How The Politics of Cultural Revivalism Fosters Hegemony of a Particular Class and Religion

For the past 1,000 years, Hindus and Muslims have lived together in the geographical area that we call India. Yet, there are signs of a growing disconnect between the two communities. For instance, if we ask a Muslim child why Diwali is celebrated, he would not only narrate mythological stories of Ram’s courage and victory but also might be seen burning firecrackers on Diwali.

On the other hand, if I inform a Hindu child that it is Moharram today, he might wish me “Happy Moharram,” unaware of its significance.

While this demonstrates the sheer ignorance and lack of communication that has been deepening within the country, on a macro level, it shows that the disconnect is symptomatic of larger efforts to create a cultural hegemony under the guise of nationalism, fueled by fear and revivalist politics.

It is not to say that the two religious communities have always existed peacefully, but the extent of revivalist tendencies, fear-based politics, and state's involvement is a cause for concern. They are used to create a social order that fosters the marginalisation and hegemony of a particular class and religion.

Two simultaneous processes of extreme nationalism and reviving cultural hegemony are the primary causes of the growing divide between communities in India. This extreme nationalism conflicts with the concept of secularism, as it is nothing but a nostalgic return to claims of a Hindu “golden age,” untainted by the intrusions of Muslims and Christians.

The concern here is not just about Hindu-Muslim unity but about the fear that stems from unpredictable mob behaviour within both communities.

Fear has increasingly become a unifying factor, fostering community solidarity and, on a larger scale, nationalism. The expansion of the idea of a Hindu Rashtra stems from the fear of being outnumbered by a minority community.

The fantasy of national purity and wholeness leads the majority community to construct a predatory identity. This predatory identity mobilises around anxiety about their incompleteness, and concerns about the growing birth rates of the minority community. It seeks to assert dominance and preserve its power by viewing minorities as threats.

The insecurity is not only cultural; states are also subjected to it. Globalisation and other factors have left nations feeling insecure regarding their sovereignty. These global uncertainties lead states to use nationalism as a tool to unite citizens. States constantly try to stay relevant in an international system of anarchy and unpredictability.

The rise of nationalism and community solidarity is often fueled by fear. Rather than overtly coercing citizens into nationalistic unity, a consensual dominance is established by certain social classes that wish to extend their leadership. Consequently, dominant cultural practices become naturally adopted as a "way of life," blurring the distinction between actions and thoughts.

The state, once purely administrative, now takes on the role of shaping socio-cultural practices in daily life. Right-wing expansionist states have historically used cultural and religious revivalism to both fuel fear and foster isolation, while simultaneously reviving "long-lost" cultural practices and unity.

In this process, states may endorse hegemonic cultural practices, such as languages, festivals, food habits, and even clothing styles, to restore cultural dominance. Through an implicit social contract, the state uses these cultural practices to both legitimise itself and govern its citizens.

India’s secular framework prevents the direct imposition of specific cultural or religious norms, but non-state actors often work behind the scenes to establish cultural hegemony. Hindu nationalism is prompted by these anxieties.

“India's pride, culture, and innate faith is now on course to be where it was long back when it showed the way to the world,” Union home minister Amit Shah’s words indicate a state-backed cultural revivalism. This instigates political fear among Muslims, a minority religion.

Religious and social organisations must adapt to remain relevant. While Hinduism has not seen significant progressive movements since the Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj in the 19th century, the RSS has highlighted the need for a Hindu Rashtra.

The right-wing focus on recreating a "lost" Hindu cultural space often involves extreme measures to promote dominant cultural and religious practices while showing reluctance and ignorance towards others. This societal fear leads to the “othering” of other religions and cultures. While reform movements exist in response to present social scenarios, revivalism revolves around an imaginary future.

What further intensifies insecurities is the economic side of promoting social and cultural practices. Cultural revivalism also has an economic angle to it. Progressive social movements do not generate capital, but religion surely does. Religion enables the wealthy and creates a false consciousness among the poor by justifying their conditions.

Large-scale religious festivals like the Kumbh Mela and Diwali are now commercialised events, with massive economic stakes involved. This intersects with the wider narrative of nationalism and creating a national identity, usually aligned with the dominant religion. The commodification of religious practices serves both economic and political interests, as it reinforces the dominant narrative of cultural superiority while generating capital for the wealthy.

This poses a further question: who are these cultural events and festivities for? The monopoly over social events demonstrates how economic resources enforce social relations in society.

This phenomenon is not solely religious. Even within the dominant religion, marginalised classes are subjected to the hegemonic nature of culture. Marginalised communities within the dominant socio-religious group, such as Dalits, are often incentivised to join the larger Hindu sect. The larger group is encouraged to move beyond historical prejudices, promising inclusion for marginalised groups.

However, the promised emancipation of Dalits through assimilation is often built on shaky ground. Assimilation within the Hindu social order does not guarantee better conditions for the marginalised; rather, it serves as a means of uniting against a common enemy.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, in a recent speech, urged Hindus to unite and leave the past behind, suggesting that historical subjugation would no longer haunt the lower castes if they assimilate. However, the incentive must go beyond that.

The grey area lies in whether joining a united Hindu identity would truly alleviate the plight of the most downtrodden and segregated communities. If a Hindu Rashtra were to be established, would the same incentive apply, and which cultural norms would dictate the new social order? If the promise of emancipation is merely a fairy tale, the hierarchical dynamics would remain unchanged in an imagined Hindu Rashtra. A “subordinate” class would still exist under the banner of Hinduism.

The illusion of cultural revivalism serves only to mobilise the masses, fostering fear and intolerance among the various cultures that exist in India today. Fear of a common enemy is not permanent. Once the illusion of a united Hindu nation evaporates, justification takes over.

The predatory class goes to extensive lengths to create theories and proofs of this “natural” social imbalance and inequality. The historically underprivileged classes accept their natural position in society. This internalised marginalisation enables the dominant classes and cultures to take over the public space.

While cultural revivalism may mobilise the masses and serve political and economic interests, it ultimately perpetuates intolerance and inequality. In a multicultural nation like India, where pluralism is deeply ingrained, cultural conflicts are inevitable. Social injustices, arising from cultural dominance, are harder to address through universal notions of justice. Can social justice truly exist if one culture consistently dominates others?

The answer lies in a context-sensitive approach that minimises conflict and confrontation. State-backed cultural revivalism not only marginalises minority communities but also reinforces existing hierarchies within the dominant religion.

Pluralism naturally fosters friendly coexistence where mutual respect and acknowledgment of boundaries exist. However, this balance is fragile, often giving way to a friend-enemy dynamic. Fostering true pluralism and social justice requires moving beyond hegemonic practices to ensure that all communities can coexist with mutual respect and equality.

Anurakti Vajpeyi is a student of international relations at the South Asian University.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.