and cultural xenophobia (Heimath, C. H. 1969, Jones, K. W. 1976)

The third stage is marked when the social reforms movements is merged with the rise of Hindu nationalism where the Hindu revivalism is identified with political nationalism and defined in terms of Hindu nationalism (Jaffrelot C. 1999).

Rammohan Roy emerged as pioneer of social reform movements in the early 19th century. He took on existing religious practices in Hinduism which were largely guarded by the priests who promoted superstition and imposed the religious doctrines on people rigidly. He began to write against such practices of superstitions and dominance of Hindu priests who devised religious doctrines in their own interests. He wrote Tuhfat-ul-Muwahhidin (A Gift to Monotheists) in 1804 attacking the practices and ideologies of the Hindu priests. He sought to establish the original essence of Hinduism which according to him were provided in the ancient Indian texts of Vedas and Upanishads. He sought to reform Hinduism by making it a more monotheistic religion. His analysis of Hinduism suggested that it was due to the lack of a monotheistic theology in Hinduism which promoted hierarchy among its believers. Since, there is hierarchy among gods and their religious believers this provided priests and religious interpreters more opportunities to spread superstitions. He sought to establish that Hinduism be considered as a monotheistic religion which has one central God and based upon his readings of the ancient Indian texts, he conclude that Brahma is the supreme God of Hinduism and he is the only authority in the Hinduism. Towards that he tried to mold Hinduism by establishing Brahmo Samaj which assumed that Brahma be considered the supreme God in Hinduism. He also sought that Vedas and Upanishads be considered the authentic source of knowledge in Hinduism. He did not only translate some Upanishads in Bengali and English to make it accessible for the public in general, but also challenged the Brahmins and pandits for their incorrect understanding of India’s shastra and Hindu society (Joshi, V. 1975, Robertson, 1998). Overall, Roy’s efforts of problematizing of Hindu traditions and advocating a rational interpretation of the holy texts were taken up by other enlightened hindus in Bengal, Bombay and Madras.

Very much akin to the rationalist approach of Rammohan Roy, in a later period must be considered the contributions of Swami Vivekananda. While he attacked the rigidity and superstition of Hindu ritual practice, he emphasized the tolerant nature of Hinduism as a religion, suggesting that it was probably the most tolerant of world religions. Most significant about Vivekananda’s efforts must be seen in his ability to project Hinduism as a religion on the world stage. In his visits to both America and Britain he was able to familiarize the West with the philosophy of Vedanta and create awareness of the rich spiritual heritage linked up with Hinduism. It would not be wrong to suggest that following his representation of Hinduism at the congress of world religions in Chicago, Hinduism came to be genuinely represented as a world religion.

In the later half of the nineteenth century, western India witnessed a host of social reforms activities largely led by the Hindu elites who got educated in western education at Bombay University and other institutions associated with colonial regimes. Their efforts tried to bring about changes in Hindu society by providing education to lower castes, women, and marriages of widows. Besides, social efforts, these reformers of western India engaged in writing and producing social critiques of social and religious practices in Hindu society. Most of these reformers engaged to break down the religious orthodox practices and rules, considering them as signs of backwardness. The most important thinkers who initiated an intellectual revolt against the social discrimination were Bal Shastri Jambhakar (1812-1846), Dadoba Pandurang Tarkhadkar (1814-1882), and Bhaskar Pandurang Tarkhadkar (1816-1847), Gopal Hari Deshmukh popularly known as Lokhitwadi (1823-1882) and Vishnu Bhikaji Gokhale (1825-1873) popularly known as Vishnubawa Brahmachari. In the latter half of the 19th century, the most notable intellectuals who spearheaded social reform movement were Pandit Vishnu Parasuram Shastri (1827-1876), Jyotiba Phule (1827-1890), R. G. Bhandarkar (1837-1925), Narayan Mahadev Paramanand (1838-1893) M. G. Ranade (1842-1901), Vishunasastri Chiplankar (1850-1882), K. T. Telang (1850-1893) Ganesh Vasudev Joshi (1851-1911), Narayan Ganesh Chandravarkar (1855-1923) and Gopal Ganesh Agarkar (1856-1895). Most of them contributed to social reform programmes in different ways mostly concerned about the state of backwardness in the native society. The question of caste hierarchy, status of women, education, and prevailing superstition remained common concerns for these reformers.

The earliest society which was founded in 1844 was the Parmahansa Mandali which largely functioned to break the caste taboos and demolish all caste distinctions. It was a secret society whose members radically affirmed monotheism and rejected outright the doctrine of polytheism Pannikar (2002). These social reformers also tried to practice the progressive steps in their personal life. Lokhitvadi, a Brahmin by birth, employed a Muslim cook in his house. Vishnu Parasuram Shastri Pandit, who supported widow re-marriage started Vidhva Vivah Uttejaka Mandal in 1856 and married himself a widow in 1875. Mr. Bhandarkar performed his widow daughter’s marriage in 1891. To deal with larger questions of religious beliefs and superstitions involved, M. G. Ranade started Prarthana Samaj (1867) which actively preached monotheism and denounced priestly domination and caste distinction. Besides, their efforts involved writing fiercely against the caste and dogmatic and orthodoxical practices of priestly classes. Chiplunkar started a Marathi magazine called Nibandhmala in 1874 devoted to the cause of social reform, which was followed by many writings and periodicals.

Totally different was the impact of Swami Dayanand Saraswati who founded the Arya Samaj in 1875 and which took roots in the Punjab. Dayananda was not a rationalist trained in western education, rather, in his early years he was trained in a Brahmanical system of traditional learning at Mathura. He learnt western ideas through his own efforts and largely with an aim to denounce them. Dayanand combined in himself several paradoxical sentiments. Extremely conservative in his thought and beliefs, sometimes to the point of obscurantism, yet astonishingly revolutionary in his attitudes and actions, Dayanand typified a complex reaction to western influence, rejecting the existing caste basis of society, the inferior status of women and the system of child marriages, he called for a vigorous programme of social reform aimed not so much at westernising the Hindu religion as in reviving the glory of the Vedic religion (Llewellyn, J. E. , & Llewellyn, J. S. 1993). What Dayanand sought was interest in the salvation of society by means of individual self-assertion and the amelioration of social evils (Jones K. W. 1968).

Yet against the backdrop of these reforms, the moot question remains as how the larger populace related to these changes, it needs to be said that in large measure the reform movement remained an upper caste engagement with their society. Against the tyranny and oppression of the caste system the reform measures proposed and the agenda for their implementation were quite clearly deeply inadequate. On the other hand for lower caste reformers like Jyotiba Phule, they were deeply suspicious of the project to build a unified Hinduism. Instead they focused on caste oppression insisting instead on the complete dismantling of the caste system. Not surprisingly then the project to build Hinduism through the reform movement remained an unfulfilled aspiration on the part of sections of the upper castes in Indian society. This continues to be case even in the present period.

Section- III: Hinduism as Ideology

The shortcomings of the reform movement in the 19th century, i. e., the efforts to develop a unified religious community called Hindu and Hinduism proved to be completely out of sync with the civilizational diversity of Indian society. To that extent both at the level of culture and the diverse sects that populated the sub-continent such a project of unifying and homogenizing a religion called Hinduism proved to be deeply inadequate. It is this inadequacy that compelled the protagonists of the two-nation theory to refigure the religious project of Hinduism into a majoritarian ideology called Hindutva. This was to be achieved by linking the project of unifying Hinduism that prevailed in the 19th century to an ideological vision that represented all Hindus as a national community. Hindu, Hinduism and Hindutva were the grounds on which a nationalist ideology would seek to claim its right to domination and power. Of considerable relevance was the effect of Dayanand Saraswati’s militant: spiritualism upon the emergence and development of extremist nationalism in India Zavos (1999). By bringing the dynamism of the past to vivify the modern mould, Dayanand blazed the trail for the extremists in two significant respects: (1) His own deep-rooted xenophobia was carried on to the subsequent generations and served to inspire the militant anti-British temper of extremist politics at the turn of the century. (2) Connected to this was Dayanand’s idea that history could be interpreted in order to justify social action. This attitude was closely followed by Tilak in his interpretation of the Geeta and Savarkar in his interpretation of the ‘Indian War of Independence’ Savarkar & Joshi (1970).

What such an ideology deeply misrepresents is the diversity that constitutes the Hindu community and its various belief/ritual systems that are syncretically organized to give the impression of what Marriott (1955) spoke of as the great tradition and the little tradition. Apart from misrepresenting this religious diversity Hindu nationalism and its advocacy of Hinduism as a religion of the Hindus was immediately faced with the problem of caste in Indian society. There can be no doubt that the functioning of caste in the everyday life of Indian society contradicts every attempt at consolidating the idea of a Hindu nation. For the lower caste all over India throughout the 19th century, the advent of colonialism was simultaneously the occasion for their large scale intervention in the domain of the colonial public sphere demanding an end to Brahmanical rule and the abolition of the caste system Guha (2004, 2013). Quite clearly for the lower caste above everything else Hindu nationalism was a project of reinvigorating and reinstalling Brahmanical rule in modern India.

Thus Ram (1996) observes that Hinduism emerged as an identity for people in this subcontinent only from –medieval times, and it is only much later that it is being projected as a national religion centering around Ram (the god) and Gita (the holy book). Historically there were multiple belief systems but Vedas was given prominence as an essential component of Hinduism. Consolidation of Brahminical ethos took place during the Maurya period around Upanishads, Vedantic thoughts and Manusmriti. Every religious thought that had once found expression in India, and handed down as a sacred heirloom, was preserved by the Indian mind, instead of one thought superseding the more exalted thought. Hinduism soon attained social and political hegemony over Jainism and Buddhism after violent confrontations. Despite the existence of streams, cults and identities, the Brahminical domination propagated Hinduism based on Vedas and Brahmans as the religion of India. But many did not identify with it as they worshipped the non-Vedic Gods under the trend of Sikhism and Bhakti. In the twentieth century Hinduism did away with pluralism and the term Hindutva emerged along with geopolitical nationalism. This led to exclusions of other faiths having equal status with Hindus. Upper class heroes like Ram were worshipped and popular movements like Bhakti were excluded. It projected homogeneity, rigidity through the sangh parivar; achieved hegemony over society asserting that Hindus constitute the nation and are original inhabitants/creators which was to tackle the non-Hindus (esp. Muslims). A “social common sense” was developed to institute amongst the people that Hinduism is superior to all other cultures and Hinduism or Hindutva was made to appear a way of life Ram (1996).

Hinduism as we know did not affirm to single God, institution or holy book, hence religious organizations were formed which constituted new community of believers of Hinduism with an aim to mobilize against the dominant religion, Christianity.

Conclusion

Such a construction of Hinduism as presented above provide two very distinctly different modes of engagement within the realm of the social and political in modern Indian society. Firstly, the idea of Hinduism as a religion militates against the deep-rooted structures of religious diversity that are to be observed all over the Indian sub-continent. Clearly any attempt at imposing a monotheistic doctrine on a culture with such rich religious plurality is bound to encounter insurmountable hurdles in its path. Such a project would necessarily invoke the eruption of large scale social turmoil and conflict. In the period after Independence, several attempts have been made by such a majoritarian ideology to invoke the sentiment of a unified Hinduism. The eruption of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement in modern times is a case in point. What is important to emphasize here is that despite the efforts of a majoritarian ideology to impose such a monotheism, modern Indian society has persistently rejected and resisted such efforts opting instead to continue with religious diversity, syncretism and coexistence.

Secondly, Hinduism as a symbolic strategic resource for the construction of a political ideology has a long history going back to the reform movement and the advent of the Hindu Mahasabha and later the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (1925) Jaffrelot (1999). For these institutions and their political allies in modern India, Hinduism, and its project of unification has always been guised as a cultural project to represent the culture of whom they consider the majority Hindu community. Such a political practice has inevitably espoused a doctrine of exclusion and the demonisation of the other. It is not surprising then that even as a political project of unifying Hindus all across the country, majoritarianism has never been able to succeed or capture the political imagination of the Indian people. Once again majoritarianism is faced with insurmountable hurdles in its pursuit of a unified Hinduism Jaffrelot (1999).

Further readings

Ambedkar, B. R. (1987). Dr. BabasahebAmbedkar Writing and Speeches Vol. 3.
Dalmia, V., &Steitencron, H. V. (1995). Representing Hinduism. The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity, New Delhi.
Fitzgerald Timothy (2000). The Ideology of Religious Studies. Oxford University Press, New York
Fuller, C. J. (1996). Caste today.
Frykenberg, R. E. (1989). The Emergence of Modern ‘Hinduism’as a Concept and as an Institution: A reappraisal with special reference to South India.Hinduism reconsidered, 29-49.
Guha, S. (2004). Speaking Historically: The Changing Voices of Historical Narration in Western India, 1400-1900. The American Historical Review,109(4), 1084-1103
Guha, S. (2013). Beyond caste: Identity and power in South Asia, past and present. Brill.
Jaffrelot, C. (1999). The Hindu nationalist movement and Indian politics: 1925 to the 1990s: strategies of identity-building, implantation and mobilisation (with special reference to central India). Penguin Books India.
Jones, K. W. (1968). Communalism in the Punjab: the Arya Samaj contribution. The journal of Asian studies, 28(01), 39-54.
King Richard (1999). Orientalism and the Modern Myth of “Hinduism”. Numen, Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 146-185 Published by: BRILL. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3270313.
Lorenzen, David (2006) Who invented Hinduism: Essays on religion in History, Yoda Press, New Delhi
Llewellyn, J. E., & Llewellyn, J. S. (1993). The Arya Samaj as a Fundamentalist Movement: A Study in Comparative Fundamentalism. South Asia Books.
Madan. T.N (May-August 2006). The Sociology of Hinduism: Reading ‘Backwards’ from Srinivas
to Weber. Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 215-236 Published by: Indian Sociological
Society Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/23620553.
Marriott, M. (1955). Little communities in an indigenous civilization. Village India.
Panikkar, K. N. (2002). Culture, ideology, hegemony: Intellectuals and social consciousness in colonial India. Anthem Press.
Ram, P. R. (1996). “A Way of Life?.” Economic and Political Weekly: 519-519.
Savarkar, V. D., & Joshi, G. M. (1970). The Indian war of independence, 1857.RajdhaniGranthagar.
Thapar, R. (1997). Syndicated Hinduism. Hinduism reconsidered, 4, 54-81.
Wink, A. (2002). Al-Hind: The Slavic Kings and the Islamic conquest, 11th-13th centuries (Vol.2). Brill.
Zavos, J. (1999). The ĀryaSamāj and the antecedents of Hindu nationalism.International Journal of Hindu Studies, 3(1), 57-81.

Puniyani, R. (2006). Contours of Hindu Rashtra: Hindutva, SanghParivar, and Contemporary Politics. Gyan Publishing House.
Puniyani, R. (2004). Hindu Extreme Right-wing Groups: Ideology and Consequences. Anamika Pub & Distributors.
Noorani, A. G. (2003). Savarkar and Gandhi. Frontline, 20(6), 15-28.
Noorani, A. G. A. M. (2002). Savarkar and Hindutva: the Godse connection/AG Noorani.LeftWord Books.
Engineer, A. (Ed.). (1989). Communalism and communal violence in India: an analytical approach to Hindu-Muslim conflict. South Asia Books.
Sarkar, S. (1996). Indian nationalism and the politics of Hindutva. Making India Hindu: religion, community, and the politics of democracy in India, 270-93.
Sarkar, S. (2014). Modern India 1886-1947. Pearson Education India.
Basu, T., Datta, P., Sarkar, S., Sarkar, T., & Sen, S. (1993). Khaki Shorts Saffron Flags—Tracts for the Times/1. New Delhi: Orient Longman Ltd.
Jaffrelot, C. (Ed.). (2009). Hindu nationalism: a reader. Princeton University Press.

Jaffrelot, C. (1993). Hindu nationalism: Strategic syncretism in ideology building. Economic and political weekly, 517-524.

Vanaik, Achin. (1997). Furiesof Indian Communalism: Religion, Modernity and Secularization.

London: Verso.

Web links: