What do you think?
Rate this book
Hindu Nationalism: A Reader [Paperback] [Jan 01, 2009] Christophe Jaffrelot
In india and beyond, hindu nationalism came into the headlines in the 1990s, when the ayodhya movement—to build a temple in place of a mosque—gained momentum this was when the hindu nationalist bharatiya janata party (bjp) came to power this stream of indian politics is, however, considerably in fact older than the left, the congress, and any other the first part of this reader, comprising the writings of both famous and unknown ideologues, shows that some of the nineteenth-centuryhindu socio-religious reformers, such as dayananda (founder of the arya samaj), prepared the ground for hindu nationalism by positing a vedic golden age on this foundation, leaders of the hindu mahasabha and the rashtriya swayamsewak sangh (rss) elaborated their vision of hindu india in the twentieth century now, vd savarkar viewed the muslim as the perfect ‘other’, a figure to be stigmatized and emulated with fascinating ambivalence a full-fledged ethno-religious concept, hindutva, came into b
402 pages, Paperback
First published July 30, 2007
21 people are currently reading
316 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 9, 2017
Its an aight book. The author's explanations in the introductory sections seems consistently biased against the subjects. But the primary source material is there.
One thing which always interests me when reading about Hindu Nationalism, is that the writing seems so tepid compared to any other form of nationalist writing which I'm familiar with. The writers in this text frequently make caveats to appeal to their opponents, trying to explain that they are very anti-untouchability, don't want to deprive Muslims of essential rights, etc. They often blur the lines of what a Hindu is so as to include as many people as possible, including in some cases people who have Muslim faith. They revere Gandhi. They are pretty anti-capitalist. But that unusual level of nuance is never really acknowledged or addressed by the critic, and all these bones thrown to the left are snubbed at. And in fact its treated as the most vitally threatening iteration of a violent and oppressive social-political ideology in South Asia. When in reality its policy proposals are probably closer to moderate Indian nationalism, Gandhianism, or social democracy, than most other nationalist movements including its mirror (the conservative wing of the Pakistan movement and its modern Islamist incarnations) could ever possibly be.
Most interesting chapters were the early ones, which show you how it all got started. Granted, those are some of the more radical and kooky writers, namely the early Arya Samajists, but they show you where the aesthetic originated, and informs you on the symbolic background of Hindu nationalism. But everything in section 2 is worth reading.
The rest of it is ok, but the list of topics seems a bit random. Its odd that the example of Hindutva in the diaspora which they used was the California textbook case, which really was only related to Hindutva in the sense that Jewish NGOs and community organizations trying to improve perception of Jews in textbooks is related to Conservative Zionism. Its also missing a section on environmentalism and was seriously missing sections of Hindu nationalist perceptions/discourse on refugees and violence towards Hindus in countries other than India. It was also missing a section on people like Vivekananda and Sri Aurbindo, and a section on the Swadeshi movement.
Ultimately Hindu Nationalism is an interesting ideology, and it is important to understand for anyone who values the culture, philosophy, and people of India and the rest of Hindu Civilization. Other than perhaps Gandhism it seems to be the largest "social-political" wing of modern Hindu thought. Criticisms and "controversial claims" made by the more coherent and rational of the Hindu nationalists are largely correct. Let me rattle some off: Hindus have been losing demographically in the long run. The Indian state treats Hindu and Muslim communities very differently. Islam in India has a very bloody history. Hindus have fared horribly in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Globalization erodes local traditions and destroys the environment. Many Hindu temples were destroyed and are now controlled by Muslims who erected mosques in their stead, and this is unjust and should be corrected. Most (non-Hindu nationalist) Hindus pursue self-abnegation in politics. Untouchability causes a lot of deep fissures in Hindu society which makes it weak. Hinduism is more pluralistic and tolerant than Abrahamic religions, which is the cause of many of the above problems. These things are basically true.
The problem is that the proposed solutions are bad as well. This is because Hindu nationalism is fundamentally a statist-reactionary ideology rather than a liberal/libertarian ideology, or Coomaraswami-grade decentralist-reactionary ideology. Hindu nationalists, therefore, are willing to subjugate individual freedom and the operation of the market economy to social and state control OR to leave the achievement of their goals to caste organizations, guilds, etc. It is interesting that even Hindu Nationalism, in contrast with most iterations of Fascism, sees the state and society as radically distinct entities. Which is a good opening to exploit for anti-statists, Gandhians and decentralists. Although it is aesthetic and it seeks to defend a civilization I hold dear, ultimately is premised on the acceptability of large-scale, centralized coercion as a tool for creating an ideal society, so it needs to be almost totally rebuilt to be viable. Some people are working on that. The modern Indian right is much better than most of their intellectual predecessors. Like the people at Swarajya. Anyway thats the review.
One thing which always interests me when reading about Hindu Nationalism, is that the writing seems so tepid compared to any other form of nationalist writing which I'm familiar with. The writers in this text frequently make caveats to appeal to their opponents, trying to explain that they are very anti-untouchability, don't want to deprive Muslims of essential rights, etc. They often blur the lines of what a Hindu is so as to include as many people as possible, including in some cases people who have Muslim faith. They revere Gandhi. They are pretty anti-capitalist. But that unusual level of nuance is never really acknowledged or addressed by the critic, and all these bones thrown to the left are snubbed at. And in fact its treated as the most vitally threatening iteration of a violent and oppressive social-political ideology in South Asia. When in reality its policy proposals are probably closer to moderate Indian nationalism, Gandhianism, or social democracy, than most other nationalist movements including its mirror (the conservative wing of the Pakistan movement and its modern Islamist incarnations) could ever possibly be.
Most interesting chapters were the early ones, which show you how it all got started. Granted, those are some of the more radical and kooky writers, namely the early Arya Samajists, but they show you where the aesthetic originated, and informs you on the symbolic background of Hindu nationalism. But everything in section 2 is worth reading.
The rest of it is ok, but the list of topics seems a bit random. Its odd that the example of Hindutva in the diaspora which they used was the California textbook case, which really was only related to Hindutva in the sense that Jewish NGOs and community organizations trying to improve perception of Jews in textbooks is related to Conservative Zionism. Its also missing a section on environmentalism and was seriously missing sections of Hindu nationalist perceptions/discourse on refugees and violence towards Hindus in countries other than India. It was also missing a section on people like Vivekananda and Sri Aurbindo, and a section on the Swadeshi movement.
Ultimately Hindu Nationalism is an interesting ideology, and it is important to understand for anyone who values the culture, philosophy, and people of India and the rest of Hindu Civilization. Other than perhaps Gandhism it seems to be the largest "social-political" wing of modern Hindu thought. Criticisms and "controversial claims" made by the more coherent and rational of the Hindu nationalists are largely correct. Let me rattle some off: Hindus have been losing demographically in the long run. The Indian state treats Hindu and Muslim communities very differently. Islam in India has a very bloody history. Hindus have fared horribly in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Globalization erodes local traditions and destroys the environment. Many Hindu temples were destroyed and are now controlled by Muslims who erected mosques in their stead, and this is unjust and should be corrected. Most (non-Hindu nationalist) Hindus pursue self-abnegation in politics. Untouchability causes a lot of deep fissures in Hindu society which makes it weak. Hinduism is more pluralistic and tolerant than Abrahamic religions, which is the cause of many of the above problems. These things are basically true.
The problem is that the proposed solutions are bad as well. This is because Hindu nationalism is fundamentally a statist-reactionary ideology rather than a liberal/libertarian ideology, or Coomaraswami-grade decentralist-reactionary ideology. Hindu nationalists, therefore, are willing to subjugate individual freedom and the operation of the market economy to social and state control OR to leave the achievement of their goals to caste organizations, guilds, etc. It is interesting that even Hindu Nationalism, in contrast with most iterations of Fascism, sees the state and society as radically distinct entities. Which is a good opening to exploit for anti-statists, Gandhians and decentralists. Although it is aesthetic and it seeks to defend a civilization I hold dear, ultimately is premised on the acceptability of large-scale, centralized coercion as a tool for creating an ideal society, so it needs to be almost totally rebuilt to be viable. Some people are working on that. The modern Indian right is much better than most of their intellectual predecessors. Like the people at Swarajya. Anyway thats the review.
February 9, 2018
The editor's note will give you his negative attitude to Hindutva and the bias in regards to that. Otherwise, it is concise and straight to the points in debate. Also the history is very minimal as well as the ideologues which should have been more specific to the point than taking the general writings of different authors.
July 18, 2022
Excellent primer on the evolution of Hindutva thinking. This won’t change minds of either the supporters or the opponents, but at least it will make the debate more informed.
February 20, 2014
This book is a selection of readings representing different movements within "Hindu Nationalism" (a resistance movement to minorities and colonialism in India). You can take a peek inside the book through amazon.com if you want to preview it prior to purchase.
September 24, 2015
You can perhaps understand a bit about the evolution of Hindu Nationalist ideals. But it is kind of a boring book to read.
September 4, 2025
Christophe Jaffrelot is the single scholar synonymous with any academic reading of Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva. As a result, it's hard to escape or avoid his work in this subject.
This makes Jaffrelot, a French scholar, a tad paradoxical as a figure. Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva is forged almost entirely in Opposition to Islam and Muslims are it's prime victims. French Nationalism and it's idea of liberty, fraternity is also imbedded in the Western identity, forged largely in opposition to Islam.
This is the lense that one has to use to view Jaffrelot's work. He is an excellent scholar and Hindu Nationalism Reader is an excellent treasure trove of essays and writings translated into English. This is a great starting point for those wishing to understand the intellectual and theoretical thesis of Hindutva today.
That said, Jaffrelot's own limitations vis a vis Islam has to be taken into account, particulalry when reading his analysis and interpretations of the primary works.
Jaffrelot describes Gandhi’s worldview as Universalist and harmonious that Muslims resisted because Gandhi adopted a thorough Hindu style. In this, he places Gandhi's ideology at the centre of the modern Indian nation, and equates Hindu Nationalism with Muslim Separatism as the two extremes opposed to Gandhi's (read Nehru, Congress etc) imagination of a Universalist, Pluralist modern India.
"Hindu nationalism, like Muslim separatism (a movement which in India was formed around the same time), rejected both versions of the universalist view of nationalism articulated by Congress.3 This ideology assumed that India’s national identity was summarized by Hinduism, the dominant creed which, according to the British census, represented about 70 per cent of the population. Indian culture was to be defined\ as Hindu culture, and the minorities were to be assimilated by their paying allegiance to the symbols and mainstays of the majority as those of the nation. For Congressmen like Nehru this ideology—like that of the Muslim League or of Sikh separatists—had nothing to do with nationalism. They branded it with the derogatory term ‘communalism’."
Jaffrelot also sees Hindu Nationalism born as a reaction to the Khilafat Movement and sees Hindu Mahasabha formed as a reaction to Separate electorates demanded by and granted to Muslims.
"The Hindu Mahasabha was rekindled in the 1920s. At this time the ideology of Hindu nationalism was codified and acquired its distinctive features. This development followed the same logic as the initial stages of socio-religious reform movements: Hindu nationalism crystallized in reaction to a threat subjectively felt if not concretely experienced. This time the threatening Other was neither Christian missionaries nor colonial bureaucrats, but Muslims, not only because of their special equation with the British—as evident from the separate electorates issue—but also because of their mobilization during the Khilafat movement. Hindu nationalism as we know it today was born in Maharashtra in the 1920s, in the context of reaction to the Khilafat movement. Its ideology was codified by Savarkar much before he joined the Hindu Mahasabha"
This isn't historically accurate as Hindu Nationalism can be traced back to the Indian Renaissance but Jaffrelot does not use that framework. For in Jaffrelot's framework, Hindu Nationalism is distinctly different to Indian Nationalism as imagined and espoused by the Congress.
Hindu Mahasabha were part of Congress and Congress was the singular representation of Hindu Majoritarian Identity. Only when Gandhi emerged did Hindu Mahasabha move away because Gandhi took over. This is a political rather than ideological conflict but Jaffrelot sees this as an ideological conflict for in his framework, Gandhi is Universalist while Hindu Nationalism, like Muslim Separatism is narrow Identity Politics.
So with that in mind, once we Jaffrelot's biases and limitations on the table, this is an excellent collection of writings. I gained a lot of understanding and insight about the origins and roots of the ideological framework of the RSS and BJP today.
This makes Jaffrelot, a French scholar, a tad paradoxical as a figure. Hindu Nationalism or Hindutva is forged almost entirely in Opposition to Islam and Muslims are it's prime victims. French Nationalism and it's idea of liberty, fraternity is also imbedded in the Western identity, forged largely in opposition to Islam.
This is the lense that one has to use to view Jaffrelot's work. He is an excellent scholar and Hindu Nationalism Reader is an excellent treasure trove of essays and writings translated into English. This is a great starting point for those wishing to understand the intellectual and theoretical thesis of Hindutva today.
That said, Jaffrelot's own limitations vis a vis Islam has to be taken into account, particulalry when reading his analysis and interpretations of the primary works.
Jaffrelot describes Gandhi’s worldview as Universalist and harmonious that Muslims resisted because Gandhi adopted a thorough Hindu style. In this, he places Gandhi's ideology at the centre of the modern Indian nation, and equates Hindu Nationalism with Muslim Separatism as the two extremes opposed to Gandhi's (read Nehru, Congress etc) imagination of a Universalist, Pluralist modern India.
"Hindu nationalism, like Muslim separatism (a movement which in India was formed around the same time), rejected both versions of the universalist view of nationalism articulated by Congress.3 This ideology assumed that India’s national identity was summarized by Hinduism, the dominant creed which, according to the British census, represented about 70 per cent of the population. Indian culture was to be defined\ as Hindu culture, and the minorities were to be assimilated by their paying allegiance to the symbols and mainstays of the majority as those of the nation. For Congressmen like Nehru this ideology—like that of the Muslim League or of Sikh separatists—had nothing to do with nationalism. They branded it with the derogatory term ‘communalism’."
Jaffrelot also sees Hindu Nationalism born as a reaction to the Khilafat Movement and sees Hindu Mahasabha formed as a reaction to Separate electorates demanded by and granted to Muslims.
"The Hindu Mahasabha was rekindled in the 1920s. At this time the ideology of Hindu nationalism was codified and acquired its distinctive features. This development followed the same logic as the initial stages of socio-religious reform movements: Hindu nationalism crystallized in reaction to a threat subjectively felt if not concretely experienced. This time the threatening Other was neither Christian missionaries nor colonial bureaucrats, but Muslims, not only because of their special equation with the British—as evident from the separate electorates issue—but also because of their mobilization during the Khilafat movement. Hindu nationalism as we know it today was born in Maharashtra in the 1920s, in the context of reaction to the Khilafat movement. Its ideology was codified by Savarkar much before he joined the Hindu Mahasabha"
This isn't historically accurate as Hindu Nationalism can be traced back to the Indian Renaissance but Jaffrelot does not use that framework. For in Jaffrelot's framework, Hindu Nationalism is distinctly different to Indian Nationalism as imagined and espoused by the Congress.
Hindu Mahasabha were part of Congress and Congress was the singular representation of Hindu Majoritarian Identity. Only when Gandhi emerged did Hindu Mahasabha move away because Gandhi took over. This is a political rather than ideological conflict but Jaffrelot sees this as an ideological conflict for in his framework, Gandhi is Universalist while Hindu Nationalism, like Muslim Separatism is narrow Identity Politics.
So with that in mind, once we Jaffrelot's biases and limitations on the table, this is an excellent collection of writings. I gained a lot of understanding and insight about the origins and roots of the ideological framework of the RSS and BJP today.
February 18, 2022
A comprehensive collection of the essential writings that inform the Hindu nationalist philosophy. Would love to see an updated version for the 2020s where Hindu nationalists have now taken power for two terms consecutively with massive majorities.
January 7, 2023
A good anthology of some of the more prominent personalities of Hindu nationalism.
October 21, 2025
It's a reader so the author's voice isn't really there. A good set of sources, though.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews