Rethinking Homohindunationalism

In this paper I explore the complicated relationship Hindu nationalism has to different queer identities in order to offer a refined understanding of how homonationalisms work. I draw on Paola Bacchetta and Nishant Upadhyay’s work on what Upadhyay (building on Jasbir Puar) terms “homohindunationalism” (Bacchetta 2019, Upadhyay 2020, Puar 2017). Upadhyay defines homohindunationalism as comprising four main attributes:

“First, Hinduism is projected as a queer, trans, and gender nonconforming friendly religion. Second, Islam and Christianity are deemed as homophobic and causes for homophobia in India. More specifically, Hinduism is projected as liberal, and Islam is reduced to being a homophobic, barbaric, and violent religion. Third, dominant caste Hindu queer, trans, and gender nonconforming folks are welcomed within the Hindutva project as long as they partake in its brahminical and Islamophobic tendencies. And fourth, all Hindu/Indian Others – Dalit Others, Bahujan Others, Adivasi/Tribal Others, Muslim Others, Kashmiri Others, North Eastern Others, Christian Others, Sikh Others, etc. – are simultaneously rendered queer as well as queerphobic.” (Upadhyay 2020, 469)

While they offer an insightful reading of the ways in which some queer and trans activists, like Laxmi Narayan Tripathi and Ashok Row Kavi, have become stalwart supporters of Hindu nationalism, their broad definition of “queer, trans, and gender nonconforming communities” leaves them unable to theorize the contradictions they encounter between homophobia and support for non-normative genders and sexualities within Hindu nationalist discourse.

I argue that thinking about LGBTKQH+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, kothi, queer, and hijra) identities as a single unit has obscured the ways in which Hindu nationalists have transformed some queer subjects into exemplars of Hinduism’s “tolerance” (as posited against an imagined intolerant Islam) while marking other queer subjects as threats to the nation. I show that this bifurcation falls along different lines than we might expect given the analysis of homonationalism in Israel and the United States, as Hindu nationalists draw on discourses of indigeneity to posit hijras (read by many Hindu nationalists as synonymous with trans women) as fundamentally Hindu while marking other queer identities as Western imports that pose a threat to the nation. I contend that we cannot understand homohindunationalism without understanding the role of postcolonial narratives within Hindu nationalist discourses. I propose a modified understanding of homohindunationalism as an ideology that posits Hinduism as inherently tolerant against a simultaneously queerphobic (and especially transphobic) yet perverse Islam (and other Hindu nationalist Others, like Christianity). However, this is done not through claims that Hinduism is liberal or cosmopolitan in the Western sense, but rather by appealing to an imagined ancient tolerant Hindu tradition. Thus, I argue that homohindunationalism projects Hinduism as supportive of (some) non-normative gender and sexual practices, but simultaneously rejects the same Western gay and queer identities that Joseph Massad cites as indicative of the Gay International (Massad 2007).

Massad’s basic argument is that the Gay International, a broad term for global discourses and organizations based on Western gay rights activism, produces homosexuals through the introduction of an identity-based approach to sexuality while simultaneously marginalizing pre-existing “same-sex desires and practices” (Massad 2007, 161-163). I argue that the overlap between homonationalism and the Gay International that both Massad and Puar posit does not hold in the case of homohindunationalism, and that this should prompt us to rethink the roles that discourses of indigeneity play in queer activism (Puar 2017, Massad 2016).

Furthermore, I show that the projection of an ancient tolerant Hindu tradition of gender diversity dovetails with Hindu nationalist discourses around secularism. Hindu nationalist discourses repeatedly link tolerance, secularism, and pluralism to Hinduism. VHP America (Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or VHP, is a global organization that supports Hindu nationalist policies), for instance, highlights “the all-inclusiveness cherished by Hinduism as contrasted with the exclusivity practiced by other faiths and traditions based on following one book or one prophet” (Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America). Of course, there is some measure of irony in the simultaneous claim to universal tolerance and the rejection of other traditions as too exclusive, but the insistence on Hinduism as uniquely tolerant in relationship to both secularism and non-normative gender identities is used to bolster arguments for a Hindu nation.

The first part of this paper draws on court cases, newspaper articles, public statements, and legal debates to offer a refined definition of homohindunationalism. I address the apparent tension between the BJP’s (the current ruling party in India that espouses Hindu nationalist ideas) proclaimed support for trans people (particularly when understood as hijras) and their arguments against same-sex marriage in the recent Indian Supreme Court case. In the second part, I show how exploring homonationalisms outside of Western Europe, Israel, and the United States can deepen our understanding of the ways that postcolonial discourses of indigeneity and different articulations of secularism combine to support nationalist ideologies. I argue that despite significant overlap among different forms of homonationalism, especially in terms of Islamophobia, homonationalism does not necessarily work in tandem with the Gay International but can instead find itself at odds with global discourses and organizations based on Western gay rights activism.