Reframing The Nationalism Debate: Who Is ‘Othering' Whom?

News18

17-07-2025

What is particularly troubling is that the expositions of Hindutva, or Hindu Nationalism, are often one-sided
Free speech and the free exchange of ideas are the hallmarks of a democracy. Newspapers in a democracy serve as revered platforms that should facilitate the expression of diverse viewpoints within the bounds of civility, even if the establishment does not endorse those opinions.
A major newspaper is currently hosting a heated debate on the prevailing nationalism in India. However, what is particularly troubling is that the expositions of Hindutva, or Hindu Nationalism, are often one-sided. These pieces are typically written not by its proponents or even objective critics, but by its adversaries who openly display their counter-ideologies.
These essays often suffer from a lack of knowledge, distort facts, and rely on biased logical analyses. The result is a flawed but convenient conclusion that satisfies the preconceived notions of Hindutva's detractors. Three articles that recently appeared in that newspaper fall into this category: Yogendra Yadav's 'The nationalism we forgot" (Indian Express, May 27), Suhas Palshikar's 'Who stole my nationalism?" (IE, May 31), and Akeel Bilgrami's 'The nation, the state and the other: Hindutva's imprint on nationalism in India" (June 16, IE). Thus, I feel compelled to present a rejoinder that is both historically accurate and rationally robust.
How valid is the charge of 'othering' levelled against Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism?
Yogendra Yadav writes: 'The nationalism we inherited from our freedom struggle was very different. To borrow an expression from John A Powell, Indian nationalism was about 'belonging without othering.' It sought to build the nation by creating a deep sense of national belonging without inventing external or internal enemies. This Indian nationalism is under assault today. The newfangled nationalism cannot think about fostering a sense of belonging without an aggressive campaign of othering."
Akeel Bilgrami adds: 'Yogendra Yadav (IE, May 27) stresses a familiar distinction between two nationalisms. He invokes a vivid label — 'belonging without othering' — to characterise the distinction. The nationalism pursued in the freedom struggle exemplified this label. The nationalism in Europe precisely did not, neither does the nationalism in currency in India today."
This inference about 'othering' in the context of current nationalism is not only conceptually dishonest but also historically inaccurate. 'Othering' as a phenomenon did not originate with the advent of Hindutva, nor was it, as these writers claim, the core strategy guiding the rise of Hindu Nationalism. The notion of othering can be traced back much earlier in the subcontinent, starting with Muslim rulers who introduced the derogatory term 'kafir' to define others. Jizya tax imposed solely on Hindus during the regime of Islamic kings was a systematic act of othering. Moreover, the 'othering' of Hindus was a state-sanctioned policy endorsed by Muslim clerics and scholars, making it a systemic policy.
When the Mughal Emperor Akbar tried to introduce a more syncretic culture, he was hounded by Muslim clerics, and the ideology of 'othering' resurfaced with a vengeance. MJ Akbar, in his book 'Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan," writes: 'The vision, however, was determined by an idea with lasting power, the search for 'Islamic space' on the Indian subcontinent. The search began during the ebb of the Mughal Empire, and its formative ideology was shaped by the powerful mind of Shah Waliullah." Shah Waliullah was a Sunni scholar born in 1703, four years before the death of Aurangzeb. Waliullah succeeded Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, who had charged Emperor Akbar with apostasy for seeking to create a shared Muslim-Hindu culture. Waliullah built upon Sirhindi's idea of reform and fashioned a compelling argument for a jihad to establish a post-Mughal Islamic state in India. Waliullah's prescription was radical and intellectually rigorous. He proposed that Indian Muslims needed to be purged of Hindu influences to recover their pristine, victorious self, as contact with the infidel undermined the faith. This was essential for a true jihad against the rising Hindu powers, which had usurped space from the Mughals, Marathas, and Jats.
MJ Akbar further explains that Shah Waliullah elaborated on achieving this end: 'Faith had to be pure, and separation was the antidote to pollution. This is what might be called the 'theory of distance.' The difference between believer and infidel had been blurred in India and could be corrected only through forms of alienation. He told Muslims to live at such a distance from Hindus that they would not be able to see the light of fires in Hindu homes."
Inherent to this jihad to re-establish Muslim hegemony in India was the notion that Muslims were a superior people, separate from the local natives. The 'theory of distance' dictated maintaining a safe distance to prevent 'pollution.' 'Othering' was and remains the sine qua non of Muslim presence in the subcontinent. The ghettoization of the Muslim community seen today cannot be blamed on the so-called 'othering' by the Hindu majority; it is the direct outcome of this 'theory of distance,' a script for insular exclusivity.
The establishment of Pakistan was the direct result of the crystallisation of Shah Waliullah's ideas or the 'theory of distance.' This idea of separateness, or the quest for 'Muslim space' in the subcontinent, did not fade with Shah Waliullah's death in 1762; it persisted in the writings of Muslim scholars and clerics. In the 1800s, Syed Ahmad bin Syed Muhammad Muttaqi (1817-1898), commonly known as Sir Syed and the founder of Aligarh Muslim University, picked up the baton. Building on Shah Waliullah's 'theory of distance,' Sir Syed was one of the first to invoke the 'two-nation' theory. He consistently referred to Muslims as a nation. In his famous speech at Meerut in 1888, he stated: 'Now, suppose that all English and the whole English army were to leave India, taking with them all their cannon and their splendid weapons and everything, then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations — the Mahomedans and the Hindus — could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other."
MJ Akbar describes how Sir Syed laid the foundation for the establishment of the Muslim League and eventually Pakistan: 'In October 1906, a group of Aligarh alumni initiated a chain of events that culminated in the creation of Pakistan when they helped draft a charter of demands to the viceroy that asked for separate electorates for Muslims, dividing politics along communal lines. In December that year, the annual education conference established by Sir Syed reconstituted itself as a political party, the All-India Muslim League. Within four decades, the Muslim League converted the politics of distance into a separate nation."
'Othering' was a concept formally emphasized by Shah Waliullah in the 1700s and practically executed by Sir Syed in the 1800s, leading to the formation of separate electorates for Muslims and ultimately the creation of Pakistan in 1947.
The ethnic cleansing of more than a quarter million Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir is another manifestation of this inherent 'othering' that persists even today. This othering is systemic and strategic, unlike the isolated, knee-jerk reactions of Hindu outbursts or cow vigilantism.
It is also important to note the timeline of these events. By the time VD Savarkar propounded his theory of Hindutva in 1923, Hindus had already been 'othered' into a community with fewer electoral rights than Muslims in 1906, and the 'two-nation' theory had been floated by Sir Syed in 1888.
Despite the uproar regarding the 'othering' of Muslims under the BJP, an objective perspective does not lend credibility to these accusations. Unlike Pakistan and Bangladesh, where non-Muslims are systematically 'othered' and constitutionally relegated to second-class status, the Indian Constitution under the BJP still ensures equal rights to all citizens. Courts are not swayed by religion in their verdicts, computerized entrance exams to colleges make discrimination along religious lines almost impossible, and an analysis of UPSC results in recent years shows an increasing number of Muslims making the grade.
Yogendra Yadav's and Akeel Bilgrami's views of the so-called 'othering' stem from a narrow, selective, and self-serving snapshot of events in the subcontinent. Their perspective is neither comprehensive, accurate, nor cogent in its scope.
top videos
View all
The so-called othering of Muslims in current times is merely noise and not the reality on the street.
The writer is a US-based author. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
view comments
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
July 10, 2025, 12:14 IST
News opinion Opinion | Reframing The Nationalism Debate: Who Is 'Othering' Whom?
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.