This is a very well-written essay and I like the parallels you described here.
But, looking at MAGA from the USA, I want Hindutva to be a better movement than the MAGA/American-Conservative-Movement. It needs to be truly liberal and secular (not that fake version of secularism!) for the needs of the people while keeping its Hindu civilizational roots at heart. I think there is a way to do it... it's just that there is so many blind spots India has that other countries exploit so, I hope these issues are addressed. Best wishes!
"secularism" from its advent to its ideological disposition is inherently western and a formation from the Christian ideological framework and essentially a repackaged version of it. Even the word liberal finds its history in inherently christian society and individuals studying in that framework. It never saw the barbaric actions of the empire as "wrong" largely because their belief co incided with the humanisation of the animal and soulless like you and me into "humans"
Then, why not create a form of Secularism which derives itself from Hindu roots?
I mean sure people will have to use Western language/terminology to explain itself to foreigners but, at the end of the day, it should be truly Indian Hindu at its very roots which nobody should deny. For instance, Hindu-based Secularism could show how Sanatana Dharma is inherently inclusive while also making sure non-proselyting 'religions' (such as Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, etc) are protected under law as being integral parts of Indian Hindu heritage. You should never harass such people as they have a right to keep their 'Faith', especially since I'm sure many Hindus would keep their 'Faith' had it not been for Christian/Muslim organizations exploiting poor people and promising that, only through them, they can get out of poverty!
So, Christians and Muslims, amongst others, are allowed in the country but they must show respect for the fact that God can be found in ALL People of the country. Ultimately, 'God' (what a very English term!) is beyond our wildest imagination, in my opinion, and it should be made clear as no 'religion' has any monopoly on that.
If the nation is going to make products Made In India, why not make truly worthwhile ideas Made In India too? I'd like people from all sides of the political spectrum to truly make this movement worthwhile no matter their background so Hindutva is open to every Indian who loves India, that is Bharat, and Hindu civilization.
I do mean anyone, even a foreigner, so long as they show Truth, Mutual Respect, and Deep Love for the country. That, to me, is a True Hindutva person like Karolina Goswami of the India in Details channel, who is a Hindutva supporter, Polish Christian (from what I can tell!), Indian citizen, and a proud mother of two Indian citizens herself (her two young boys!).
I am sorry " Christians and Muslims, amongst others, are allowed in the country but they must show respect for the fact that God can be found in ALL People of the country. Ultimately, 'God' (what a very English term!) is beyond our wildest imagination, in my opinion, and it should be made clear as no 'religion' has any monopoly on that."
fails to mention how their treatment of non abrahamics faith have been through history a collective project of destruction
Bharat will design its own borders and its own legal architecture
It does not need the words and ideas that were are will be used against it though time and it must build its own strength without the need for justification and created from first principles and its existential roots that are much more permissive then any other thought
After thinking it over for a while, I must say you're fully right. But, one still needs to make sure Ex-Christians, Ex-Muslims, and Atheists will be attracted towards the Hindu faith as to ensure Hindus are not denigrated in agenda-driven papers as being 'Fascists'. At least, I hope this can be done to strength the Hindu civilizational core alive.
I hope what you have written comes to pass, as I do indeed think Bharat can and should 'design its own borders and its own legal architecture'.
I am referring to how one sees the Hindutva movement. The Hindutva movement should be such a movement which fights for the Hindu civilizational project can help others who have Hindu heritage (in some way or another). In a sense, there should be a space wide open so, even if this movement started off as conservative project initially, it can work with the other parts of society and truly act Dharmic, with each part of society working together rather than against each other ideally.
For instance, I would like Hindu civilization to be honored and celebrated in India while also letting Indian Muslims be proud of being Indian AND Muslim, without denigrating their Hindu ancestors. If this means reforming/revolutionizing Islam in India and purifying it to follow Dharma, so be it. In this way, one can easily sort out Muslims who are bad actors in society and keep cover of Islamists in the general society, from the average everyday folk who wish the country to keep going. I'm not saying this will be easy but, I do think such an idea will be worth it!
From I see here in the United States, the MAGA movement is unpopular because it violated the liberal norms here in their rights-based framework, which is inspired by Christian moral framework. In fact, even though for a time they were popular, they became unpopular even amongst the very normal people who helped put them in office in the first place. For example, the MAGA movement sees Western Atheism as sinful/harmful to society and has even banned it technically as its own category on census forms!
I just think it is important to have these nuances because otherwise the Hindutva movement will become exactly what its detractors claim it to be when I want everyone in India to be Hindutva simply out of the feeling that they should be Mentally Decolonized, proud to have Hindu ancestors, and to truly LIVE these traditions in the homeland since India has the ongoing living Hindu civilization, at its very roots.
I hope what I've said clarifies what I mean. I would appreciate your thoughts
none of that is related to liberalism and once again, while you are a Hindu, you are an American. Hinduism is itself duty based, not rights based. Adhikara are fruits of fulfilling one's own kartavya. Hindutva is not a conservative project or liberal project, but a civilizationalist project. Also the point that you do not want Hindutva to be like its detractors seems in a way as you claim "colonized" as you see others defn of movement as more legitimate than how the movement self defines. I agree on the first point except it should be open, it should be dynamic, making it open leads to it losing its meaning. We have a ingroup and an outgroup and that will not change. The second point seems to be borne out of utopianism which I do not feel conservatives share. Third point like I said we do not care. MAGA can do what they want, our goals, existence and logic are different. I already gave my comment on the last point, we do not care what our detractors think, we care about the truth of our actions which we may or may not defend.
I actually do agree with everything you've written here. Perhaps, my wording made my thinking came out wrong as the movement should be DYNAMIC, not open.
I agree that a civilization needs boundaries and a coherent identity. My point is that a confident civilization should also be capable of integrating people into its civilizational framework. Preservation and growth are not competing goals; they reinforce each other when done properly
The reason as to why I mentioned outside critics is because, outside of India, I always hear the very worst of the Hindutva movement and I want India to define itself on its own terms, as you mentioned here.
I wrote on this topic via the Western rights-based framework as I know very well that the Westerners will have their own views on the movement and will misunderstand its intentions (so, it could harm the movement from the outside by spreading fake news and could cause misunderstandings with fellow Indians) but, I personally am moreso fine-tuned to India's duty-based framework myself.
Conservatives impacted Republican Party, bro Republican were the conservative Party
How do you even define Conservatism here. American Conservatism is a mix of free market, classical liberal tradition associated with figures like Hayek and Friedman and family values, community, church one. They tend to follow certain constitutional, political vision and indeed tough and often flailing alliance and has broken with Trump who is more statist and interventionist which more free markets/ free trade people have criticised.
What is meant by Conservatism you espouse and more importantly
"What economic system, constitutional theory, or governing philosophy follows from that?"
Does it include free markets , Individual rights , Free Speech , family values, Liberty , Judicial Philosophy ?
Are any enduring principles, ideas you hold dear and espouse ?
Conservative positions in America have been liberal positions of 30 years ago ? Only in economic sphere there has been any pushback, that too slowdown at the rate of state welfare dubbed Neoliberalism by those who want cradle to grave welfare state.
Deregulation, Privatisation and liberalisation have been wins because of their superior economic outcomes through efficiency and productivity gains.
“Conservatives impacted the Republican Party? Bro, the Republicans were the conservative party.”
Uhhhh, what?
If that were true, why did much of the conservative movement spend years discussing the creation of a third party, courting Southern Democrats, or flirting with support for Wallace? Why was there a constant obsession with kicking out "RINOs" or "Me too Republicans"? Why was Goldwater's insurgency against Rockefeller treated as an existential battle for the soul of the party? Why did conservatives spend years lamenting Taft's defeat to Eisenhower?
The point is precisely that post-war conservatives did not view the Republican Party as naturally or reliably conservative. They saw it as a party that contained conservative elements but was often dominated by moderates, liberals, and pragmatists. Even Nixon, despite accommodating conservatives in many respects, was frequently criticized by movement conservatives as insufficiently conservative, and at various points they openly broke with his administration.
More importantly, the rest of your comment is largely unrelated to the argument being made. The article is not an attempt to define conservatism, explain my personal beliefs, or adjudicate whether their policies were good or bad. I don't even agree with every conservative policy position discussed (none were actually discussed btw).
The article is about institutional development: how a movement that began on the margins built publishers, journals, fellowships, think tanks, legal networks, media platforms, talent pipelines, and governing infrastructure, eventually becoming a major force within American politics and public life. Whether one agrees with its ideas is a separate question from how it built the institutions that carried those ideas.
Well you are reading to much into internal rift and various factions withing the Party. Intra - party conflict within wider Conservative politics. Example in the Democratic Party could DSA members supporting Bernie Sanders and middle class professionals Hillary, institutional finance getting behind Liz Warren. Doesn't mean they are they are not Democrat.
Marco Rubio on stage said that if Trump didn't get money from his rich dad, he would be selling Pencils and watches in Manhattan. Now they work together.
okay if you don't define Conservatism and you what mean by it, what are you even writing for ?
Institutional development addressing what , think tanks discussing what exactly , talent pipelines to where and what will they do there ?
"Well you are reading too much into internal rifts and various factions within the party.”
Not really. Those rifts are central to the history of the conservative movement and in many ways led to its birth. Plus Nixon was heckled by Goldwater loyalists in primaries, Rockefeller was shouted down at the RNC. Many moderate Republicans refused to campaign for Goldwater, while Rockefeller later openly denounced him. They were all Republicans, but that does not make them all conservatives. The distinction mattered enough that movement conservatives spent decades attempting to capture the party machinery itself.
Nixon is actually a good example. He accommodated conservatives in many respects, yet much of the movement never regarded him as a genuine conservative. Being Republican and being conservative were overlapping categories, not identical ones.
You seem to be wanting me to get into the nuances of what "What did conservatives believe?" whereas the article is asking: "How did conservatives build the institutions that enabled those beliefs to be developed, transmitted, defended and implemented?" Those are distinct questions.
I explicitly note that American conservatism was not a monolith but a coalition of libertarians, traditionalists, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives and the Religious Right. So the article therefore treats "the conservative movement" as a historical coalition linked by a shared institutional ecosystem rather than as a single coherent doctrine.
But that has little to do with the main point of the article since you don't need a perfectly agreed definition of conservatism to study how Heritage, ISI, National Review, Regnery, the Federalist Society and dozens of other organisations interacted with one another. Ideological content and institutional capacity to organise are distinct things. PAP in Singapore admired the CCP and it's cadre system, Conservatives themselves copied the tactics used by the left for mobilizing delegates in the RNC. Would discussing these require going into details of communism?
This is a very well-written essay and I like the parallels you described here.
But, looking at MAGA from the USA, I want Hindutva to be a better movement than the MAGA/American-Conservative-Movement. It needs to be truly liberal and secular (not that fake version of secularism!) for the needs of the people while keeping its Hindu civilizational roots at heart. I think there is a way to do it... it's just that there is so many blind spots India has that other countries exploit so, I hope these issues are addressed. Best wishes!
Few things
"secularism" from its advent to its ideological disposition is inherently western and a formation from the Christian ideological framework and essentially a repackaged version of it. Even the word liberal finds its history in inherently christian society and individuals studying in that framework. It never saw the barbaric actions of the empire as "wrong" largely because their belief co incided with the humanisation of the animal and soulless like you and me into "humans"
Then, why not create a form of Secularism which derives itself from Hindu roots?
I mean sure people will have to use Western language/terminology to explain itself to foreigners but, at the end of the day, it should be truly Indian Hindu at its very roots which nobody should deny. For instance, Hindu-based Secularism could show how Sanatana Dharma is inherently inclusive while also making sure non-proselyting 'religions' (such as Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, etc) are protected under law as being integral parts of Indian Hindu heritage. You should never harass such people as they have a right to keep their 'Faith', especially since I'm sure many Hindus would keep their 'Faith' had it not been for Christian/Muslim organizations exploiting poor people and promising that, only through them, they can get out of poverty!
So, Christians and Muslims, amongst others, are allowed in the country but they must show respect for the fact that God can be found in ALL People of the country. Ultimately, 'God' (what a very English term!) is beyond our wildest imagination, in my opinion, and it should be made clear as no 'religion' has any monopoly on that.
If the nation is going to make products Made In India, why not make truly worthwhile ideas Made In India too? I'd like people from all sides of the political spectrum to truly make this movement worthwhile no matter their background so Hindutva is open to every Indian who loves India, that is Bharat, and Hindu civilization.
I do mean anyone, even a foreigner, so long as they show Truth, Mutual Respect, and Deep Love for the country. That, to me, is a True Hindutva person like Karolina Goswami of the India in Details channel, who is a Hindutva supporter, Polish Christian (from what I can tell!), Indian citizen, and a proud mother of two Indian citizens herself (her two young boys!).
There will always be a barrier
I am sorry " Christians and Muslims, amongst others, are allowed in the country but they must show respect for the fact that God can be found in ALL People of the country. Ultimately, 'God' (what a very English term!) is beyond our wildest imagination, in my opinion, and it should be made clear as no 'religion' has any monopoly on that."
fails to mention how their treatment of non abrahamics faith have been through history a collective project of destruction
Bharat will design its own borders and its own legal architecture
It does not need the words and ideas that were are will be used against it though time and it must build its own strength without the need for justification and created from first principles and its existential roots that are much more permissive then any other thought
Ok. Thank you for the conversation!
After thinking it over for a while, I must say you're fully right. But, one still needs to make sure Ex-Christians, Ex-Muslims, and Atheists will be attracted towards the Hindu faith as to ensure Hindus are not denigrated in agenda-driven papers as being 'Fascists'. At least, I hope this can be done to strength the Hindu civilizational core alive.
I hope what you have written comes to pass, as I do indeed think Bharat can and should 'design its own borders and its own legal architecture'.
I hope all goes well then!
why would a group who call themselves conservatives want a liberal Hindutva?
I am referring to how one sees the Hindutva movement. The Hindutva movement should be such a movement which fights for the Hindu civilizational project can help others who have Hindu heritage (in some way or another). In a sense, there should be a space wide open so, even if this movement started off as conservative project initially, it can work with the other parts of society and truly act Dharmic, with each part of society working together rather than against each other ideally.
For instance, I would like Hindu civilization to be honored and celebrated in India while also letting Indian Muslims be proud of being Indian AND Muslim, without denigrating their Hindu ancestors. If this means reforming/revolutionizing Islam in India and purifying it to follow Dharma, so be it. In this way, one can easily sort out Muslims who are bad actors in society and keep cover of Islamists in the general society, from the average everyday folk who wish the country to keep going. I'm not saying this will be easy but, I do think such an idea will be worth it!
From I see here in the United States, the MAGA movement is unpopular because it violated the liberal norms here in their rights-based framework, which is inspired by Christian moral framework. In fact, even though for a time they were popular, they became unpopular even amongst the very normal people who helped put them in office in the first place. For example, the MAGA movement sees Western Atheism as sinful/harmful to society and has even banned it technically as its own category on census forms!
I just think it is important to have these nuances because otherwise the Hindutva movement will become exactly what its detractors claim it to be when I want everyone in India to be Hindutva simply out of the feeling that they should be Mentally Decolonized, proud to have Hindu ancestors, and to truly LIVE these traditions in the homeland since India has the ongoing living Hindu civilization, at its very roots.
I hope what I've said clarifies what I mean. I would appreciate your thoughts
none of that is related to liberalism and once again, while you are a Hindu, you are an American. Hinduism is itself duty based, not rights based. Adhikara are fruits of fulfilling one's own kartavya. Hindutva is not a conservative project or liberal project, but a civilizationalist project. Also the point that you do not want Hindutva to be like its detractors seems in a way as you claim "colonized" as you see others defn of movement as more legitimate than how the movement self defines. I agree on the first point except it should be open, it should be dynamic, making it open leads to it losing its meaning. We have a ingroup and an outgroup and that will not change. The second point seems to be borne out of utopianism which I do not feel conservatives share. Third point like I said we do not care. MAGA can do what they want, our goals, existence and logic are different. I already gave my comment on the last point, we do not care what our detractors think, we care about the truth of our actions which we may or may not defend.
Ok. Thank you for the discussion.
I actually do agree with everything you've written here. Perhaps, my wording made my thinking came out wrong as the movement should be DYNAMIC, not open.
I agree that a civilization needs boundaries and a coherent identity. My point is that a confident civilization should also be capable of integrating people into its civilizational framework. Preservation and growth are not competing goals; they reinforce each other when done properly
The reason as to why I mentioned outside critics is because, outside of India, I always hear the very worst of the Hindutva movement and I want India to define itself on its own terms, as you mentioned here.
I wrote on this topic via the Western rights-based framework as I know very well that the Westerners will have their own views on the movement and will misunderstand its intentions (so, it could harm the movement from the outside by spreading fake news and could cause misunderstandings with fellow Indians) but, I personally am moreso fine-tuned to India's duty-based framework myself.
I completely agree with you on the last point.
Anyways, do what you think is right! Cheers!
Pretty confused article and framing.
Conservatives impacted Republican Party, bro Republican were the conservative Party
How do you even define Conservatism here. American Conservatism is a mix of free market, classical liberal tradition associated with figures like Hayek and Friedman and family values, community, church one. They tend to follow certain constitutional, political vision and indeed tough and often flailing alliance and has broken with Trump who is more statist and interventionist which more free markets/ free trade people have criticised.
What is meant by Conservatism you espouse and more importantly
"What economic system, constitutional theory, or governing philosophy follows from that?"
Does it include free markets , Individual rights , Free Speech , family values, Liberty , Judicial Philosophy ?
Are any enduring principles, ideas you hold dear and espouse ?
Conservative positions in America have been liberal positions of 30 years ago ? Only in economic sphere there has been any pushback, that too slowdown at the rate of state welfare dubbed Neoliberalism by those who want cradle to grave welfare state.
Deregulation, Privatisation and liberalisation have been wins because of their superior economic outcomes through efficiency and productivity gains.
“Conservatives impacted the Republican Party? Bro, the Republicans were the conservative party.”
Uhhhh, what?
If that were true, why did much of the conservative movement spend years discussing the creation of a third party, courting Southern Democrats, or flirting with support for Wallace? Why was there a constant obsession with kicking out "RINOs" or "Me too Republicans"? Why was Goldwater's insurgency against Rockefeller treated as an existential battle for the soul of the party? Why did conservatives spend years lamenting Taft's defeat to Eisenhower?
The point is precisely that post-war conservatives did not view the Republican Party as naturally or reliably conservative. They saw it as a party that contained conservative elements but was often dominated by moderates, liberals, and pragmatists. Even Nixon, despite accommodating conservatives in many respects, was frequently criticized by movement conservatives as insufficiently conservative, and at various points they openly broke with his administration.
More importantly, the rest of your comment is largely unrelated to the argument being made. The article is not an attempt to define conservatism, explain my personal beliefs, or adjudicate whether their policies were good or bad. I don't even agree with every conservative policy position discussed (none were actually discussed btw).
The article is about institutional development: how a movement that began on the margins built publishers, journals, fellowships, think tanks, legal networks, media platforms, talent pipelines, and governing infrastructure, eventually becoming a major force within American politics and public life. Whether one agrees with its ideas is a separate question from how it built the institutions that carried those ideas.
Well you are reading to much into internal rift and various factions withing the Party. Intra - party conflict within wider Conservative politics. Example in the Democratic Party could DSA members supporting Bernie Sanders and middle class professionals Hillary, institutional finance getting behind Liz Warren. Doesn't mean they are they are not Democrat.
Marco Rubio on stage said that if Trump didn't get money from his rich dad, he would be selling Pencils and watches in Manhattan. Now they work together.
okay if you don't define Conservatism and you what mean by it, what are you even writing for ?
Institutional development addressing what , think tanks discussing what exactly , talent pipelines to where and what will they do there ?
If just power is the aim then, I recommend
https://www.willsolfiac.com/p/narendra-modi-and-the-bjp-in-india
"Well you are reading too much into internal rifts and various factions within the party.”
Not really. Those rifts are central to the history of the conservative movement and in many ways led to its birth. Plus Nixon was heckled by Goldwater loyalists in primaries, Rockefeller was shouted down at the RNC. Many moderate Republicans refused to campaign for Goldwater, while Rockefeller later openly denounced him. They were all Republicans, but that does not make them all conservatives. The distinction mattered enough that movement conservatives spent decades attempting to capture the party machinery itself.
Nixon is actually a good example. He accommodated conservatives in many respects, yet much of the movement never regarded him as a genuine conservative. Being Republican and being conservative were overlapping categories, not identical ones.
You seem to be wanting me to get into the nuances of what "What did conservatives believe?" whereas the article is asking: "How did conservatives build the institutions that enabled those beliefs to be developed, transmitted, defended and implemented?" Those are distinct questions.
I explicitly note that American conservatism was not a monolith but a coalition of libertarians, traditionalists, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives and the Religious Right. So the article therefore treats "the conservative movement" as a historical coalition linked by a shared institutional ecosystem rather than as a single coherent doctrine.
But that has little to do with the main point of the article since you don't need a perfectly agreed definition of conservatism to study how Heritage, ISI, National Review, Regnery, the Federalist Society and dozens of other organisations interacted with one another. Ideological content and institutional capacity to organise are distinct things. PAP in Singapore admired the CCP and it's cadre system, Conservatives themselves copied the tactics used by the left for mobilizing delegates in the RNC. Would discussing these require going into details of communism?
I cannot make it any clearer than this