History and the modern nation-states: analysis of Hindutva and Sinhalese Nationalism

Devika Mittal
Abstract: The contemporary World is divided into about 200 nations. These nations have, however, been
perceived to be a modern formulation. They have been known to have emerged in the modern period
under specific conditions in Europe and in the rest of the world, have resulted through colonization or
imperialism. But today they are a natural reality. However, even though they have been a product of
the rational and secular world, the idea of history has been very important to formulate and sustain it.
History has been used as an important tool in the making of a nation. It has been used not only to create
a nation but has also been used by ethnic groups within a nation to demand a separate nation. In this
paper, I attempt to explore how history has been successfully used by the majority population in India
and Sri Lanka to carve out an exclusive nation for them. In this attempt, I will also compare and contrast
the two cases. In the end of the paper, I will also challenge the modern, secular and rational
conception of nation-states.
Introduction
Nations and Nationalism are regarded to be a product of modernity. It is believed to be deeply infused
with the emergence of industrial revolution. According to the modernists, it is a byproduct of interaction
between state policies, commercial development (Industrial growth) and the emergence of a linguistic
uniformity. In the rest of the world, the idea of a nation was exported through the process of colonialism
or imperialism. (Hutchinston, 2000) Benedict Anderson, in his famous work The origins of Nationalism
have proposed the emergence of print capitalism to be linked with the emergence of the Imagined
communities the nations. (Anderson, 1983) Nations have been defined in a specific manner to
distinguish them from the political formations of the earlier period. They have been defined by the
modernists as secular political units infused with ideas of sovereignty, based on a system of
universalistic citizenship rights, with consolidated boundaries, monopoly of the central state over
coercion and a culturally homogenous unit with a standard vernacular language and print capitalism
(Hutchinson, 2000).
But as Hutchinson points out, there are several problems with this conception of the nation and nationstates. The Nation-states are Janus-faced: on the one hand, oriented to an ancient (often imaginary)
ethnic past and on the other, futuristic in mobilizing populations for collective autonomy and progress
(Narain 1975, as mentioned in Hutchinson, 2000). Nationalism has been used to create and re-create the
collective identity. Cultural nationalist intellectuals historians, artists, philologists, journalists, social
and religious reformers re-create national identities. They define the unique character of a nation in
time and space and engage in moral and social regeneration. Nationalism has been used to re-create a
sense of stability in times of crises and this is done by revoking or inventing a historical past. A
historical past with models of prosperity and stability are required to unify and energize generations.
(Hutchinson, 2000)
A shared sense of history is an important factor to bind people in a nation. This seems to be more
important in the decolonized nations. A glorified or romanticized past before the advent of colonialism
had constituted an important part of independence struggle, as was in the case of India. Conversely, in
some cases, like in the case of Pakistan, a past of suppression or neglect was required for the formation
of the nation and to arouse feelings of nationalism.
For, History is, as Historian E.H. Carr had remarked, a historians craft. History is an interpretation of
the historian. It allows for romantic interpretations of the past. History is an open field which can be

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2204618

approached by anyone. To each, his own history has been the mantra. Though history is subjective in
this sense, it holds a binding authority over its subjects (the audience). History has been used to seek
legitimacy. History tells us that those who have controlled history have ruled the world. This is because
though history has written and re-written by few, it remains unchallenged. History is weaved in with the
tools of nationalism. From the school textbooks to the ceremonies of the state, the carefully selected
history models the mentality of the citizens.
History has also been used for an emotional impact. This power of history has been realized by several
groups. It has served as a tool for oppressed groups to access political and economic gains. It has also
been used by ethnic groups for ethnic nationalism. In the instrumentalist theory of ethnicity, it is argued
that ethnicity is based on a historical memory. This historical past or shared sense of history which binds
people is also exploited by the leaders for benefits.
In the next section, I attempt to examine the use of history in religion-based Hindutva nationalism in
India and the ethnic nationalism of Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. I will attempt to see how history has been reinterpreted and re-invented to generate the politics of exclusion. I will attempt to find the similarities
and the contrasts in the two case studies.
Sinhalese Nationalism: Reviving a 2500-year-old Sinhala Buddhist tradition
In the 1950s, the Sinhalese-dominated Government came to power and what followed changed the
ethnic history of the Island Country of Sri Lanka. They had introduced reforms to elevate the status of
Buddhism, Sinhala language and traditions to the national status. They had also introduced quotas for
the Sinhalese population in the educational and bureaucratic systems to fight out economic
inequalities. This was based on the perception that that during the British era, the Tamils received
special concessions which gave them access to higher positions in the colonial civil services and
privileged them to dominate the fields of education, medicine and business. They had also launched
colonization schemes in some religions which had been previously dominated by Tamil-speaking
people.
The dominance of the Sinhalese language and traditions and the economic concessions to the majority
population was unacceptable by the Tamil minority. The protests were periodic but ultimately, led to
the formation of Tamil militant groups in the 1970s. The result was that since the 1980s, the Island
country of Sri Lanka has witnessed several civil wars between its Sinhalese majority and Tamil minority.
The ethnic riots of 1983 have been seen as the watershed in the Sri Lankan history. In the riots,
thousands of Tamils living in the southern Sinhala regions of the Island were systematically attacked and
murdered. Their homes were looted and torched during a week of mayhem which lasted for a week.
This has been known infamously as the Black July. Four periods of civil war and countless numbers of
attacks had occurred until a cease-fire agreement was signed in 2002 which lasted until 2006. Since
then, the Sinhalese Government has launched a military war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam(LTTE).
The roots of the ethnic violence have been sought by many in the ancient or medieval past while some
point out the special concessions of the British era. I will attempt to unearth this. However, as we see,
the fundamental causes of the ethnic clash are more of economic struggles for the scarce economic
resources. It is also a byproduct of awakened modern and nationalistic ethnic identities fostered by
emergence of the Sinhalese Government.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2204618

The emergence of the Sinhalese-dominated Government has also been the rise of the Sinhalese
nationalism. Sinhalese Nationalism upholds the supremacy of Buddhism, Sinhalese language and Sinhala
values, traditions and culture.
Nationalism, as defined by Jonathan Spencer, is a style of cultural production with nationalist scholars,
writers, artists and composers to uncover, create, protect or restore the true culture of the nation
(Spencer, 1990). The Sinhalese Government has been actively using tools of nationalism to promote
Sinhalese traditions and culture. For this, it has also realized the power of history and has re-interpreted
and re-invented history.
The fiddling with history can be seen in the very name of the country. The Island country of Sri Lanka has
been known by different names throughout its long history. To the Mediterranean world, it was known
as the gem-bearing region of Taprobane. The Mahayana Buddhist Sanskrit Literature refer to it as the
Simhaladvipa (the island of the Sinhalas). The Theravada Buddhist monks who had composed the
island chronicles Dipavamsa and Majavamsa referred to it as as the Dhammapida (the island of the
Buddhist teaching). The Tamils had always called it Eelam while the Sinhalese spoke of it as Lanka.
The British Colonial World referred to it as Ceylon. This was continued until in 1972, the Sinhalesedominated Government changed it to Sri Lanka. This selection of name shows the selection of a
particular past.
The dominant historical discourse in Sri Lanka sees Sinhala people as a small but ancient community
with a language spoken by only twelve or thirteen million people in the subcontinent, practicing the
ancient religion of Theravada Buddhism that has become extinct in most parts of India by the thirteenth
century CE. They were largely an agrarian society. They, thus, consider themselves as the proud
survivors of history, having resisted the major religious, political and cultural traditions that had spread
throughout the Indian subcontinent as the resistant bhakti tradition and the advent of Islam. With the
advent of British colonialism, the two-thousand-year-old line of kingship (which had patronized the
Buddhist religion) was discontinued. Buddhism was sidelined by the British and then abused by the
Protestant Christian missionaries while the language of the Sinhala people was completely neglected by
the British. It is also held that during the British period, the Tamils got many concessions and privileges
that allowed them to prosper and dominate over the Sinhala population (Holt, 2011).
The dynastic history of Sri Lanka had dynasties of both Tamil and Sinhalese rulers. The history narrates
the constant clash between the Tamils and the Sinhalese for royal power. The Sinhala dynasties were
often succeeded by the Tamil dynasties and would then be conquered by the Sinhala kings again.
However, the wars fought between the kings identified in modern histories as Sinhalese or Tamils
were not similar to the nature of the clashes in the contemporary period. There were also many
instances of integration and assimilation. For instance, the Sinhala Kings of the fifteenth and the
sixteenth century Kotte period and several kings of the Kandyan Period were inclusive in their public
rhetoric. Some of the kings of the nominally Sinhala Kandyan Period were ethnically Tamil who had
ruled over a predominantly Sinhala population. One of the Tamil Kings, Kirti Sri Rajasimha(r. 1751 - 82)
were responsible for a kind of renaissance in the Sinhala Buddhist culture (Holt, 2011).
However, the modern historians have re-interpreted history to suit the political needs. For instance, the
plunder by chola kings in the tenth and eleventh centuries have been exaggerated. For this, they have
made use of court chronicle, culavamsa, belonging to the dynasty which was overthrown and so held a
great contempt against the chola invaders and indulged in great detail and exaggerations. In a similar

way, the reasons accorded for the destruction of Rajarata Civilization has been primarily accorded to the
invasion by the Magha Kings of Kalinga(in present-day Orissa in India) (Hoole, 2011).
Jonathan Spencer (1990) has also studied Sinhalese Nationalism and the power of history. After the
Anti-Tamil riots, doubts and feelings of disillusionment seemed to have surfaced in the public discourse.
This had called to re-create the Sinhalese Nationalism and revive the pride in 2500 years of Sinhala
Buddhist culture in Sri Lanka. He analyzed the celebrated works of Wickramasinghe. Though, there were
some ambiguities as he had accepted the borrowing of certain elements from the Tamil culture and had
also appealed for adaptability, he had sowed seeds of Sinhala nationalism in the history of Buddhism
and the irrigated rice cultivation. For this, he had referred to the archaeological remains of the irrigation
works. As the wave of first nationalist politicians came to power in the 1930s, there were efforts to
repair and recreate some of the old irrigation tanks. The irrigated tank was symbolic of the nation of
Sinhalese rice farmers. It became a popular historical memory which would serve the goals of
Sinhalese nationalism. So when Spencer had asked school children to draw an image of their village,
they had painted a tank, a paddy field and a temple even when there was no temple and tank in their
village. This represented the ideal image of the village based on a romanticized and carefully-selected
historical past.
History has been used and interpreted by the majority to generate contempt against the migrants and
invaders. As we see, references have been made to the golden past with the ideal village, Buddhist
temple and irrigated paddy fields. The Government has also tried to create these ideal villages in many
parts of the country. This ideal past had existed before the invasions and waves of migrations.
Sinhalese nationalism has been deeply infused with a Sinhalese-oriented interpretation of history to
provide legitimacy to the anti-Tamil campaigns and attacks. The idea is to create a sense of a nation
which belonged and will always belong to the Sinhalese. The Tamils have been seen as invaders who had
disrupted the ideal and prosperous Sinhalese economy. History has also been used for an emotional
upheaval. The Sinhalese culture has been painted as a contrast to the other community. Sentiments of
superiority and hatred towards the other have been successfully created.
Hindutva Nationalism: Reviving the spirit of being a Hindu
On 6th December 1992, thousands of karsewaks had demolished the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, in the
state of Uttar Pradesh, to re-construct the Hindu Temple which marked the birthplace of Lord Ram.
The demolition was a symbolic move. It was meant to restore the glory of the hindus and the hindu
culture. It had restored the pride. It was a way to avenge and undo the historical wrong. These
were the popular sentiments that were invoked in these karsewaks and hindus across the nation.
But in reality, it was a political statement. It was the peak of Hindutva Nationalism. Before this
demolition, there was another such campaign to restore the pride by restoring the Somnath Temple
and a rath yatra (English equivalent for the term is a caravan) undertaken by leaders of the Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP). The Somnath Temple has a long history of destruction and then restoration. In the
past, it has been looted and destructed several times. But during this restoration, new elements were
added. To the memories of the looting and destruction inscribed on the temple walls, the memory of
the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni and the looting and destruction of the temple, dating back to the
twelfth-thirteenth century were added. Interestingly, these were not inscribed earlier on the temple
walls, even though the lootings by local rulers of later periods was mentioned.

As we see, in the first instance, BJP was trying to erase a memory and make a new one. However, in
the other, it was trying to highlight or invent a historical memory. They were trying to fiddle with the
historical past. This is because BJP is the major political faction for the revival of Hindutva nationalism in
post-independent India.
According to Sumit Sarkar (2002), though many political leaders have tried to fiddle with history in the
past, BJP seemed to be the most obsessed. So with the coming in of BJP-rule, text books were rewritten, in the BJP-ruled states they were communalized, the Indian Council of Historical research was
attacked and considerable checks were placed on what was being historically produced. History had
become very important for the state.
The reason lies in the very foundation of the political party. It was based on the ideology of Hindutva
and owed its success to it. The ideology of Hindutva was the cornerstone of the Sangh Parivar which
comprised of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS), Hindu Mahasabha, Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) and
several other groups. BJP was closely linked to the Sangh Parivar, more specifically to RSS.
V.D. Savarkar has been considered the father of the ideology of Hindutva. Savarkar was a Maharashtrian
Brahmin by birth and was a revolutionary to liberate the sacred motherland from the indignity of the
foreign rule. Before writing Hindutva, he had written the First War of Independence to
commemorate the revolt of 1857. In the First war of Independence, Savarkar had, interestingly,
celebrated the Hindu-Muslim unity and brotherhood. He had celebrated the united struggled the British
rule. He had written Hindutva while serving his term in the Andaman and Nicobar jail, more famouslt
know as the kaala paani. In the Hindutva, the united struggle is invited to carve out a Hindu rashtra
(the English equivalent for the term is nation) for the Hindus. Hindutva was a redefined concept of
nationalism anchored in the construct of Hindutva which meant the spirit of being a hindu rather than
the hindu religion. It had two main pillars, one resting on the land of birth or territory, the other on
land of worship or the birthplace of ones religious faith. He defined Hindu as Anyone who
regards and claims this bharatbhoomi from the Indus to the Seas as his fatherland and holy land.
Hindudom, as he defined it, is bound and marked out as a people and a nation by themselves not only
by the tie of a common holy land in which their religion took birth but by the ties of a common culture, a
common language, common history and essentially a common fatherland as well. By this, he had laid
the foundations of an exclusive nationalist ideology. He called those who had failed this test of a
common fatherland or holy land as communities, not a part of the nation (Prakash, 2002).
In other dimensions of the ideology, it has been seen as belonging primarily to the upper caste and
confined to the North Indian sensibilities. This may be because the south poses challenges to the
ideology in terms of language politics and their conception of historical pasts. Tamil Nationalism was
infact seen as a counter to Hindutva.
This ideology was adopted by the founder of RSS, K.B. Hedgewar. The Sangh Parivar has faithfully
followed this ideology and has tried to project it as the historical truth. RSS is a cultural organization
and preaches the ideal way of living for the Hindus. It enforces a strict code of conduct which,
according to it, constitutes the spirit of being a Hindu. However, history tells a different story. But
before I attempt to explore how history has been re-interpreted, it is interesting to note that V.D.
Savarkar had himself acknowledged in the Hindutva that he is writing the book with a political agenda.
As about the historical narrative, Hindutva is based on the notion that Hindus and Hinduism were
indigenous to the land and the Muslims came as invaders and destroyed the glory of the Hindu
religion and traditions and suppressed the Hindu population. It talks about the prosperous Hindu past

and highlights or invents instances of suppression by Muslim kings. The Mughal kings, except for
Akbar, have all been seen as communalist and cruel. Emperor Aurangzeb has been particularly
notorious. The collection of jizya has been cited as an example for the suppression of the Hindu
population during the Muslim rule. They have also successfully propagated the theory about mass
conversions to Islam. They have regarded Islam and the Muslims invaders as the fundamental cause
for the lost glory. Though Hindutva also projects Christians as aliens and also suspects them of
conversions (during the independence struggle, the shuddhi movement was launched to convert back
the Hindus who had converted to Christianity), the major enemy has largely been the Muslims.
However, all these arguments have now been contested and debunked. The basic proposition of the
Aryans (the progenitors of the Hindus and Hinduism) being indigenous to the land has been debunked.
The dominant historical discourse now talks about the Aryan immigration. This has been corroborated
by archaeological as well as textual sources. The theory about Muslim invasions has also been largely
contested. The basic argument has been that terms of Hindu and Muslims are a modern formulation
and cannot be imposed arbitrarily. Another fundamental argument is that there was no India to have
been invaded at that time. There were no boundaries in those times and so there was no sense of
Indian or foreign. Similar giving the kings, the modern terms of communalist, secular or Muslim
fundamentalists have also been protested again. For the case of the notorious Emperor Aurangzeb, it
has been shown how his policies were not necessarily designed to suppress the Hindu population but
were a response to the economic needs. The theory about mass conversions has not found any
corroboration in the literary sources of the concerned period. The ideology of Hindutva does not given
much space to the Dravidian South. This can be understood as the limitations in the history-making. The
history of South India is not given much space in the dominant historical discourse owing to the fact that
many kings had opposed the Aryans and Aryan rule and challenges the Hindutva interpretation of
the Aryan history.
Thus, we see how Hindu nationalism or Hindutva was based primarily on the idea of History. History had
laid the foundation as well as had sustained it. They had carved out a history that had glorified the Hindu
religion and traditions and had targeted the Muslims who they had regarded as invaders. So the
karsewaks during the Babri Majid demolition went with slogans like Paste lagao dabur ka, naam hatao
babur ka (Use dabur as the toothpaste and remove the name of Babur) or maarenge marjayenge,
mandir yahi banaenge (we will kill or we will die but we will construct the temple at that very point).
The Babri Masjid demolition was an attempt to erase the history of suppression of the majority
Hindu population.
Hindutva and Sinhalese Nationalism: Contrasts and Similarities
As we have seen, there seems to have been several similarities in the two case studies. Both Hindutva
and Sinhalese Nationalism are nationalism of the majority. Both Hindus and the Sinhalese constitute the
majority in their respective countries. Yet, both of them have expressed a fear or a threat by the
minority. Another similarity is the over-emphasis in the reinterpretation of the history to seek legitimacy
and sustenance. In both the cases, the carefully-selected/written history talks about a history of
suppression by the minority. In both the cases, the historians have also exaggerated the invasions or
plunders. In the case of India, the Hindutva nationalists had sought to re-conquer the invaded site, as
in the case of Babri Masjid demolition. Both cases of nationalism have also developed a severe
contempt, though relatively controlled, for the colonizers. I had chosen India and Sri Lanka as the case
studies as there exists a hostile relationship owing to the ethnic clash in Sri Lanka between the Sinhalese
population and the Tamil population (the Tamils are also present in India) but what has been found is

that that while India has blamed Sri Lanka for the suppression of the minority, the Hindutva politics in
India has also done the same thing. The Hindutva politics does not cover Tamil culture and history.
Infact, tamil nationalism has been seen as a combat or counter to the ideology of Hindutva.
There are also major deviations in the two case studies. The fundamental contrast between the two
case studies is that while Hindutva nationalism is primarily based on religion, Sinhalese nationalism is
meant for a particular ethnic group, the Sinhalese. While in both cases, the minority was believed to
have received special concessions in the British period, in the case of Sri Lanka, economic struggles
between the groups have been projected as a cause for the ethnic clash. This is not so apparent in the
case of India. The Muslims were condemned largely for a moral or religious degeneration. In the
case of India, as has been emphasized, the use and importance of history seems to have been greater as
its foundation as well as sustenance was dependent on it. The emergence of BJP in the politics was a
result of the two events the restoration of Somnath and the Babri Masjid demolition. In the agenda,
BJP had mentioned the re-construction of the Ram Temple at the contested site. As another contrast,
as mentioned, in the dominant historical discourse in the case of Sri Lanka, there are still elements
which acknowledge borrowing or adopting practices from the Tamil culture. This is, however, totally
absent in the case of Hindutva nationalism. The Hindu nation with its traditions and culture have been
said to be self-sufficient and complete. No space has been allotted for any negotiation or integration.
And lastly, the tragic contrast is that in India, Hindutva nationalism is no longer the dominant force and
has been side-lined to a large extent, Sinhala nationalism continues to be a lived experience.
Conclusion
As we see, history has proved to be a powerful tool in the hands of the nationalists. In the case of India
and Sri Lanka, it has been used by the majority populations to claim the nation and its resources. They
have re-invented history to regard themselves as the rightful and true people of the soil. They have
infused this constructed historical past in the popular mentalities through nationalist speeches, writings,
state ceremonies and school textbooks. History was used effectively to invoke sentiments of hatred and
violence among the people. History was used to create a history of bloodshed and unforgettable
trauma.
History is also used in nationalist struggles to revoke the past. It has been used to revive the older
traditions. History has been depicted as a goal. Conquering it or going back to the past has also been
considered as the destiny in some cases. This has also been true in the two case studies.
However, in all this, I was also reminded of the modernist argument of nations being secular, rational
and of a modern formulation. How does this fantasy of past, the attempt to revive it or use it features in
this argument? How can something so rational and modern make use of the ancient and often
mythical to sustain it? How are the nations then modern? But there are other features of the
modern nation-states but those features can also be met by other political formulations. Can we talk
about nations in the past? The other features defining a nation can also be contested. So are modern
nation-states, modern only because they feature in the modern period of history?

References:*Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagines Communities. London and New York: Verso
*ed. Holt, John Clifford. 2011. The Sri Lanka Reader. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
*Hutchinson, John. 2000. Ethnicity and Modern Nations, Ethnic and Racial studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 :651669.
*Prakash, Virendra. 2002. Hindutva Mystified. New Delhi: Virgo Publications.
*Sarkar, Sumit. 2002. Beyond Nationalist Frames. Delhi: Permanent Black.
*Spencer, Jonathan. 1990. Writing Within: Anthropology, Nationalism and Culture in Sri Lanka(and
comments and reply), Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 3:283-300.