‘Hindutva Exists Because Hinduism Existed’
Despite the lively exchanges, the outcome of the debate was deemed "inconclusive," though many attendees felt the arguments leaned decisively against Hindutva
A heated debate on the motion “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva” unfolded on a chilly Sunday evening at the Calcutta Club lawns in Kolkata, drawing a packed audience to dissect the tensions between India’s ancient spiritual traditions and its modern political ideologies. Hosted by the Calcutta Debating Circle, the event featured prominent voices from politics, academia, and civil society, moderated by Dr. Kunal Sarkar, a cardiac surgeon and seasoned debater. Despite the lively exchanges, Sarkar declared the outcome “inconclusive,” though many attendees felt the arguments leaned decisively against Hindutva.
Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar framed Hinduism as a profound spiritual religion, contrasting it sharply with Hindutva as a political construct rooted in paranoia. “Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to quiver before 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar asserted, citing examples like a BJP leader allegedly slapping a tribal girl for attending a church lunch. He criticized Hindutva’s actions, such as raiding malls to remove Christmas decorations, and referenced V.D. Savarkar’s view of Buddhism as a threat, calling it “the ultimate negation of Hindutva, bearing the opiate of universalism and non-violence.”
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra distinguished the two as paths: Hinduism as a religious and spiritual journey allowing multiple interpretations, versus Hindutva as a rigid political ideology claiming exclusivity. “A Hindu practitioner in Hinduism can imagine love between Hindus and Muslims, but a Hindutva practitioner will say: No, this is love jihad,” she explained. Moitra argued that Hinduism’s inclusivity sustains it, stating, “The best way to continue to protect Hinduism is to continue to realise that Hindutva is there because Hinduism was there.”
Countering this, BJP Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi took offense at the suffix “ism” applied to Indian-origin religions, seeing it as demeaning. “Why is -ism associated with all religions which originated in India? Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. You have never heard of Islamism or Christianism…the ‘ism’ is being associated just to demean and what Hinduism is ‘Hindu tattva,” he said. Trivedi equated Hindutva with cherishing Hinduism: “When you cherish Hinduism, it’s called Hindutva.”
Other speakers enriched the discourse. Ashutosh Sharma and Ruchika Sharma, Swapan Dasgupta, Agnimitra Paul, and J. Sai Deepak contributed perspectives, while former JNU chairperson Mridula Mukherjee, at 78, served as discussant, offering historical insights. The debate highlighted the government’s narrative of Hinduism in peril, countered by Hindutva’s majoritarian tools, sparking questions on whether spiritual pluralism can coexist with political nationalism.
In the context of rising majoritarianism, the event underscored the storm brewing over India’s religious identity. As Aiyar warned, Hindutva’s paranoia risks alienating communities, while Moitra emphasized Hinduism’s adaptive strength. Trivedi’s defense portrayed Hindutva as Hinduism’s protector, yet the inconclusive verdict left room for ongoing reflection on protecting India’s spiritual heritage from ideological overreach.
