In a recent interview with the Wire, Govindacharya articulates an emerging Bharatiya

framework with enormous ambitions, including a complete overhaul of the Indian

constitution. Whether this intellectual movement has the blessings of the current
government is irrelevant for our purposes - theres internal evidence in the interview that
alls not well in the relationship between the ideologue and the prime minister, but thats
beside the point - the force of Govindacharyas argument is ideological rather than the
conduct of everyday politics.
Perhaps the most remarkable element in a wide ranging interview is the introduction of a
new term in our political vocabulary: Bharatiya. Equally remarkable is the complete absence
of a term we have come to expect from the parivar: Hindutva - which is mentioned by the
interviewer but never by the interviewee. Are we to assume that Bharatiyata will supersede
or supplement Hindutva? In any case, the Bharatiya idea is counterposed (deliberately?)
with the idea of India as a conservative idea of citizenship. It's an idea worth exploring as
an idea.
What is Bharatiyata? The interview offers some clues:
Its genealogy comes from Rama, who is the embodiment of Bharatiya values, which
reminds us of the idealization of Jesus amongst political strains of evangelical Christianity
and of Mohammed in political Islam. The Bharatiya has the best deal of the three, since his
ideal is incarnated God rather than his son or his prophet. In the transformation of Rama
from the Hindu maryada purushottam to the embodiment of Bharatiya values we have a
new argument for building a temple in the disputed location: for any nation, its values and
embodiment of values have to be venerated and if that doesnt happen, then civilisation
doesnt march. In other words, its no longer a matter of the hurt sentiments of a religious
community, but that of civilizational progress.
So what is the basic structure of Bharatiya society? For one, the basic unit of that society
is the family, not the individual and since Govindacharyas goal is to transform the Indian
constitution, he quotes the Cuban constitution as a peer from which we can learn. Our
current constitution is flawed because it is vague, non-specific and basically a continuation
of western philosophies of Hobbes, Locke and Kant. It is individual-centric and focused on
his physical wellbeing. In other words, the western liberal focus on the rights of the
individual are in conflict with the Bharatiya focus on the primacy of the family. That focus on
the human individual is also in conflict with the rights of nonhuman nature:
I mean not just rights of the cow, but a holistic view of zamin, jal, janwar, jungle; for only in
this protection lies the well-being of man. All the five must have sacred rights, and this

should not just be rights-based but duty-based, and not just be components of state
power.
Its a remarkable statement that in a different context might well be articulated by an
environmental theorist. In it, we see the potential power of the Bharatiya position: by
aligning itself with a post-liberal order with its regard for climate change, environmental
collapse and the welfare of nonhuman beings, its recasting the Hindutva message in
expansive terms: not only does Bharatiyata have a distinguished lineage, it also presents a
vision of human flourishing attuned to contemporary progressive concerns. Indeed, that
vision is further articulated through its opposition to corporate cronyism, where he says I
believe corporates should be reined in for several reasons, for otherwise naturally
questions arise in peoples minds.
Paradoxically, a western progressive will welcome much of this analysis. In that lies a direct
challenge to the Indian progressive which can be put as follows: while your colonised mind
thinks in the categories of western and semitic imperialism, Bharatiyata an indigenous
framework with a sacred lineage that also happens to lie at the cutting edge of
contemporary global politics.
In other words, on some issues, Bharatiyata can position itself as superior and more
progressive than the Indian left - with its focus on caste and communalism- while also
drawing a sharp boundary between who counts as Bharatiya and who doesnt.
Its a subtle position. Its also irredeemably flawed. While we can debate its flaws on several
grounds - such as the political background against which it has been positions - we believe
it's best to debate it as the Bharatiya idea, an idea that sees itself as a genuine alternative
to the liberal idea of India.
In fact, Bharatiyata is a flawed idea even in its most generous version; for example, even
after assuming that any human born within the current boundaries of the Indian nation
state qualifies as Bharatiya enough. Let us just take the most progressive claim in
Govindacharya's interview: "I mean not just rights of the cow, but a holistic view of zamin,
jal, janwar, jungle." Does Bharatiyata guarantee the outcome that's being claimed on its
behalf? We are skeptical. In order to see why, we can probe the concept along two lines:
1. Does the holistic view of Bharatiyata have the lineage that it claims to have?
2. Does Bharatiyata have the capacity to address the modern challenges of protecting
the rights of zamin, jal, janwar, jungle?
While the long tradition of Indian philosophical and moral literature has much to offer, it's
not unproblematic; to take just two prominent examples, both the Mahabharata and the

Ramayana turn on the killing of deer by a major protagonist. Rama kills a deer (the
rakshasa Mareecha in disguise) because Sita wants its hide. When Pandu is cursed by the
dying deer-sage, he complains that it's within a king's dharma to kill a deer by any means,
either by bravery or by trickery. Would that constitute a "holistic view of janwar?"
It's possible - though not easy - to pick and choose only those parts of the Indian traditions
that support the Bharatiya idea, but that will only go to show that the idea is a modern one
that's being retrofitted. If so, why not dispense with the lineage?
Moving on to the modern capabilities of a potential Bharatiya idea, how might it go about
addressing the challenges of climate change or environmental degradation, let alone
ensuring the rights of non-human species.
The interview has very few details that we might use to answer that question, but here's
one hint:
"Then (there is) the unique project in Kaneri, Kholapur, which presents the idyllic village life
before the Mughals came, our advice is being heeded to."
In other words, Bharatiyata is reviving (in a more conservative form) the Gandhian idea of
Ramrajya and its focus on the village economy and harmonious social relations. When they
were formulated, Gandhi's ideas were critiqued by Ambedkar and others but they're
arguably more relevant today with our increasing concern about corporatised agriculture
and environmental collapse. Even if we accept their value, is Bharatiyata the best modern
formulation of Ramrajya?
The first critique is about Bharatiyata's capacity to address the agricultural crisis. Water
tables have fallen, rainfall is failing and glaciers are melting. While these are problems that
severely affect the Indian farmer, they aren't problems solvable by an Indian farmer. In fact,
it's hard to imagine how we can address them without learning from the scientific and
technological understanding of complex systems that have no connection to Bharatiyata.
Even if we want to end with a harmonious agricultural society based on simple living, the
path to achieving that goal will have to address the actual complexities of the sociotechnical world we live in today. Does Bharatiyata have the resources to grasp that
complexity?
Then there's the hidden subtext of that harmonious society - whose harmony is being
desired? How will this harmony be achieved? The fact remains that while Bharatiyata is an
imagined history for a certain subset of the Indian citizenry, it denies the actual history of
many citizens. Can we expect to create a harmonious society by denying the histories of a
significant portion of Indian population - assuming that their right to exist in Bharat isn't

under threat?
To conclude, even under the most charitable interpretation, Bharatiyata fails to address the
promise of a peaceful India governed by an ancient principle with a modern, progressive
twist. In practice, its implementation will institutionalize discrimination and violence that go
against the very goal it's trying to achieve. We worry that Indian progressives will term it
"not even wrong," i.e., an idea not worth engaging. Unfortunately, in the absence of
debate, Bharatiyata's proximity to power will enable its institutionalization. It's a bad idea
that deserves vigorous criticisism.