By Erwin K Syiem Sutnga
I have many friends who are Hindus by faith. The outlook of Hinduism, as I have come to learn from them, is that it is a gentle religion—kind, compassionate, and tolerant. However, in the melting pot of politics and the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, my understanding of this faith has widened to include the darker dynamics of human nature: the underlying devil of fear and anxiety, of religious chauvinism manifesting in the emergence of radical ideas, ideologies, and misinterpretations of even the most compassionate religious tenets which often metamorphose into extremism and terror against others manifesting as “Hindutva”. This phenomenon is not unique to Hinduism but is a challenge faced by nearly every religion. Yet, within the diverse and pluralistic fabric of India, such trends are now shaking and eroding the basic structure of the Constitution of India. It brings into sharp focus the differences between Hinduism and Hindutva.
The distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva is crucial for understanding the broader implications of the Mawjymbuin Cave controversy.
1. Hinduism as a Religion: Hinduism is an ancient, inclusive, and pluralistic religion focused on spirituality, liberation, and coexistence. It allows for diverse beliefs, practices, and philosophies, embodying values like compassion, tolerance, and non-violence.
2. Hindutva as a Political Ideology: Hindutva, coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, emphasizes “Hindu-ness” and promotes Hindu nationalism with a political agenda. It seeks to establish a Hindu-dominant identity, often viewed as exclusionary, marginalizing non-Hindu communities. While Hinduism is concerned with individual spiritual growth, Hindutva is focused on political mobilization and asserting a collective Hindu identity.
3. Core Differences: Inclusivity vs. Exclusivity: Hinduism is open to multiple interpretations and communities, while Hindutva envisions a singular, majoritarian Hindu identity.
Focus: Hinduism focuses on personal spiritual practices, while Hindutva uses aspects of Hinduism for political goals, often leading to conflicts over cultural and religious plurality.
4. Implications for the Constitution: Hinduism aligns with India’s constitutional values of secularism and diversity. Hindutva, with its exclusionary tendencies, often challenges these principles, threatening the pluralistic and composite culture that forms the foundation of the Indian Constitution.
The recent actions of the Kutumba Suraksha Parishad (KSP) in the Mawjymbuin Cave controversy epitomises this shift. By invoking Article 51A of the Constitution and demanding the resumption of Hindu rituals in a site sacred to the Khasi community, KSP has brought to the forefront critical questions about religious freedom, tribal rights, and the interpretation of India’s “composite culture.” This dispute is more than just a local conflict—it is a microcosm of the larger battle for the soul of India’s constitutional ethos and its commitment to pluralism. It is here that I have tried to understand the underlying politics because the KSP when literally translated means ” Family Safety Council”. This begs the question -whose safety, what family? Is it to be taken that family means extremist hindutva and safety means imposition of these extreme ideologies on tribals and minorities?
Composite Culture: A foundation under threat
India’s “composite culture” represents the harmonious coexistence of myriad religions, customs, traditions, cultures and communities. It is a mosaic built on mutual respect and inclusivity, where no single tradition dominates the others. However, KSP’s interpretation of Article 51A, which emphasizes the duty to preserve cultural heritage, appears to conflate this pluralistic vision with the promotion of a singular cultural narrative rooted in Hindutva practices. Such an approach undermines the very essence of composite culture, which thrives on diversity and equality.
Religious and cultural freedom and the Khasi Perspective
The Constitution guarantees every individual the right to practice their religion freely under Articles 25 to 28. Article 29 guarantees the freedom to preserve one’s own culture and language. For the Khasi people, the Mawjymbuin Cave is not merely a natural marvel but a sacred space, home to the “Puri Lieh” or White Spirits, who are considered guardians of the land. The demand to impose Hindu rituals in this space disregards the spiritual and cultural autonomy of the Khasi community, infringing upon their religious rights and threatening their cultural identity.
Tribal rights and the Sixth Schedule
Meghalaya’s tribal areas, governed under the Sixth Schedule, are granted special protections to preserve indigenous cultures, traditions, and governance systems. The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) has rightly opposed KSP’s demands, highlighting the exclusive rights of the tribal community over their sacred sites. Attempts to bypass these protections in the name of cultural preservation are not only unconstitutional but also a direct challenge to the rights and autonomous nature of tribal communities in India.
Role of Fear and Radicalism
The actions of KSP reflect a growing trend of using fear and radicalism to assert dominance in spaces historically shared or protected by minority and indigenous groups. In the case of Mawjymbuin Cave, this radicalization is cloaked in the language of preserving heritage, but it ultimately seeks to impose a majoritarian worldview. Such actions do not stem from the gentle, tolerant ethos of Hinduism but from political agendas that exploit religious sentiment for power and control.
The Larger Ramifications
1. Erosion of Pluralism: The imposition of Hindu rituals in tribal and minority spaces sets a dangerous precedent, threatening the pluralistic ethos that defines India.
2. Communal Tensions: Such actions foster resentment and conflict, particularly in sensitive regions like the Northeast, where tribal identity is deeply tied to land and religion.
3. Undermining Constitutional Protections: Bypassing the rights of tribal communities erodes the constitutional safeguards that uphold India’s diversity.
4. Cultural Alienation: For communities like the Khasi, such actions risk alienating them from their heritage, pushing them toward cultural erasure.
Conclusion: A Call for upholding the Constitution of India and respect for diversity and secular values.
The Mawjymbuin Cave dispute is not just a clash over a sacred site—it is a test of India’s commitment to its constitutional values and its vision of unity in diversity. The gentle and compassionate essence of Hinduism must not be overshadowed by radical interpretations of Hindutva that seek to dominate rather than coexist. Similarly, the rights of tribal communities must be upheld as an integral part of India’s composite culture.
Resolving this conflict requires a nuanced approach rooted in dialogue, mutual respect, and constitutional principles. India’s strength lies in its ability to embrace diversity and foster harmony. Protecting the sanctity of Mawjymbuin Cave and respecting the beliefs of the Khasi community are not just moral imperatives—they are essential to preserving the very fabric of the nation.