Can Traditionalism be accommodated within the Hindutva framework?

   While Hindutva as an ideology may not be as rigidly defined as Western ideologies like communism or liberalism, it does encompass certain core principles that are commonly associated with it. These principles are increasingly identified with the Hindutva paradigm and shape its vision for society. Some of these core principles include:

1) Anti-Caste System (Varna Vyavastha): Hindutva ideology often promotes the idea of equality and opposes the traditional caste system, advocating for a society where caste identities are either diluted for the larger/primary Hindu identity or caste identities cease to exist 

2) Samarasata (Community Harmony): Hindutva emphasizes the importance of fostering harmony and unity among different communities, irrespective of religious or cultural differences. It envisions a society where people from diverse backgrounds coexist peacefully.

3) Antyodaya (Upliftment of the Underprivileged): Hindutva ideology emphasizes the upliftment of the marginalized and underprivileged sections of society, aiming to ensure that every individual, especially the "last person," has access to basic rights and opportunities for growth.

The concept of Hindu Rashtra, as envisaged by sincere Hindutva ideologues, is one where these principles form the foundation, with Hindu culture and civilization serving as the larger rubric under which these principles operate.

Historically influential figures associated with Hindutva ideology, such as V.D. Savarkar, Guruji Golwalkar, and Deen Dayal Upadhyay, have articulated these core beliefs in their speeches and writings. Organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliated groups, collectively known as the Sangh Parivar, have also championed these principles.

While the intentions of Hindutva ideologues and organizations are aimed at uplifting Hindu society, a fundamental principle of Hindutva stands in contrast with the core beliefs of historically traditional Hindu society. This principle is the anti-caste rhetoric advocated by Hindutva proponents, which conflicts with the entrenched birth-based Varna-jaati system traditionally followed in Bharatiya Hindu society for at least two millennia.

In the twentieth century, Dharmasamrat Swami Karpatri Maharaj and his Ram Rajya Parishad represented a modern embodiment of traditionalist thought. They differed with the Sangh Parivar on significant issues including the Varna Vyavastha. This divergence reflects a modern-era division which has been created in the historically traditional Hindu society due to the possible wrong application of the principle of egalitarianism on Varna-jaati complex.

It is important to note that within Hindu society, the traditionalist faction currently wields significantly less political and social influence compared to Hindutva-aligned groups. While online platforms may showcase the vocal opposition of these neo-traditionalist (will make a separate blog on traditionalist vs neo-traditionalist) sections to the Sangh Parivar's worldview, the ground reality reflects substantial support for the Sangh among many Dharmic seers. It's crucial to recognize that the debate extends beyond just the Varna Vyavastha, encompassing a fundamental disparity in approaches between the reformist Sangh and the orthodox traditionalists concerning religion.

To illustrate this disparity, consider the issue of female priests officiating weddings. While many within the Sangh may not oppose this practice outright (although not unanimously), it's likely that individuals from the broader Indian Non-left spectrum supporting female priests would predominantly emerge from the Sangh Parivar. In contrast, traditionalists staunchly oppose such practices citing adherence to Shastras, which clearly delineate such rules.

This dichotomy underscores a fundamental difference in approach. The Sangh demonstrates a willingness to adapt certain Shastra-based rules in the interest of Hindu unity and in alignment with their belief in egalitarian principles. For instance, while they might support female priests, they might still uphold certain restrictions on women such as those in the Sabrimala temple, arguing that similar rules apply to men in other temples as well, thereby preserving what they perceive as equality.

While the Sangh Parivar differs from Ambedkarites, Dravidianists, and Leftists in its approach to Hindu texts, it is indeed willing to make compromises in adherence to Shastras for what it deems as the 'greater good' or the 'larger picture'. However, it's essential to note that even traditionalist sections of Hindu society have historically facilitated ease of religious practice for the average follower, albeit not necessarily driven by political motives or the desire to portray themselves as 'true liberals'. Regardless of their intentions, decisions regarding leniency towards Shastric injunctions should ideally rest with those who hold authority in religious matters, considering the context of Desh Kaal Paristithi (time, place, and circumstances).

Having outlined the disparities between the Sangh and traditionalists regarding Hindu religious matters, it prompts a crucial question: Can the traditionalist faction coexist within the Hindutva framework as the Sangh Parivar gains strength and popularity, or does it need to pursue an alternative path to safeguard its core principles? With the growing influence of the Sangh, it might become increasingly challenging for traditionalists to assert their terms concerning Hindu religion. Moreover, the Sangh and its supporters may not be inclined to accommodate the concerns raised by traditionalists, particularly if they are critical of the BJP, Modi, or the Sangh, as evidenced during the Pran Pratistha of Ram Lalla.

This raises complex considerations for traditionalists within the Hindutva fold. They must weigh the preservation of their principles against the evolving landscape of Hindu politics and the potential marginalization within a dominant Sangh narrative.

In the past as well, there have been instances where individuals from the pro-Hindu side, such as Shri. Sitaram Goel, have offered critiques of the Sangh Parivar. While I'm not currently familiar with the specific grievances he had with the Sangh Parivar, it's possible that one aspect of contention could have been its approach towards dealing with Political Islam. However, delving into this topic warrants separate consideration, as it involves understanding the arguments critical of the Sangh Parivar's stance on Political Islam.

Furthermore, I have previously touched upon the challenges of accommodating Ambedkarite thought within the framework of Hindutva. It's important to examine these issues in detail to grasp the complexities surrounding the integration of diverse ideological perspectives within the broader Hindutva movement. As I try to write more and more regularly, I will touch upon the neo-traditionalist thought & offer my own 'neo-trad' perspective on the seemingly unimportant debates on X (formerly, twitter) which are of similar flavour as the current topic at hand.

P.S. - To be fair to the Sangh, there are traditionalist sections within the Sangh which try to tone down the reformist rhetoric but I am told that these sections within the Sangh aren't dominant & don't hold much sway.