MarketizingHindutva: The state, society, and markets in Hindu nationalism

Abstract

The embrace of markets and globalization by radical political parties is often taken as reflecting and facilitating the moderation of their ideologies. This article considers the case of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, in India. It is argued that, rather than resulting in the moderation of Hindu nationalism, mainstream economic ideas are adopted and adapted by its proponents to further the Hindutva project. Hence, until the 1990s, the Hindu nationalist political party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), its earlier incarnation, the Jana Sangh, and the grass-roots organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), adopted and adapted mainstream ideas by emphasizing the state as the protector of (Hindu) society against markets and as a tool of societal transformation for its Hindu nationalist support base. Since the 1990s, Indian bureaucratic and political elites, including in the BJP, have adopted a view of the market as the main driver of societal transformations. Under the leadership of Narendra Modi, in particular, the BJP has sought to consolidate a broader support base and stimulate economic growth and job creation by bolstering the corporate sector and recreating the middle and ‘neo-middle’ classes as ‘virtuous market citizens’ who view themselves as entrepreneurs and consumers but whose behaviour is regulated by the framework of Hindu nationalism. These policies, however, remain contested within the Hindu nationalist movement and in Indian society generally. The BJP's discourse against ‘anti-nationals’ and the use of legal sanctions against dissent is an attempt to curb these challenges.

Emerging Hindu Rashtra and Its Impact on Indian Muslims

“…The majoritarian ideology of the party and neoliberal policies both functioned simultaneously, enabling the party to gain power. This was possible because of the "vagueness of Hindu nationalism" (Chacko 2019). As a result, majoritarian ideology did not contradict the mainstream economic ideas, and the BJP was able to expand its support base.…”

The age of reaction: Retrenchment populism in India and Brazil

“…Modi resolved both tensions as Chief Minister in the state of Gujarat (2001–2014) by completely communalizing the movement. He in effect unified the Hindu vote base by systematically demonizing Muslims and directly appealing to what he himself labeled the ‘neo-middle class’ that comprises aspiring and mostly rural OBCs (Chacko, 2019: 400; Jaffrelot, 2019). He also championed Gujarat as a pro-business state attracting large-scale investments from Indian corporates and multinationals and providing an outlet for class interests that had supported the liberalization of the economy in the 1990s.…”

“…subsidized toilets and home cooking fuel). Arguing that the neo-middle class ‘needs proactive handholding’ (as quoted in Chacko, 2019: 401) the BJP government launched new welfare programs that included an array of micro loans, subsidies and labor deregulation to promote small business and reward entrepreneurship. As Kaur (2014) has argued, this ‘emerging’ middle class saw Modi’s policies that emphasized economic growth over ‘entitlements’ (coded as handouts for Dalits and Muslims) as opening the door to their aspirations, in contrast to the welfare policies of the UPA that largely benefited the poor (and Dalits/Muslims).…”

“… 3. Though upper caste mobilization crystallized around opposition to affirmative action policies in the 1980s, the BJP has supported ‘reservations’ since the 1990s as a pragmatic concession to incorporating OBCs (Chacko, 2019). But practices in institutions dominated by upper castes remain resolutely exclusionary (Vithayathil, 2018).…”

Colonial World of Postcolonial Historians: Reification, Theoreticism, and the Neoliberal Reinvention of Tribal Identity in India

“…It also determines the nature of labour movements, spreading the ideas about territorial identity to regionalize labour within the periphery to make it inexpensive, compliant and sluggish. In the process, it helps both to mobilize capital and to accumulate further as the cycle of deterritorialization and reterritorialization continues under the neoliberal Modi regime with the marketization of Hindutva politics in India (Chacko, 2019). Therefore, it is important to understand how neoliberalism is associated with the processes of contemporary identity formation.…”