In contemporary India, the rise of Hindutva—a right-wing ethno-nationalist ideology that equates Indian identity with Hindu cultural and religious primacy—has reshaped the political and social landscape. Promulgated by organizations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Hindutva often manifests as an exclusionary force, marginalizing religious minorities, particularly Muslims, and flattening the pluralistic fabric of Indian society.
To contest this ideology, we can turn to the philosophy of Michel Serres, whose concept of “addition as subversion” offers a powerful framework for reimagining India’s cultural identity as inclusive, dynamic, and interconnected. This article explores how Serres’ ideas can challenge the exclusionary tendencies of Hindutva and propose a vision of India rooted in multiplicity and dialogue.Michel Serres’ Addition as SubversionMichel Serres, a French philosopher known for his interdisciplinary approach, argued that true transformation occurs not through opposition or negation but through addition—introducing new elements, perspectives, and connections to disrupt rigid systems.
In works like The Parasite and Genesis, Serres suggests that subversive change arises by weaving together diverse threads, creating networks that destabilize hierarchical or exclusionary structures. Addition, for Serres, is not mere accumulation but a creative act that invites complexity, hybridity, and openness. This contrasts with subtraction, which isolates and purifies, often at the cost of diversity.
In the context of India, Serres’ philosophy resonates with the nation’s historical multiplicity—its tapestry of languages, religions, and cultures forged through centuries of interaction. Hindutva, however, seeks to subtract this complexity, promoting a singular narrative of Hindu supremacy that sidelines non-Hindus and erases syncretic traditions.
By applying Serres’ addition as subversion, we can challenge this exclusionary vision and advocate for an India that embraces its pluralistic ethos
Hindutva, as articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his 1923 booklet Essentials of Hindutva, defines Indian identity through a triad of common nation (rashtra), race (jati), and culture (sanskriti), rooted in Hinduism. This ideology positions India as a Hindu homeland, often casting Muslims and Christians as outsiders whose loyalties lie elsewhere.
Under the BJP’s governance since 2014, Hindutva has gained mainstream traction, manifesting in policies like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which prioritizes non-Muslim refugees, and the abrogation of Article 370, framed as integrating Jammu and Kashmir into a Hindu-centric nation. Socially, Hindutva fuels vigilante violence—cow protection mobs, “love jihad” campaigns—that targets minorities, creating a climate of fear.we we can see the recent waqf law in the same direction.
This exclusionary approach subtracts from India’s diversity, reducing its identity to a monolithic Hindu narrative. It dismisses the contributions of Sufi saints, Mughal emperors, and Christian missionaries, ignoring syncretic traditions like the Bhakti movement or the shared Urdu-Hindi literary heritage. By enforcing a purified Hindu identity, Hindutva risks alienating millions and fracturing the social cohesion that has long been defined.
Addition as subversion offers a counter-strategy to Hindutva’s reductive logic. Rather than confronting Hindutva head-on—a tactic that often entrenches polarization—addition invites us to weave new narratives, voices, and connections into the Indian story.
Here’s how this approach can unfold:Reclaiming Pluralistic Narratives
India’s history is a mosaic of interactions—Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, Christian, and more. Adding these voices back into the national narrative subverts Hindutva’s claim to exclusivity. For instance, highlighting figures like Kabir, who blended Hindu and Muslim mysticism, or festivals like Basant Panchami, celebrated across communities, underscores India’s syncretic soul. Educational curricula, often a battleground for Hindutva’s historical revisionism, could emphasize these shared legacies, fostering pride in diversity rather than division.
Serres’ philosophy values the “parasite”—the outsider who disrupts by adding their presence. In India, this means amplifying the voices of Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, Women and other minorities marginalized by Hindutva.
Grassroots movements, like those resisting anti-Muslim violence in Shaheen Bagh, demonstrate how adding diverse perspectives can challenge dominant narratives. Digital platforms and art—films, literature, music—can further this subversion by showcasing stories that defy Hindutva’s homogeneity, such as the interfaith harmony stories in our country.
Building Networks of Dialogue
Serres saw knowledge as a network, not a hierarchy. Applying this, Indians can foster dialogue across communities, undermining Hindutva’s us-versus-them rhetoric. Interfaith forums, like those organized by groups such as the Interfaith Coalition for Peace, add spaces for mutual understanding.
These networks don’t erase differences but allow them to coexist, creating a richer, more resilient social fabric.Celebrating Hybridity
Hindutva’s insistence on purity—cultural, religious, racial—clashes with India’s hybrid reality. Serres’ addition celebrates cross-pollination, like the Indo-Islamic architecture of the Taj Mahal or the Hindustani classical music born from Hindu and Muslim collaboration.
By promoting these hybrid forms in public spaces—through festivals, exhibitions, or media—India can subvert the idea that identity must be singular or exclusive.
Consider the case of Ayodhya, a flashpoint for Hindutva since the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid. Hindutva’s narrative frames the site as a Hindu-only sacred space, erasing its layered history. A Serresian approach would add complexity: acknowledging the Ram temple’s significance to Hindus while honoring the mosque’s legacy and the town’s shared Hindu-Muslim heritage.
Initiatives like interfaith dialogues in Ayodhya, where locals discuss coexistence, embody this addition, quietly subverting communal divides.Similarly, in response to Hindutva’s “love jihad” campaigns, which vilify interfaith relationships, adding stories of successful mixed marriages—through media, literature, or community events—challenges the narrative of incompatibility. These acts don’t negate Hindutva’s claims but expand the conversation, making exclusion harder to sustain.
Hindutva’s institutional power—backed by the state, media, and vigilante groups—can suppress subversive additions. The BJP’s control over education, for instance, limits pluralistic curricula. Social media, while a platform for diverse voices, also amplifies Hindutva’s propaganda. Moreover, addition risks being co-opted; Hindutva may claim to embrace “all Indians” while prioritizing Hindu dominance, as seen in RSS rhetoric about “Hindu Rashtra” as inclusive.
Yet, Serres reminds us that subversion is slow and diffuse, like a river carving new paths. Small, persistent additions—local interfaith meetings, inclusive art projects, or revised school lessons—accumulate, reshaping perceptions over time. Unlike confrontation, which Hindutva thrives on, addition disarms by inviting participation, not opposition.
TMichel Serres’ addition as subversion offers a hopeful path to contest exclusionary Hindutva. By weaving in diverse voices, histories, and connections, Indians can reclaim their nation’s multiplicity, not as a weakness but as a strength. This approach aligns with India’s constitutional ethos of secularism, which doesn’t reject religion but embraces all faiths equally. It echoes the spirit of Tagore’s Gitanjali, where unity arises from diversity, and Gandhi’s sarvodaya, lifting all together.In a world where nationalism often breeds division,
India has the chance to model a different path—one where adding, not subtracting, defines identity. As Serres might urge, let us subvert exclusion not by tearing down but by building up, thread by thread, a richer, more inclusive tapestry of what it means to be Indian.
