Guided by a self-categorisation and social-identity framework of identity entrepreneurship (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001), and social representations theory of history (Liu & Hilton, 2005), this paper examines how the Hindu nationalist movement of India defines Hindu nationhood by embedding it in an essentialising historical narrative. The heart of the paper consists of a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the ideological manifestos of the Hindu nationalist movement in India, "Hindutva: Who is a Hindu?" (1928) and "We, or Our Nationhood Defined" (1939), written by two of its founding leaders -Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, respectively. The texts constitute authoritative attempts to define Hindu nationhood that continue to guide the Hindu nationalist movement today. The derived themes and sub-themes indicate that the definition of Hindu nationhood largely was embedded in a narrative about its historical origins and trajectory, but also its future. More specifically, a 'golden age' was invoked to define the origins of Hindu nationhood, whereas a dark age in its historical trajectory was invoked to identify peoples considered to be enemies of Hindu nationhood, and thereby to legitimise their exclusion. Through its selective account of past events and its efforts to utilise this as a cohesive mobilising factor, the emergence and rise of the Hindu nationalist movement elucidate lessons that further our understanding of the rise of right-wing movements around the world today.Keywords: India, Hindu nationalism, Indian independence, Hindu-Muslim relations, entrepreneurs of identity, social identity theory, self-categorisation theory, social representations theory Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2017, Vol. 5(2), 477-511, doi:10.5964/jspp.v5i2.736 Received: 2016-11-01. Accepted: 2017-09-08. Published (VoR): 2017 Handling Editor: Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA *Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, United Kingdom. E-mail: s.s.khan@keele.ac.uk This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Modernist theories of nationalism (e.g., Anderson, 1983;Gellner, 1983;Hobsbawm, 1990) posit that nationhood is a socially constructed phenomenon inextricably associated with the formation of nation states and pursuit of economic and political ends. According to Anderson, nations are imagined in that the citizens of even the smallest of countries never will meet, know, or even hear of all their fellow citizens. Yet they will be bound and act together on the basis of commonly shared understandings of what it means to belong to a nation. As such, they function as discursive frames that are drawn upon 'to make sense of the world' (see Nesbitt-Larking & Kin...

This article is focused on the appeal of far-right populist politics in the everyday and how this appeal is related to continuity and change in the global order. Contemporary societies have witnessed an upsurge of populist movements and groups set on filling a political space by appealing to a population in search of solutions to an ever-changing political and economic landscape. Here, we specifically highlight the role of ontological insecurity, fantasy narratives, and emotional governance as critical for understanding far-right populist politics. The analysis consequently attends to the centrality of gendered and racialised narratives and to how these are fuelled by feelings of pride, shame, vulnerability, and insecurity. The aim is to show how structures and emotions work in tandem to create far-right support and how these developments are similar across Western and non-Western contexts. Particular attention is paid to far-right narratives that pertain to the Covid-19 pandemic.

No abstract

The article analyses recent public initiatives to memorialise the establishment of India and Pakistan as postcolonial states in terms of violent partitioning rather than as a successful act of independence from British imperialism. The twin focal points of the article are the Partition Museum in Amritsar and the online 1947 Partition Archive. Both of these subscribe to and further the view that difficult and dissonant heritage holds transformative potential -which is seen as particularly significant in a region marked by conflictual state relations, majoritarian nationalism and extensive communal violence. However, as the article demonstrates, even though the Partition Museum and the 1947 Partition Archive collect and store previously unheard accounts of suffering, migration and rehabilitation as well as disseminate and make these available to the wider public, they fail to bring about a critical re-appraisal of the event, its lasting consequences and nation building as such. Whereas the Partition Museum -through the layout and content of its core exhibition -reproduces standard conceptions and imageries of national belonging and statehood, both initiatives rely on a use of oral history that remains overly committed to accentuating individualised and localised experiences, and to the positing of these as markers of authenticity.

No abstract