The divisive call for ‘One Nation, One Culture’

The RSS spearheads the ideological battle for monoculturalism. With already 80% of the population Hindu, it must Hinduise it through constant ideological effort

On March 23, at its annual executive meeting, the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) resolved once again to push for ‘One Nation, One Culture’.

The call for ‘One Nation, One Culture’ has come at a time when the southern states of India are already agitated over issues of language imposition, delimitation of constituencies, and the threat to federalism from over-centralisation.

The RSS slogan echoes the idea of a unitary nationhood already used to name several government policies at the Centre: One Nation, One Tax (GST); One Nation, One Ration Card; One Nation, One Health Card; One Nation, One Grid; One Nation, One Election; Uniform Civil Code; etc. Speaking in the debate on 75 years of the Indian Constitution, Prime Minister Narendra Modi told the Lok Sabha that his government had introduced several ‘One Nation’ benefits to “strengthen the unity of the country”.

While uniformity may arguably help in making and administering policy, extending it into the realm of culture is fraught with problems. The nation is a political construct, while culture is an ideological one.

The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which defined the concept of the nation-state established that nations are defined by political interest and not necessarily by sharing a cohesive identity or even language.

The political boundaries of all nations are artificial and a consequence of the dynamic of history. India is no exception. For example, its shape in 1947 was significantly determined by which princely states acceded to India or Pakistan.

The national anthem, national flag, and other national symbols and constructs (Fatherland, Motherland, Bharat Mata, National Bird, National Animal, National Flower, etc.) are used to create an illusion of a community with a common purpose. These are also aspects of culture, since it is a catch-all term, but they do not necessarily lead to national unity or a homogeneous culture.

The construction of national identity also happens through celebrating national holidays (Independence Day, Republic Day, Martyrs’ Day, etc.), participating in national rituals (singing the national anthem, hoisting the flag), participating in international sporting competitions, travelling abroad on a national passport, learning about the nation’s history, language(s) and ethos in schools, and also in fighting a war with other nations. The rest of the time, people do not act as a ‘nation’.

However, are the State-sponsored or facilitated constructs of national culture enough to foster social cohesion and national stability?

One might rightly ask: Why did Soviet culture fail to hold together the 15 Soviet republics after the political collapse of the Soviet Union in1991? Or more recently, why didn’t the Yugoslav culture hold the nation together and it broke into six republics — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later, Serbia and Montenegro)? Does Italian culture lie in North Italy or in the South? Is American culture centred in cosmopolitan Manhattan or in the country’s redneck hinterland?

The fact is that despite the rhetoric of militant nationalism, cultural tropes and national unity do not align except under specific circumstances. The hyperbole of culture and national unity often align only in the rhetoric of militant nationalism. To urge them to serve each other is an ideological call. Such calls are clearly not limited to India.

This is evident in the parochial and insular, militant nationalist movements growing across the world. In France, Hungary, Poland, and the Netherlands, they are based on ‘de-foreignisation’ of national culture, restoring a standard language, and painting migrants, minority ethnicities, and religions as a threat to ‘national values’.

The ideological discourse of a singular, homogeneous, and coherent national identity merges nation with culture as in, “Hindustan mein rehna hai to Hindu banker rahna hoga (if you want to live in Hindustan then you have to live as Hindu), “France for the French”, “Keep Sweden Swedish”, “Our civilisation, Our rules” (Poland), “Islam does not belong to Germany” and even, “Make America Great Again”. It is aimed at creating, and unfortunately does create, a high degree of ideological consensus among the people.

This ideological consensus is forged and fanned in India by the RSS leadership, the mothership leading a flotilla of ragtag boats flying the saffron flag. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as the ruling party at the Centre, has over the last two decades institutionalised these dominant (Hindu) values, that are reflected by the entire political, social, and legal environment today.

The most recent examples are the ‘legal reasoning’ in the judgement in the land dispute in Ayodhya wherein, upholding ‘faith’ over facts, the judgement emphasised that “it is true that in matters of faith and belief, the absence of evidence may not be an evidence of absence”. Then there are the examples of the judiciary waking up far too late to the homes of Muslim protestors being bulldozed by the BJP state government and the higher judiciary unable to discipline a judge of the Allahabad High Court who proclaimed from the platform of a communal organisation, “This is Hindustan, and this country would function as per the wishes of the “bahusankhyak (majority)”.

The RSS spearheads the ideological battle for monoculturalism. With already 80 per cent of the population Hindu, it must Hinduise it through constant ideological effort. The BJP can then push this project through the institutions of the State.

Given the multidimensional heterogeneity of India and the bulwark of the Indian Constitution, perhaps this project cannot be completed easily. However, the articulation of monoculturalism is getting sharper by the day regardless of alienating communities and regions whose cultural practices and languages are not included in defining the dominant culture.

Those in India who are already marginalised will tend to see the ‘One Culture’ push as fostering exclusionary practices and reinforcing the cycles of poverty and discrimination that afflict them. It can also trigger radicalisation and intolerance by heightening social strains. Even the mere fear of Hindi imposition on the southern states, for example, can lead to consequences that could be disastrous for India.

United India has already faced the Partition of 1947 based on identifying the nation with one singular religion. There is no reason for the RSS to repeat a historical mistake by ignoring the diverse identities and cultures that make up India and spur renewed tension, conflict, and fissiparous tendencies.

(Bharat Bhushan is a New Delhi-based journalist.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.