The Hinduism and Hindu Nationalism of Lala Lajpat Rai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a well argued and beautifully written essay. Most of my comments are requests for clarification or unpacking, so the full argument is understood and honed. There is, however, one issue content-wise that would best be addressed: the focus of the paper is on the earlier period of Rai's work and the transformations that took place within this earlier period. Then comparison is made with Savarkar. But given that the later period of Rai's work is contemporary to Savarkar's articulation of his vision of "Hindutva," it is crucial that more attention be given to Rai's later take on "Hindu culture" and the notion of the nation. Without that, the comparison rings a bit hollow, and we don't see Rai's response to the same period and same circumstances that Savarkar is addressing. It is clear that this has been published elsewhere, but the author can put this material in condensed form here, with a bit more detail, and include it in the comparison with Savarkar, to show how "Hindu nationalism" changed in the same period, among these different thinkers.

Page 2, line 93 – bottom of page, I’d avoid “constantly” – this seems to overstate the case a bit.

Page 3 – the mention of Lala Lajpat Rai as a “prominent Arya Samajist” suggests the need to go into Arya Samaji formulations

Page 3: a bit confused by this sentence: “An examination of Rai’s ideas reveals the latent and even unselfconscious 103 political maneuvers sometimes embodied in conceptualizations of what is ostensibly merely 104 Hindu religion.” Why “merely”? Hindu religion was a highly contested site for the articulation of the idea of the nation, which this sentence understates.

After this, on page 3, these two sentences need some further crafting: “It shows how the espousal of a robust Hindu nationalism can entail a deemphasis on elaborate religious beliefs, and belief and observance more generally, and an emphasis on ‘Hindu culture’ (conceived in broadly non-religious terms) over Hinduism. Rather than upholders of an unchanging Hinduism, champions of Hindu nationalism are often implicated in the espousal of a mutated Hinduism tailored to the needs of nation-building.”

The first sentence above seems rather obvious – this seems to be in keeping with the general discussion in the scholarly literature on the homogenization of Hinduism in this period – if there is more to this statement, the author could perhaps elaborate. The second sentence is also obvious – so, not really worthy of the otherwise excellent discussion underway at this point. There is no “unchanging” Hinduism – we know that, so best to focus here on the article’s substantive contributions. One of those seems to be that indeed, Lala Lajpat Rai is indeed a kind of Hindu nationalist, and perhaps needs to be conceptualized as such. The notion of multiple Hindu nationalisms is an important one, and of course makes great sense – there is a constellation of nationalisms that allow the success of Hindu nationalism as a whole.

Excellent argument on page 4, line 188, on “thin Hinduism.” I wonder, however, if we need to see this as an innovation – isn’t this in a way a return to an early, loose notion of “Hindu” that was broadly geographical and cultural in nature? Yet at the same time, as is detailed, this was clearly also “Hindu” in the thicker sense – linked to Sanskrit and Hindu (over Urdu). In this sense, then, it was not such a thin Hinduism after all, was it?

Page 5, line 215: This phrase needs some unpacking: “alongside Vedic education in Hindu language, literature and ‘culture’,” – what is “Hindu language”? Is this a quote from Rai, or is this the author describing a language as “Hindu”?

Page 5, line 232: “Hindu nationalism therefore prompted Lajpat Rai not just to ‘thin down’ Hinduism but soon turn instead to Hindu ‘culture’.” This sentence needs a bit of work – I think the intent is to say that nationalism did this, not necessarily Hindu nationalism – isn’t Rai’s response “Hindu nationalist,” as a response to a need to articulate the “nation”?

Page 5: “Evidently, the religion 241 which appeared in Rai’s Hindu history had less to do with belief or practice, and more with highlighting Hindu capacity for unity and self-rule.” Partha Chatterjee argued in The Nation and Its Fragments that nationalist historiography was itself Hindu nationalist. So, I think some connections should be drawn to that existing scholarship, which has made this point already.

Page 7, lines 309-312 “In short, in the very early years of the new century, imperatives of Hindu nation-building despite Hinduism’s tremendous internal diversity motivated Rai to sideline the Samaj and the question of belief altogether as he defined Hinduism.” More work needed on this sentence to clarify the point.

Page 7, lines 329-330: “Thus, the logic went, even atheists were not disqualified 329 from ‘Hindu nationality’ if they adhered to Hinduism’s ‘outer form’.” If non-believers could be “Hindu” in this sense, what about believers in other traditions? This point is addressed below, on page 8 (and some reference to this later discussion would be helpful on page 7, so we can anticipate it), but that discussion includes only a few variants that seem to be deemable as “Hindu.” Finally we get to the key point of the treatment of Muslims, on page 8 lines 386-389. It would be good to highlight this, foreground it – it is a key point in a genealogy of Hindu nationalism. It seems like we are really missing out on a key part of the story on the period from 1915-23, which the author says is outside the scope of the essay. But this seems mysterious, since comparison with Savarkar ensues, and of course Savarkar’s Hindutva emerges in this later period that is not discussed (as is clear in the very next paragraph). The comparison suggests the need to address that later period, to understand the relationship with Savarkar. The author seeks to compare with Lajpat Rai a decade before (pg 9, 454). But the developed comparison between the two requires understanding of how Rai moves past Savarkar later on, in many ways. So, while this material may have been published previously elsewhere, it is needed here to make the comparison with Savarkar full and logical.

 

Author Response

I'm deeply grateful to Reviewer 1 for his/her engagement with and appreciation of the article, and for her/his valuable suggestions which have helped improve the piece. Below is response to his/her comments:

1. p. 2 (line 99) - I've removed the word ‘constantly’ to avoid overstating my case.
2. p. 3 (line 117) - As suggested, I've removed the word 'merely' from in front of Hindu religion. 
3. p. 3 (lines 117-122) – Reviewer 1 is of the view that the following sentence is obvious and in line with research on the homogenization of Hinduism: "It shows how the espousal of a robust Hindu nationalism can entail a de-emphasis on elaborate religious beliefs, and belief and observance more generally, and an emphasis on ‘Hindu culture’ (conceived in broadly non-religious terms) over Hinduism.". I have now changed the text in the following manner to highlight two points: 1) that nationalism impelled Lajpat Rai to homogenize Hinduism in a manner that emphasised fewer, simple beliefs rather than many elaborate beliefs, and in a manner that de-emphasizied belief altogether.  And 2) that nationalism led Rai to prioritise 'culture' over faith and observance. The revised text (lines 117-122) reads as: "Scholars have noted that nationalism drove articulations of a homogenized Hinduism around which Hindus could rally. Rai’s thought shows that this sometimes entailed re-defining Hinduism in terms of fewer, simple beliefs rather than many, elaborate beliefs, and in ways that de-emphasized belief and observance altogether. It further shows that nationalism could drive a prioritization of Hindu culture (conceived in broadly non-religious terms) over Hindu religion." I would like to thank the Reviewer for urging me to clarify the text to highlight these points. 
4. p. 3 – I agree with Reviewer 1 that the following sentence was obvious, and have therefore now removed it to bring focus onto the particular substantive analytical focus of the essay: "Rather than upholders of an unchanging Hinduism, champions of Hindu nationalism are often implicated in the espousal of a mutated Hinduism tailored to the needs of nation-building.”
5. p. 4 - Reviewer 1 seems to suggest that the earlier, pre-modern notion of 'Hindu' possessed geographical and cultural connotations; that Rai was returning to this notion; and that by linking Hindu-ness to Sanskrit and Hindi was articulating Hindu-ness in the thick sense. Here, I would like to respectfully register disagreement with the Reviewer. In my view, Rai's articulation of a thin Hinduism was part of the larger process of religionization that Hindu beliefs and practices underwent in light of its encounter with colonial modernity in the nineteenth century (outlined in the first para). This constituted a novel process rather than a return to the pre-modern notions of 'Hindu. As we know, as Hinduism was re-interpreted in light of the modern notion of 'religion', it was systematized and reified and given greater cohesiveness. It was as part of this process that some sections of Hindus, represented here by Rai, articulated a thin conception of Hinduism. Here, they defined Hindu religion in terms of a few, simple criteria rather than in terms of a vast catalogue of beliefs. The pre-modern geographic and possibly cultural notion of 'Hindu', which the Reviewer mentions, existed prior to - and was thus untouched by and distinct from- this modern religionization of Hindu beliefs and practices, a process of which the articulation of thin Hinduism was a part. I now come to the second part of this comment with views the linkage of Hindu-ness to Sanskrit and Hindi as thick Hinduism. Using Kaviraj's distinctions, I take thick religion (and thus thick Hinduism) to be one which entails a detailed catalogue of beliefs all of which are seen as essential. Rai's promotion of a DAV education in Sanskrit and Hindi does not meet this definition of thick religion. Instead, it reveals the beginnings of Rai's turn away from religious beliefs, and from thin and thick conceptions of Hinduism, and towards culture, as he strove to define Hindu identity. 
6. p. 5 (lines 258-59) - I'm thankful to Reviewer 1 for pointing out the problematic use of the phrase 'Hindu language', which was meant to convey Rai's ideas and not mine. I have now revised the text to indicate this: "Noting this, Rai recommended, alongside Vedic education in what he considered ‘Hindu’ (Sanskrit and Hindi) language and literature, an English education in Hindu 'history'."
7. p. 5 (line 274-75) – As for Reviewer 1’s question regarding the following sentences: “Hindu nationalism, therefore, prompted Lajpat Rai not just to ‘thin down’ Hinduism but soon turn instead to Hindu ‘culture’. To be sure, Hindu religion appeared in Rai’s Hindu history”. I'm grateful to the Reviewer for urging me to think more deeply about this question. As I understand it, the need to articulate a nation (nationalism in general) may have prompted Rai's conception of a Hindu nationalism. But the imperatives of realising a Hindu nation (Hindu nationalism) prompted him to articulate a thin Hinduism and subsequently also turn to Hindu culture. The aim to realise a Hindu nation (which could transcend the internal diversity among Hindus, and also include other non-Muslim and non-Christian groups) - i.e., Hindu nationalism – seems to be then what causes Rai to turn to Hindu culture.  I'm happy to revise this in case the Reviewer continues to see a problem with this formulation. 
8. p. 5-6 (lines 285-96)- I am thankful to Reviewer 1 for urging me to engage with Partha Chatterjee's argument about nationalist historiography. I have now added the following text on p. 5-6 – “Partha Chatterjee has argued that nationalist histories of India in the nineteenth century were largely Hindu nationalist. These were unconcerned with the divine, their appeal more political than religious (P. Chatterjee 1995, 126). In so far as Rai highlighted an ancient Aryan past to conjure a Hindu nation, and articulated a Hindu history which remained unconcerned with belief and observance, he followed the same nationalist-historiographical paradigm outlined by Chatterjee.”
9. p.7 (369-72)- Reviewer 1 wished for a clarification of this sentence: "In short, in the very early years of the new century, imperatives of Hindu nation-building despite Hinduism’s tremendous internal diversity motivated Rai to sideline the Samaj and the question of belief altogether as he defined Hinduism.” As per the Reviewer's suggestion, I have added the following sentences to clarify what I mean (lines 372-79): “Put differently, Rai seemed to sense that given the diversity of Hindu beliefs, a particular Arya Samajist-based definition of Hinduism would alienate the majority of non-Arya Samajist Hindus. To crystallise a Hindu nation that included diverse followers of Hinduism, Rai espoused a definition of Hinduism that de-emphasised not just specific Arya tenets but religious belief more generally. Hindu nationalism impelled Rai to argue that the multiple Hindu texts revered by Hindus preached a ‘Hinduism’ that equalled a social and national spirit. By following this true ‘Hinduism’, Hindus with different beliefs could realise the Hindu nation”.
10. p. 7 (lines 392-97) - The Reviewer asked "if non-believers could be “Hindu” in this sense, what about believers in other traditions?" He/she said that thought this point is addressed below, on page 8, some reference to this later discussion would be helpful on page 7, so it can be anticipated. As per the Reviewer's suggestion, I have added the following text on p. 8, lines 403-427: “For Lajpat Rai, atheists who adhered to Islam’s ‘outer form’ belonged to the Muslim nationality, and atheists adhering to Christianity’s ‘outer form’ to the Christian nationality. Similarly, atheists adhering to Hinduism’s ‘outer form’ were as much part of the Hindu nation as believers in Hinduism. Although called ‘religious nationalities’, religious belief was not essential to belong to them. What mattered was adherence to a religion’s ‘outer form’, by which Lajpat Rai meant culture, although he did not use the term… Around 1904-7, Lajpat Rai simply took for granted that the distinctness of their religions and their ‘outer forms’ constituted Muslims and Christians into nationalities distinct from Hindus. And he ignored the question of whether believers in religions such as Sikhism or Jainism could be considered ‘outwardly’ Hindu and thus included in his Hindu nation. His concern remained to show that neither differences among followers of Hinduism, nor even the renunciation of belief in Hinduism by some meant such individuals did not constitute one Hindu nation”. Lines 425-29 are relevant to the Reviewer’s concerns.
11. p. 12 - Reviewer 1 wished me to elaborate on Rai's nationalism after 1915, and in the period that actually coincided with the conceptualization of Savarkar's Hindutva.
1. I had refrained from doing so not just due to reasons of length but also because I take the core analytical aims of the article to be the following: uncovering the processes of thinning down and culturalization occurring within one influential strand of Hindu thought represented by Rai; showing how the processes of thinning down and culturalization produce a Hindu nationalism that include some groups of Indians while excluding others; and how such a Hindu nationalism produced through such thinning down and culturalisation of religion still remained distinct from Savarkar’s Hindutva nationalism, marked by similar processes. Since scholars consider Rai's Hindu nationalism (1880s-1915) an ideological antecedent of (and ideologically virtually equivalent to) Savarkar's Hindutva, the aim was to show their distinctness despite convergences, and highlight internal differentiation within 'Hindu nationalism'.  I refrained from elaborating on Rai's Indian nationalism after 1915, and comparing it to Savarkar's Hindutva, as I believed this would not further the core analytical arguments of this article. 
2. However, since the Reviewer’s question is a legitimate one, I have added the following paragraphs at the end of the conclusion (lines 711-723):
1. “Before ending, I must briefly clarify why this article confined itself to Lajpat Rai’s thought between the 1880s and 1915. This is because it was in the period when Lajpat Rai articulated a ‘Hindu nationalism’, which scholars argue laid the ground for (and shared ideological affinities with) the Hindu nationalism Savarkar elaborated in Essentials of Hindutva in 1923 (Jaffrelot 1999; 2011; Bhatt 2001). The article’s core analytical objectives were to delineate: how thin and culturalized Hinduisms can be elaborated to realize a Hindu nation; how Rai and Savarkar converged as they articulated thin and culturalized definitions of Hinduism to realize their Hindu nationalisms; and how they still produced different Hindu nationalisms. The aim was to show that teleological linkages of Lajpat Rai’s Hindu nationalism with Savarkar’s Hindutva, have obscured its distinctions from Hindutva, and the internal differentiation among the body of ideas often clubbed together under the rubric of ‘Hindu nationalism’.
2. After 1915, Lajpat Rai's writings cease reflecting a persistent struggle to elaborate a thin or culturalized Hinduism to realize a capacious 'Hindu nation' excluding Muslims and Christians. Henceforth, he permanently ceased to view Hindus and Muslims (and Christians) as separate 'nationalities', and firmly shifted to exclusively articulate an 'Indian nation' composed of different religious communities. Rai undertook various, shifting intellectual strategies to fortify his imagined Indian nation. The only one relevant to this article’s thematic focus is his brief reliance on ‘Hindu culture’ to argue that despite their religious differences with Hindus, Muslims and Christians were part of an ‘Indian’ nation along with Hindus as they were shaped by India's regional cultures and its 'Hindu culture' (Lajpat Rai 2003k, 244). Notably, this departed from Rai’s earlier use of ‘Hindu culture’ to exclude Muslims and Christians from Hindu nationhood, while imagining them as part of a multi-national polity. Rai's new Indian nationalism was problematic in assuming that India's national essence lay in Hindu culture, and overlooking that India's Muslims, Christians, and Hindus may be shaped by Christian and Islamicate cultures, which can be viewed as much a part of India's essence as Hindu culture. Still, Rai's temporary use of culturalized Hinduism aimed to endow India's Hindus, Muslims and Christians with a sense of common national belonging. Rai’s Indian nationalism remained unlike Savarkar's Hindutva, conceptualized during the same period (Savarkar 1969, v–vi), where ‘Hindu culture’ served to exclude the majority of Muslims and Christians from what he considered India’s only nation. Despite its occasional resort to Hindu assumptions, Rai's Indian nationalism also differed from Hindutva in its continuing lack of insistence on religious dissertation and cultural assimilation. It differed further in its ability to transcend Hindu assumptions. Instead of Hindutva's requirement of Hindu blood, Rai would argue that Hindus and Muslims belonged to a common, mixed 'Aryan-Mongolian race'. Instead of its insistence on a Hindu culture united by Sanskrit, Rai advocated Hindustani as India's national language. In place of Rai’s earlier reliance on a Hindu history to rejuvenate a prideful Hindu nation, and unlike Savarkar’s Hindu history which emphasized ceaseless Hindu-Muslim warfare (Sharma 2003, 149–67; Chaturvedi 2010, 430–34), Rai crafted a history of peaceable coexistence between Hindus and Muslims. Important for our discussions of culturalized Hinduism, he was also ultimately able to imagine an 'Indian nation' based not in Hindu culture but a pluralist blend of Hindu and Muslim cultures (For these details, see [Reference removed for anonymity] 2018, chap. 3).
3. In relation to this article’s analytical focus, this reveals that nationalisms in India used culturalized Hinduism for different ends. In Rai’s pre-1915 Hindu nationalism, it served to exclude Muslims and Christians from the Hindu nation, while continuing to imagine agonism and cooperation with these 'nationalities' in a common Indian polity. In Savarkar's Hindutva nationalism, it served to exclude these religious groups from the only imagined nation in India, and seek Hindu supremacy over them. In Rai's Indian nationalism, 'Hindu culture' became part of one of several arguments demonstrating that Hindus and Muslims belonged to a single ‘Indian’ nationhood which, as his statements elsewhere show, remained based on a practical acceptance and even celebration of India’s diversity. However, the more important analytical implication derives from the difference between Rai's earlier ‘Hindu’ nationalism and later ‘Indian’ nationalism. Since his Indian nationalism did not equate religious and national identities, ceasing to see Hindus and Muslims as separate nations, it no longer struggled to create a Hindu nation out of Hindu religion. The materialization of his later Indian nationalism, therefore, did not depend as heavily as his Hindu nationalism on repeated struggles to radically re-formulate, alter and mutate Hinduism. Nationalisms that seek to create a national identity or unity out of religion therefore appear more strongly dependent on remoulding religion to suit its ends than nationalisms whose attempts to create a national identity and unity remain relatively delinked from religion.”

Reviewer 2 Report

This article offers for the first time an engaged discussion of Lala Lajpat Rai's thought on Hindu nationalism. I was particularly impressed by the author's clear cut distinction of Rai's thought from V.D. Savarkar's notion of Hindutva ideology, an ideology which has become powerful during Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government through the efforts of RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh, a right-wing Hindu paramilitary force superimposing Hindu Nationalism in India). The article contributes to our understanding of the present-day political reality in India. It stresses culturalized Hinduism within the historical context of colonial rule under the influence of modernity triggered by European Enlightenment in the nineteenth-century India. There are certain typos and awkward constructions which must be fixed in the revision process. Please note the following paragraphs:

#63 They notes... (It should be "They note...")

#378 In the new century, from defining Hinduism as and national spirit, and in terms of only belonging rather than belief at the turn of the century....

Please refine this awkward construction in the process of revision.

It is always a good strategy to proofread the article before submitting for academic peer review.

There are minor typos that I have pointed out in my brief comment. Please take care of them.

Author Response

I'm grateful to Reviewer 2 for her/his engagement with and appreciation of the article. I have rectified the two typos mentioned, proof-read the article, and done a spelling and grammar check through both Word and Grammarly. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The theology/understanding of Political Hinduism unlike political Islam etc., is unknown and not clearly known in India. It is not clearly inculcated into the religious conscious or religious structure of Hinduism. One or two nationalist leaders might have tried to constitute a theoretical framework, but it still remains fractured. This is also demonstrated in the work of Rai and Savarkar discussed in this paper. The paper makes an important contribution to highlighting the lack of uniform theoretical frameworks. Hinduism is multifold so also the political understanding of Hinduism.

 

Author Response

I'm extremely grateful for Reviewer 3 for his/her engagement with and appreciation of the article.