Thread by @shrikanth_krish

In 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the pre-eminent center-right party in India made history by storming to power by winning a majority of seats on its own, under the leadership of Narendra Modi. The first time a non-Congress party won the majority on its own since 1947

The party perceived as the face of the “Hindu Right” had reached the corridors of power in an unambiguous manner. It was an event viewed with disgust by much of the liberal establishment - almost as a calamity that had overrun the nation

For others on the Right it was the final coup-de-grace delivered to the deracinated elites who had let the country down badly over the past 7 decades. Regardless of one’s affiliations 2014 remains a landmark.

But it also should prompt us to study how this came about.

What is the history of the Indian conservative movement? Where does one place its origins?Is it conservatism at all? Is it better described as a radical movement? Why did it take so long for a conservative party to gain power in what is a deeply conservative & religious country?

Modern Indian conservatism, (as well as modern Indian liberalism) arose in reaction to the colonial experience and the encounter with European civilization and the subsequent loss of political, and later cultural and intellectual sovereignty.

As India fell under the Company rule, there were two broad types of Indian reaction-

A liberal reaction : that was critical (perhaps overly so) of Indian tradition and religious practice - and looked to the West, as a source of inspiration to remake Indian society and religion

b) A conservative reaction -that also was at one level admiring the English, and their ascent over the past couple of centuries. Yet that wanted to seek inspiration from the Hindu past to seek a course-correction, instead of engaging in self-loathing /“reform” for the sake of it

Ram Mohun Roy perhaps best represents the “liberal” Indian reaction. In many ways the first “Indian liberal” as described by Ram Guha

The conservative reaction perhaps emerged a little later in the late 1800s - best epitomized by the likes of Swami Vivekananda and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. Vivekananda sought to reinvigorate Hindu religion with a strong focus on the monistic variant of Vedanta philosophy

Bankim however sought to create an Indian national consciousness, that drew on Indian tradition/religion, to help establish an Indian “nation”, not one artificially created by British rule, but one that is natural with a common ethnic, cultural, religious bond holding it together

Bankim helped create a personal image of “India” as that of the mother goddess - better known as “Bharat Mata”. Though the idea of Bharat Mata precedes him, it was his Anandmath and Vande mataram which popularized the idea.

The Bharat Mata notion was very critical in the history of Indian conservatism. Here was an attempt to personify the Indian nation and develop a loyalty to it that drew on religious and cultural roots of the Indian people

It was not anti-muslim but nevertheless acknowledged the Hindu glue holding India together

Nor was Bharat Mata a Bengali or a North Indian idea. It captured the imagination of Hindus everywhere. Subramania Bharati, the great Tamil poet, eulogized it.

Also this was at total variance with later liberal notions of “constitutional patriotism” where there is no room for “Bharat Mata” but merely loyalty to an impersonal constitution, a loyalty that has nothing to do with religious, cultural or ethnic sentiment attached to the land

So this idea of Indian “nationalism” suffused with notions of nation as “mother” is one of the key ideas of 19th century Indian conservatism, without which the 20th century tradition would have been stillborn.

The other characteristic of Indian conservatism which had its roots in the 19th cen, is the view that Indian civilization was being threatened by external thought movements not grounded in Indian realities - this included both secular Enlightenment rationalism and Christianity

This view emerged by mid-19th cen. A manifestation of it was in Northern Ceylon in the figure of Arumukha Navalar - a Tamil Shaivite scholar, who was a rare “Hindu missionary” who acknowledged the “conversion” threat and engaged in counter-missionary activity

This view was also entertained by Hindu intellectuals elsewhere. An example being Radhakanta Deb, a Bengali figure who opposed Bentinck’s anti-Sati legislation, as he thought it was an external intrusion into Hindu society that was uncalled for

So we have so far discussed both the Indian skepticism towards abstractions borrowed from alien cultures as well as the development of the idea of India as a mother goddess and nation - the two foundations of Indian conservatism with its roots in 19th cen conservative thought

Having discussed the intellectual influences, now let’s turn to practical politics. For much of 19th century, Hindu conservatism was not explicitly political, because India did not have any self rule, so there was little scope for a party representing the ideas just discussed

This changed with the reform acts of early 20th century, particularly Morley-Minto reforms of 1909, which increased the Indian involvement in legislation by making election of native Indians to legislative councils legitimate, albeit with a limited electorate

But Morley-Minto reforms also included a highly controversial feature. It awarded a separate electorate to Muslims, in response to a request from a Muslim delegation. This was almost an explicit official acknowledgment of the fact that Muslims are a separate nation within India

In fact 3 years prior to Morley Minto, in 1906, a political party representing Muslim interests had been formed in Dhaka called “All India Muslim League”. This was clearly a validation of the civilizational “nationhood” argument advanced by Hindu conservatives in late 19th cen

It is not a surprise then that the Hindu Mahasabha representing Hindu interests, was formed in 1915, some 6 years after the awarding of separate electorate to Muslims in 1909. Madan Mohan Malaviya and Lala Lajpat Rai were among its early stalwarts

So the point to note here is that an explicitly political formation of a party representing Hindu interests happened only as a reaction to a similar formation of the Muslim league. HMS was an act of reaction

The 1910s and 20s was a period of growing Hindu political consciousness. Within Congress Bal Gangadhar Tilak was a major Hindu face who saw nationalism as a cultural / religious project, in sharp contrast to liberals like Gokhale

Outside of Congress, we had the emergence of Hindu Mahasabha, which we have discussed. Its rhetoric and ideology was greatly enhanced by the Muslim league politics at the opposite end, as well as Khilafat movement abetted by Congress and Gandhi in early 20s

1923 was an important year in the history of Hindu conservative movement. That was the year, the Mahasabha leader Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a Maharashtrian, wrote his famous booklet “Hindutva” which made a civilizational case for the idea of “Hindu”

Savarkar was not a religious man. Yet he acknowledged “Hindu-ness” (Hindutva) stemming from a cultural, and civilizational connect to the motherland which he expected from Muslims / Christians as well, if they wished to be culturally Indian

His book is very important because Hindutva remains to this day the ideology of Hindu Right at least on paper.His was a clear articulation of the ideas of civilizational India, originated in late 19th c, now pushed forward more aggressively in a more polarized political climate

At around the same time, there was a new organization that emerged. A man named KB Hedgewar, formed a breakaway volunteer organization named Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925. Now why was the RSS formed, and what was Hedgewar’s issues with HMS are not crystal clear

But it appears RSS was avowedly apolitical. And focused more on service, with a social orientation than HMS. Also it was perceived to be less antagonistic to Gandhian methods than HMS in the early years

But for much of 20s-30s, the Hindu Mahasabha remained the prime face of Hindu politics. And not RSS. Yet HMS declined because of several reasons. By the time of independence it was practically a non-entity. Why?

This can be attributed to several strategic mistakes. The HMS chose not to participate in the Gandhian freedom struggle, even in its heyday. Not even in the civil disobedience movement of 1930. In hindsight, it is rather hard to rationalize this decision by the Mahasabha

The HMS was also decimated by Congress in the provincial elections of 1936-37 - the largest elections held in pre-independence India. Its aloofness in the Gandhian movement clearly hadn’t won it any hearts.

What’s worse, when Cong provincial govts resigned in 1940 in opposition to the declaration of war that made India a participant in WW2, HMS reacted by forming coalition govts in many provinces by tying up with Muslim League of all parties!!!!

It’s hard to rationalize what principle could have justified the face of Hindu nationalism tying up with the Muslim League. But it did happen in many provinces. In Sindh, In NWFP, In Bengal.

One argument could be that the Congress had acted irresponsibly in giving up power, and someone had to fill up the space. And that HMS did it as a matter of duty so as not to leave power completely in the hands of the Muslim League. That’s a fair argument

Nevertheless the aloofness and lack of political adeptness of HMS hurt it badly in the 30s-40s.

By the time we reach 1947, it was the RSS and not HMS which was the rising star of the Hindu Right.

But then 1948 was a dark year for the Hindu conservative movement. It was the year Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated. And the assassination badly maligned both the RSS and HMS, given the involvement of the former’s members and the alleged involvement of Savarkar who was from HMS

So soon after independence and republic formation, the Right had to rebrand and reinvent itself to be politically viable in elections. It did so through the formation of a new party - the Bharatiya Jan Sangh - founded in 1951 by erstwhile HMS member Shyama Prasad Mukherjee

Shama Prasad distanced himself from the Hindu Mahasabha post 1947, partly because of the latter’s refusal to turn “mainstream” by allowing Muslims to become members. His new party Jan Sangh collaborated more with RSS and was conceived as a “nationalistic” alternative to Congress

The word “Bharatiya” in Bharatiya Jan Sangh was important. It was very much perceived as a nationalist party that refused to embrace the more tribal Hindu allegiances of HMS - instead sought to present a case of Hindu cultural nationalism that transcended personal religion

But Mukherjee died in 1953 in Kashmir. This left a huge vacuum in the party and quite naturally the party became a lot closer to RSS (now headed by a former biologist named Golwalkar) Starting that point, RSS became very much the source of leaders / workers for Jan Sangh

How did Jan Sangh fare post 1952? Was it a force in Indian electoral politics? Where did it place on the Indian right wing firmament? What was its collaboration with other parties? Let’s briefly explore.

Here’s a quick look at the vote shares of Jan Sangh from 1952 to 1971.

1952 - 3.06%
1957 - 5.93%
1962 - 6.44%
1967 - 9.41%
1971 - 7.35%

So it was a party that was significant on the national stage with a consistent 6-10% vote share. But it never graduated past that. The party was perceived as a “Brahmin baniya” party - representing the interests of urban professionals, conservative Hindus and merchant castes.

The leadership of the party was sourced to a great extent from the RSS. Prominent young leaders in the 60s included Atal Vajpayee and LK Advani who came into their own in the 70s. But there were also leaders like Balraj Madhok - who did not come from a strong RSS background

In fact the BJS’s best showing in those early elections was in 1967 under the leadership of Balraj Madhok - a man who disdained both the RSS, and RSS”s influence on the party, which he thought prevented it from thinking big, and collaborating with parties like Swatantra

One of the reasons the Hindu right wing remained stymied in the 50s-60s is because much of the conservative Right was ensconced within the Congress. With leaders like Rajendra Prasad, Morarji, and others being part of it.

The scope for the Right wing in India increased beyond BJS only in 1959 with the formation of another right wing party - the Swatantra - by senior statesman C Rajagopalachari. The Swatantra interestingly was positioned as a more firmly conservative party than Jan Sangh

It was explicitly conservative, and espoused free markets, lower regulation, closer partnership with US, the rights of princes, among other things. But Swatantra was never quite a Hindu party, though many of its leaders like Rajaji /KM Munshi were religious Hindus in private life

There was always a bit of cool between Swatantra and Jan Sangh and probably due to BJS’s inability to connect more closely with Swatantra on a wider range of issues, the alliance never materialized until 1971 - by which time it was too late.

Here’s what Rajaji once said about Jan Sangh - “Jan Sangh has quite a few good leaders...What is needed however is a broadmindedness that not just practises toleration but looks upon Mussalmans, Christians, Parsis and others as politically and culturally as good as Hindus”

So while Swatantra was not anti-Jan Sangh,it was not quite pro BJS either. The parties had a lukewarm friendship. The big opportunity was in 60s for the two parties to merge and form a strong Right wing front. But as per Madhok, the RSS influence on BJS prevented such an alliance

The Swatantra polled roughly 7-9% of votes throughout 60s, and coupled with BJS, the Right’s share was close over 15%. An alliance of the two parties, and possibly an earlier split of the Congress (rather than in 1969) might have made a difference to the fortunes of the Right

However the Right declined greatly between 1967 and 1984. It was a time when Congress moved to the Left firmly under Indira. Swatantra died out. And the Jan Sangh had to dissolve and merge into the larger Anti-Congress formation named Janata Party- to defeat Indira post emergency

The Jan Sangh ceased to exist in 1977 - becoming a part of Janata Party - a non-ideological anti-congress formation comprising of all hues (from socialists to hindu conservatives). While the JP did win power in 1977, its internal contradictions caused its govt to collapse by 1980

Post 1980, the erstwhile Jan Sangh faction within the Janata Party felt the need for its rebirth as a separate right wing party - rather than continue as a part of the largely center left Janata Party which did not relish the Sangh’s presence.

This gave birth to the new party - the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the early 80s. But it was off to a bad start. In 1984, while it did get close to 8% of the vote, it won just 2 seats in the Lok Sabha. Clearly the new party was not working very well.

This was probably because the party was confused in those early years.There was a current within it that wanted it to remain merely a center-right formation with no strong Hindu sympathies.The moderate wing was dominant in BJP during early80s - but the results were not v good

This was when a decision was taken to move away from middling centrist mediocrity and to re-embrace its Hindu exceptionalism, which distinguished it in the 60s

The party officially adopted “Hindutva” as its ideology in 1989, a concept not novel by any means, but with its origins back in 20s in Savarkarite ideology

That ideology had its rebirth in late 80s, partly because of the policies perceived as “minority appeasement” pursued by the Rajiv Gandhi led Cong govt. It materialized through the Ayodhya movement - a movement embraced by the party leadership under Lal Krishna Advani.

The Ayodhya movement changed the BJP fundamentally. It greatly democratized its base, and it graduated from being a party of urban middle classes and traders,into a party of the Hindu masses -it was a period when many OBC leaders embraced the movement and became part of the party

To give a sense of the remarkable impact of the movement it is useful to trace BJP vote shares from 1984 till 1996

1984: 7.7%
1989: 11.4%
1991: 20.1%
1996: 20.3%

It was a massive massive movement which changed the political landscape of the country. Its impact was particularly huge in a state like UP where BJP increased its # seats from 57 to 221 between 1989 and 1991

Even in a southern state like Karnataka, the impact was massive. BJP increased its vote share from 4% to 17% between 1989 and 1994 in Karnataka assembly elections

In 1996, the BJP emerged as the single largest party with 161 seats. A party very different in character from what it was barely 10 years ago. The party consolidated its position in 1998 and 1999 elections and remained in govt (albeit in coalitions led by it) from 1998 to 2004

The six year dominance of center right politics at the center from 1998 to 2004 - was unprecedented in Indian history. However it fizzled out and BJP had a setback in 2004 when it lost power rather unexpectedly despite the Vajpayee govt. being perceived posiitvely

The party was out of power from 2004 to 2014 - a 10 year eclipse, caused by a leadership vacuum, and the fizzling out of the euphoria of Ayodhya and post-Ayodhya moment of the 90s. The movement needed a revival, and it received the same through the persona of Narendra Modi

But the renaissance of the party in '14 when it increased its vote share from 19% in 09 to 31% was different in character from what happened in 89-91. This time Modi’s appeal rested arguably more on his strong leader image, incorruptibility as opposed to an Hindu agenda per se

But there is little doubt that Modi was perceived as a leader representing Hindu pride and it made a difference. The party was now the natural party of government! A position enjoyed by Congress for much of post-independence history.

As the party and the movement look forward to 2019 and beyond, it needs to think hard on how it wishes to evolve in an India immeasurably richer and more upwardly mobile than it was back in 1989

Definitely a nationalistic orientation helps. But this has to be coupled by a much more forceful and principled conservative articulation on both economic, and social issues, for it to remain the “Conservative” Party of India

Some of the discussion on this thread on 19th cen conservatism is influenced by the lectures on the same at King's college by @swapan55