Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindu Populism in India: An Analysis of Party Manifestos of Indian Rightwing Parties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. I consider that the article has a wrong structure. Logical division into parts is missing: background, literature review, materials and methods, results.
2. The author did not present the purpose of his work, why did he write it, what were the reasons, what did he want to achieve and what to share with the readers?
3. The article does not present the method used in the work.
4. The first sentences of the article are surprising and highly politicized. What does it mean that a country's prime minister or president has not dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic? Firstly, this has nothing to do with the article presented for review - the pandemic is not the topic of the work, and secondly, please, the Author should present data on the efficiency of health care in India in the years 2018-2019, for example?
5. The article seems chaotic. The author defines Hinduism to refer to Trump in a moment (p. 4).

6. 1. Definition of HinduismI propose to rethink the concept of the article and organize it, e.g.

   2. The concept of nationalism

   3. Populism in India
   4. Attempts to politicize religion (Trump, Erdogan, etc.)

7. Part entitled Hindu Populism before independence should be either in Introduction or possibly in Background.

   8. It should be emphasized that the conclusions are very good.

    

Author Response

1. I consider that the article has a wrong structure. Logical division into parts is missing: background, literature review, materials and methods, results.

 

I think the esteemed reviewer knows that not every article is published has an exact logical division of background, literature review, materials and methods, and results. However, if one looks at the article under review, it has a logical structure. After introduction, on page 3, the structure is given:

 

“This article is divided into three sections. In the first section, Hinduism’s affinity with populism is discussed. As there are large differences between great religions, it is understandable that some religions maybe more suited to populist politics than others. The next section details a brief history of populism in India. The final part analyses seven manifestos (one of Hindu Mahasabha, two of BJS, and four of BJP) of Hindu rightwing parties to ascertain the rise and fall of primarily Hindu populism but also of Hindu nationalism.”

 

Following is the logical structure of the article pagewise:

Background: pp. 1-3

A brief history of the concepts and literature review: pp. 3-9

Materials and methods: pp.10-22

Results and analysis: pp. 23-25

Conclusion: 26

 

2. The author did not present the purpose of his work, why did he write it, what were the reasons, what did he want to achieve and what to share with the readers?

 

It is given in the abstract:

 

“Since the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), a lot has been written on Hindu nationalism. Prime Minister Modi’s ascendency has similarly resulted in a plethora of books and articles on Hindu populism. However, most of the literature does not distinguish between the two. Hindu nationalism and Hindu populism overlap, particularly in Modi’s India and Modi’s BJP, but they are not the same. In this article, after a discussion on Hinduism’s affinity to populism, an attempt has been made to distinguish between Hindu nationalism and Hindu populism based on an analysis of Hindutva parties’ election manifestos.”

 

 

3. The article does not present the method used in the work.

 

Please see the methods section on page 10.

 

4. The first sentences of the article are surprising and highly politicized. What does it mean that a country's prime minister or president has not dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic? Firstly, this has nothing to do with the article presented for review - the pandemic is not the topic of the work, and secondly, please, the Author should present data on the efficiency of health care in India in the years 2018-2019, for example?

 

If one reads the whole paragraph, one can understand the link between how PM Modi has dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic and this article. Based on references cited, this failure has been linked with both Hindu populism and nationalism. The populism of other leaders, such as President Trump or President Bolsonaro, has also been linked with their failure to deal effectively with the pandemic. Secondly, with due respect to the reviewer, I do not understand why I should present 2018-19 data on the efficiency of healthcare in India.

 

5. The article seems chaotic. The author defines Hinduism to refer to Trump in a moment (p. 4).

 

I could not find where I have done this on page 4. Following is the only mention of Trump on page 4.

 

“Starting from President Trump to President Erdogan to Prime Minister Modi and Imran Khan, all of these leaders have instrumentalized religion, without being religious leaders themselves (Brittain 2018; Yilmaz 2018; Yilmaz 2021; Yilmaz and Saleem 2021; Yilmaz and Shakeel 2021).”

 

I do not understand how this statement is wrong and it is not based on my opinion. I have referenced it. I have certainly not used this statement to define Hinduism.

 

 

6. 1. Definition of Hinduism proposes to rethink the concept of the article and organize it, e.g.
   2. The concept of nationalism
   3. Populism in India
   4. Attempts to politicize religion (Trump, Erdogan, etc.)

 

I do not think I need to revise the structure of the article. As explained above, my structure is logical.

7. Part entitled “Hindu Populism before independence” should be either in Introduction or possibly in Background.

I agree with the reviewer that this section provides a background to the discussion in the article, but do we really need to label it “background”? I think the title of “background” will diminish the significance of the discussion in that particular section.

8. It should be emphasized that the conclusions are very good.

Thanks.

Reviewer 2 Report

One of the positive aspects of the study is the rich source apparatus, which includes a recent bibliography. The topic can also be considered interesting. The study is more of a political science nature, but the journal also needs interdisciplinary studies. The study is supplemented by several clear tables. However, they are immediately followed by a conclusion. From the reviewer's point of view, I am missing a subchapter in the study that discusses the results of the study. We find the analysis of the political manifestos of Hindu nationalism and populism interesting. One of the results of the study is that in the case of one political party, there is an increase in nationalism, but populist manifestations are declining. The analysis of the relationship between religion and populism on the political level is adequate. The car also aptly characterizes the specifics of Hindu nationalism. They are thinking about political Hinduism. I appreciate the excursion, which also affects classical Hindu philosophy. I also evaluate the reactions to current political events positively. The study also offers certain historical excursions. The perception and attempt to capture the difference between the populism of the parties and the leaders also evaluate positively. The results are concrete, they empirically bring positive delta plus. The presented table of manifestos is interesting and useful. From my point of view,  the addition of a subchapter, which is a discussion of the achieved results and directly precedes the conclusion is needed.

Author Response

Reviewer comments:

One of the positive aspects of the study is the rich source apparatus, which includes a recent bibliography. The topic can also be considered interesting. The study is more of a political science nature, but the journal also needs interdisciplinary studies. The study is supplemented by several clear tables. However, they are immediately followed by a conclusion. From the reviewer's point of view, I am missing a subchapter in the study that discusses the results of the study. We find the analysis of the political manifestos of Hindu nationalism and populism interesting. One of the results of the study is that in the case of one political party, there is an increase in nationalism, but populist manifestations are declining. The analysis of the relationship between religion and populism on the political level is adequate. The car also aptly characterizes the specifics of Hindu nationalism. They are thinking about political Hinduism. I appreciate the excursion, which also affects classical Hindu philosophy. I also evaluate the reactions to current political events positively. The study also offers certain historical excursions. The perception and attempt to capture the difference between the populism of the parties and the leaders also evaluate positively. The results are concrete, they empirically bring positive delta plus. The presented table of manifestos is interesting and useful. From my point of view, the addition of a subchapter, which is a discussion of the achieved results and directly precedes the conclusion is needed.

Response

I thank the reviewer for highlighting the positive aspects of the paper. The subchapter, the reviewer, is looking for was the conclusion. It was in the conclusion that I had analyzed and discussed the results of the study based on the seven party manifestoes. So, the deal with the reviewer’s concerns, I have made the first part of the conclusion a separate subchapter, called “Analysis of Party Manifestoes.” The second part of the old conclusion is expanded a bit to form now the new conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author offers a very useful contribution in this paper to the literature in both theoretical and methodological terms. By differentiating between "Hindu populism" and the more commonly used phrase "Hindu Nationalism," and by proposing to investigate these ideas on the basis of a study of BJP election manifestos, the author offers the promise of much greater insight than before. To an extent, the paper does deliver on that promise, but it has the potential to go beyond reproducing (or reinventing in new forms) the same old cliches and errors that dominate most "Hindu Nationalism" literature. I list several suggestions to help this process of revision below:

• the discussion of the literature on Hindu Nationalism v. Hindu Populism is a good start, but how does the author justify the unexamined use of the phrase "Right-Wing" in describing the BJP and its predecessors? It would be helpful to find a source that clarifies the limits of using the Right/Left terminology outside Western societies blindly. Many of the election promises (and subsequent policies) of the Modi BJP are seen as too socialistic by critics who prefer a more "reforms" approach from him. The RSS also had a strong socialistic/worker union component. These should be addressed.
• On that note, I think the author would benefit by looking at scholarship on the Sangh and BJP (and Indian history and politics more broadly) from outside the usual sources like Jaffrelot and Doniger. Damle and Anderson's Brotherhood in Saffron is a respected scholarly source, as well as some of the Sangh's own literature like Seshadri's book. 
• The section on Hinduism and its alleged distilling into thick populism or something like that seems a bit shallow and simplistic. There are least two broad scholarly streams that could be engaged with here: a) the work of SN Balagangadhara, Jakob de Roover and others of the Ghent school are essential in interrogating the notion of the universality of the concept of "religion" in the Indian context, and will help the author refine their arguments b) the history of Hindu anti-colonial resistance/revivalism/ "nationalism" etc will all be better presented if there is an acknowledgment of the ideas of the Voice of India body of work as well - Koenraad Elst's work on Hindu activism outside the Sangh, Sitaram Goel etc. offer a deep understanding of a context that goes far beyond the Sangh literature pro and con.
• The line about Gandhi's Hind Swaraj and Ram Rajya comparing his ideals to Trump's "Make America Great Again" are erroneous and almost offensive. It's a childish shot at wit which diminishes the otherwise good argument made in this section. Gandhi, as even the link the author provides, was not talking about Ram Rajya in a nostalgic-nationalist sense to warrant a comparison with white supremacist 21 American politics.
• the first paragraph under "RSS and BJS" on page 9 has an incomplete phrase. Either complete it or delete it altogether. This summary of the context of the RSS's orgins is also incomplete without a mention of the colonial and Right-Wing Islamist context of Hindu concerns in the 1920s. Venkat Dhulipala's Creating a New Medina is a useful source on the Muslim League and its actions at that time period. 
• the collection of examples from the various election manifestos and the typology for classifying them are useful, but some selections are arguably tenuous - for example, on page 14, including Cow protection and Sanskrit as "religious" principles needs to be debated. The former is economic/ecological and the latter unsupported given the vast non-religious Sanskrit traditions that exist. Similarly, in the table for the Modi-era manifestos, including the BJP's promise of freedom for mathas (Hindu religious institutions) from government control, can be seen as a promise of secularism (keeping the state out of religion) rather than using "religious principles in politics". Please the writings of Indian constitutional historian J. Sai Deepak on this issue. 
• The phrase "Modi populism" should be revisited in the conclusion - clearly, the presence of Modi in the recent manifestoes (rightly noted in the table) warrants further attention and discussion. Modi populism may well be the most accurate critique in this context than either Hindu nationalism or Hindu populism. But the author does not have to agree with that. 
• A good paper on the whole, valuable for the primary data (manifesto phrases), can be an excellent contribution with revisions as suggested above.

Author Response

Reviewer's comments and responses.

The author offers a very useful contribution in this paper to the literature in both theoretical and methodological terms. By differentiating between "Hindu populism" and the more commonly used phrase "Hindu Nationalism," and by proposing to investigate these ideas on the basis of a study of BJP election manifestos, the author offers the promise of much greater insight than before. To an extent, the paper does deliver on that promise, but it has the potential to go beyond reproducing (or reinventing in new forms) the same old cliches and errors that dominate most "Hindu Nationalism" literature. I list several suggestions to help this process of revision below:

1. the discussion of the literature on Hindu Nationalism v. Hindu Populism is a good start, but how does the author justify the unexamined use of the phrase "Right-Wing" in describing the BJP and its predecessors? It would be helpful to find a source that clarifies the limits of using the Right/Left terminology outside Western societies blindly. Many of the election promises (and subsequent policies) of the Modi BJP are seen as too socialistic by critics who prefer a more "reforms" approach from him. The RSS also had a strong socialistic/worker union component. These should be addressed.

I have acknowledged that rightwing politics have been defined in innumerable ways and defined what “rightwing” means in this article.

 

2. On that note, I think the author would benefit by looking at scholarship on the Sangh and BJP (and Indian history and politics more broadly) from outside the usual sources like Jaffrelot and Doniger. Damle and Anderson's Brotherhood in Saffron is a respected scholarly source, as well as some of the Sangh's own literature like Seshadri's book. 

 

I have added several references from the two books of Anderson and Damle (1987, 2019), especially The Brotherhood in Saffron (1987). However, since I focus only on the manifestoes of the Sangh and BJP in this article, and do not discuss their origins, politics, and leadership of Sangh and the BJP in great detail, I cannot use a large amount of knowledge that I gained from Anderson and Damle (1987, 2019) in this article.

 

3. The section on Hinduism and its alleged distilling into thick populism or something like that seems a bit shallow and simplistic. There are least two broad scholarly streams that could be engaged with here: a) the work of SN Balagangadhara, Jakob de Roover and others of the Ghent school are essential in interrogating the notion of the universality of the concept of "religion" in the Indian context, and will help the author refine their arguments b) the history of Hindu anti-colonial resistance/revivalism/ "nationalism" etc will all be better presented if there is an acknowledgment of the ideas of the Voice of India body of work as well - Koenraad Elst's work on Hindu activism outside the Sangh, Sitaram Goel etc. offer a deep understanding of a context that goes far beyond the Sangh literature pro and con.

I have referenced the work of SN Balagangadhara and Jakob de Roover in the article.

Respectfully, the focus is not on “the history of Hindu anti-colonial resistance/revivalism/ nationalism,” so I do not think there is a need to discuss/acknowledge the ideas of the Voice of India body of work in this article.

 

4. The line about Gandhi's Hind Swaraj and Ram Rajya comparing his ideals to Trump's "Make America Great Again" are erroneous and almost offensive. It's a childish shot at wit which diminishes the otherwise good argument made in this section. Gandhi, as even the link the author provides, was not talking about Ram Rajya in a nostalgic-nationalist sense to warrant a comparison with white supremacist 21 American politics.

The reference and comparison to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” with Gandhi ji's Ram Rajya have been removed.

 

5. the first paragraph under "RSS and BJS" on page 9 has an incomplete phrase. Either complete it or delete it altogether. This summary of the context of the RSS's orgins is also incomplete without a mention of the colonial and Right-Wing Islamist context of Hindu concerns in the 1920s. Venkat Dhulipala's Creating a New Medina is a useful source on the Muslim League and its actions at that time period.

The heading on page 9 has been changed to 

"Hindutva organizations: Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bhartiya Jana Sangh (BJS)"

Moreover, I am aware of the significance of rightwing Islamist context, but this article is not on the origins of the RSS or on the RSS itself. So, to keep the article focused and within an acceptable length of a journal, this context has not been discussed.

6. the collection of examples from the various election manifestos and the typology for classifying them are useful, but some selections are arguably tenuous - for example, on page 14, including Cow protection and Sanskrit as "religious" principles needs to be debated. The former is economic/ecological and the latter unsupported given the vast non-religious Sanskrit traditions that exist. Similarly, in the table for the Modi-era manifestos, including the BJP's promise of freedom for mathas (Hindu religious institutions) from government control, can be seen as a promise of secularism (keeping the state out of religion) rather than using "religious principles in politics". Please the writings of Indian constitutional historian J. Sai Deepak on this issue. 

Cow protection has always been a religious/communal issue. There were cow protection communal riots across Northern India as far back as the 1880s and 1890s. Various Hindu revivalist movements, such as Arya Samaj, Gaurakshani sabhas, and Hindu Mahasabha, demanded cow protection law or a ban on cow slaughter during the colonial era. After independence, when the Indian constitution was being made, Hindus were writing letters and telegrams to Gandhi ji to support a ban on cow slaughter again based on religious principles. In the 1960s, again it was religious-rightist parties and movements that started agitation for cow protection Similarly, although there are vast non-religious Sanskrit traditions, politically, the movement for the revival of Sanskrit was primarily led by religious-right in India. This movement got strong support from those involved in the Urdu-Hindi controversy which was the basis of proto-nationalism of both India and Pakistan movements (Walsh 2006, 161-2; Deol 2021; Copland 2014; Kumar 1990).

Reference to “autonomous administration of maths and mandir” has been removed from the article.

References:

Deol, Komal. 2021. “Cow protection was a sensitive subject in India even when the Constitution was being framed.” Scroll.in. July 7. https://scroll.in/article/998735/cow-protection-was-a-sensitive-subject-in-india-even-when-the-constitution-was-being-framed.

Walsh, Judith. 2006. A Brief History of India. (New York: Facts on File, inc.).

Copland, Ian. 2014. “History in Flux: Indira Gandhi and the 'Great All-Party Campaign' for the Protection of the Cow, 1966-8.” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 49, No. 2.

Kumar, Krishna. 1990. “Quest for Self-Identity: Cultural Consciousness and Education in Hindi Region, 1880.” Economic and Political Weekly. June 9.

7. The phrase "Modi populism" should be revisited in the conclusion - clearly, the presence of Modi in the recent manifestoes (rightly noted in the table) warrants further attention and discussion. Modi populism may well be the most accurate critique in this context than either Hindu nationalism or Hindu populism. But the author does not have to agree with that. 

I may write a new paper on “Modi’s populism” soon but, in this article, Modi or Modi’s populism are not the focus.

8. A good paper on the whole, valuable for the primary data (manifesto phrases), can be an excellent contribution with revisions as suggested above.

Thanks.

Reviewer 4 Report

Despite the potential thematic interest of this study, the method needs to be defined with greater scientific precision and rigor. The selection of criteria (aprioristic categories?) for conducting discourse analysis needs to determine a type of coding (inductive -emergent- or deductive -aprioristic-) of the data, its categorization and its quantitative (through numerical assignment and transformation of the text -preferred approach in content analysis-) or qualitative (discourse analysis) interpretation. However, neither analysis is defined. Consequently, we strongly recommend the inclusion of at least a "Material and methods" section that, in accordance with international standards, guarantees the scientific solvency of this proposal.

Author Response

We strongly recommend the inclusion of at least a "Material and methods" section that, in accordance with international standards, guarantees the scientific solvency of this proposal.

Response:

I already had a section in the paper discussing methods. I have now put it under the heading of “Methods” on page 10.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

OK

Author Response

The reviewer has approved the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

I will not evaluate most aspects, as I commented on in the previous review. It can be seen that the author worked a bit with the text. In a note to the reviewer, he explained the layout of the text. Although the author did his thing, he explained where he presented the conclusions, where the discussion. The conclusion extended what adds to the quality of the text. Even the addition of seven sources only increased the reference qualities of the study. The textual changes made by the author are sufficient. I believe that in this form the text can be published in a scientific journal.

Author Response

The reviewer has accepted the manuscript after previous revisions. Following are their comments:

"The textual changes made by the author are sufficient. I believe that in this form the text can be published in a scientific journal."

Reviewer 4 Report

Unfortunately, this section does not respond, with the corresponding methodological rigor, to what is expected of a "Materials and Methods" section; except for the specification of the application of a categorical scale of experts, nothing is said about its selection (type of sampling carried out), the study design or the qualitative data analysis applied (in this case, partially described). Consequently, the suggestions made in our first review report are not resolved.

Author Response

The following part was added to the methods section:

 

It will focus on the Hindu Mahasabha, BJS, and BJP. The selection of these three Hindutva parties is based on their success at the national level. Hindu Mahasabha, BJS, and BJP are by far the most successful parties in Indian national elections. The selection of Hindu Mahasabha and the BJS manifestoes is based on availability. However, the four BJP manifestoes were chosen to represent each decade of the party’s life. The first national election manifesto (1984) and the most recent one (2019) were chosen to get the full spectrum of change, if any, in BJP’s ideals and promises.

The research method chosen for this study is qualitative content analysis. All the seven party manifestoes will be thoroughly studied, rigorously examined and statements/sentences related to various aspects of Hindu nationalism and Hindu populism will be identified and reproduced in the paper. The cultural and other aspects of related to nationalism and populism chosen are primarily based on a PEW research study on European populist parties as explained below. Once data is collected, it will be analyzed, and conclusions drawn regarding whether (and when) the three parties were becoming more/less Hindutva nationalist and/or populist. Since it is a quantitative study, the approach is flexible, not rigid, and specific words or phrases are not counted. The approach is analytic as various aspects of nationalism and populism do not appear in the same way in 2019 as they appeared in the 1960s or the 1980s.

It can be argued that instead of comparing Hindu Mahasabha and BJS manifestoes with BJP manifestoes, it would have been better to compare BJP manifestoes for the last forty years. Forty years is a sufficiently long period for analysis. The argument is reasonable, however, all three parties’ manifestoes are compared to highlight and analyze the development of Hindu nationalism and populism political rhetoric and promises. It is true that the BJP is the most significant and remarkable part of the Hindutva story, but it is not the only part and to understand this exceptional part, one needs to examine its past.