Should A Hindutvadi Become The Prime Minister Of India? By Shamsul Islam

This is an old article, but relevant today. I was asked a lot of questions at the JIDS Dialogue at the Bethesda Synagogue. One of them was women being liberated in India with the abrogation of article 370 - Nope, that is not the case. Take a look at the following article with quotes from Manu Smriti.

Both under Muslim Sharia and Hindu ManuSmriti, women remain oppressed. We want neither.

Courtesy of Counter-Currents. 

Should A Hindutvadi Become The Prime Minister Of India?

By Shamsul Islam

26 June 2012

Countercurrents.org

An open letter to RSS Sarsanghchalak, Shri Mohan Bhagwat on why a Hindutvadi should not be the Prime Minister of India

To,

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Sarsanghchalak, Shri Mohan Bhagwat ji,

Namaskar.

I was not surprised to read your comments in newspapers that it was not necessary to be a secular person to occupy the office of Prime Minister in a Democratic-Secular India. As per the press reports, you wondered why a Hinduwadi could not become PM of India.[i] I am sure you understand better than me that being a Hinduwadi is not the same as professing Hindu religion. Our national leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chander Bose, Rammanohar Lohia, Rajguru, Sukhdev and many-many more were Hindu by faith but not Hinduwadi. 

In fact, Mahatma Gandhi, a great practitioner of Hind religion, was brutally assassinated for not being a Hinduwadi by a gang having allegiance to Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. Surely, by Hinduwadi you mean a believer in Hindutva, a kind of political Hinduism, outlined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar ji in his book Hindutva[ii] and later developed by RSS ideologues like M. S. Golwalkar. You will agree with me that RSS, under your command currently, has been a prominent flag-bearer of Hindutva since its inception in 1925.

I feel before arriving at the conclusion that there is no harm in allowing person/s who believes in Hindutva to become PM of India we will have to understand what Hindutva is. You will agree with me that we need to understand whether Hindutva is compatible with the principles of Democracy, Justice, Egalitarianism &Secularism. In this connection, please, allow me to scrutinize some of the original documents and sources which legitimately belong to the RSS or its brother organizations like Hindu Mahasabha. If you find that I am dishonest in referring to these or misrepresenting facts, you will be at liberty to initiate defamation process against me.

DOES HINDUTVA STAND FOR A TWO-NATION THEORY?

Bhagwat ji! I would like to refresh your memory that both the originator of Hindutva, V. D. Savarkar ji and its flag-bearer, RSS earlier and under your command too had and have unequivocal faith in in Two-nation theory; that Hindus and Muslims are two different nations. While Muslim League under the leadership of Mohammed Ali Jinnah resolved to have a separate homeland for Muslims of India in the form of Pakistan in 1940, Savarkar propagated as early as 1937 that Hindus and Muslims were two different nations. While delivering presidential address to the 19th Hindu Mahasabha session at Ahmedabad Savarkar ji unequivocally declared,

“As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These were well meaning but unthinking friends take their dreams for realities. That is why they are impatient of communal tangles and attribute them to communal organizations. But the solid fact is that the so-called communal questions are but a legacy handed down to us by centuries of cultural, religious and national antagonism between the Hindus and Moslems...Let us bravely face unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main: the Hindus and the Moslems, in India.”[iii]

Sir! Has it not been the cardinal principle of your organization also? The RSS following into the foot-steps of Savarkar ji, always rejected the idea that Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians together constituted a nation. Your English organ, Organizer, on the very eve of Independence, (August 14, 1947) editorially (titled Whither) underlined its belief in Two-Nation theory once again in the following words:

“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must be built on that safe and sound foundation…the nation itself must be built up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.”

Bhagwat ji! Please, help our country to understand how the believers in Hindutva are different from pre-partition Muslim Leaguers who once played prominent role in dismembering India.

DOES HINUTVA RESPECT NATIONAL FLAG AND DEMOCRACY?

Sir, it may not be out of context to know your attitude towards National Flag which represents a Democratic-Secular India. It is important to know it from the head of organizations which swears by Hindutva. I would like to draw your attention to the following statement which appeared in the English organ Organizer, again on the eve of Independence:

“The people who have come to power by the kick of fate may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never [sic] be respected and owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.” [iv]

Can those who denigrate the National Flag in such foul language be allowed to rule this country?

Sarsanghchalak ji! Lay persons like me need to know from practitioners of Hindutva like you what you think of Democracy. I would like to draw your attention to a statement made by second Sarsanghchalak of the RSS and its most prominent ideologue till date, M. S. Golwalkar. As per the RSS archives Golwalkar ji while addressing a group of 1350 top level cadres of the RSS in 1940 declared:

“RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great land.”[v]

Learned Bhagwat ji! This slogan of one flag, one leader and one ideology was also the battle cry of Fascist and Nazi parties of Europe in the first half of 20th century. What they did to democracy is well-known to this world. Can those who believe in such totalitarian designs be allowed to rule our country?

DOES HINDUTVA STAND FOR CASTEISM?

Sarsanghchalak ji! You will agree with me that RSS and its brother organizations who want to have a Hindutva rule in India hated the Constitution of India which was drafted under the guidance of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. When the Constituent Assembly of India had finalized the Constitution of India RSS was not happy. Its organ, Organizer in an editorial on November 30, 1949, complained:

“But in our constitution there is no mention of the unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu’s Laws were written long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that means nothing.”

Bhagwat ji! It may not be a secret to you that Savarkar ji remained a great protagonist of Casteism and worshipper of Manusmriti throughout his life. The institutions of Casteism and Untouchability were the outcome of Manu’s thought about which Savarkar said the following:

“Manusmriti is that scripture which is most worshipable after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law.”[vi]

Sir! What kind of civilization the RSS under your command and under Hindutva ideology wants to build by enforcing the laws of Manu, can be known by having a glimpse of the laws prescribed by Manu for the Dalits/Untouchables and women. Some of these dehumanizing and degenerate laws, which are presented here, are self-explanatory.

LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES.

(1) For the sake of the prosperity of the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet.

(2) One occupation only the lord prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.

(3) Once-born man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin.

(4) If he mentions the names and castes (gati) of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth.

(5) If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his ears.

(6) With whatever limb a man of a low caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu.

(7) He who raises his hand or a stick, shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have his foot cut off.

(8) A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.

(9) Let him never slay a Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt.

LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING WOMEN

1. Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control.

2. Her father protects (her) in childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in old age; a woman is never fit for independence.

3. Women must particularly be guarded against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families.

4. Considering that the highest duty of all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives.

5. No man can completely guard women by force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:

6. Let the (husband) employ his (wife) in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean, in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and in looking after the household utensils.

7. Women, confined in the house under trustworthy and obedient servants, are not (well) guarded; but those who of their own accord keep guard over themselves, are well guarded.

8. Women do not care for beauty, nor is their attention fixed on age; (thinking), ‘(It is enough that) he is a man,’ they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly.

9. Through their passion for men, through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this (world).

10. (When creating them) Manu allotted to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct.

11. For women no (sacramental) rite (is performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (whoare) destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule.

I would like to remind you that a copy of Manusmriti was burnt as a protest in the presence of Dr. BR Ambedkar during historic Mahad agitation in December, 1927.

Sir! You will agree with me that Golwalkar ji was the most prominent theorist of the RSS and he like Savarkar ji, believed that Casteism was a natural integral part of Hinduism. In fact, Golwalkar went to the extent of declaring that Casteism was synonymous with the Hindu nation. According to him, the Hindu people are none else but

The Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting himself […] [according to purusha sukta] sun and moon are his eyes, the stars and the skies are created from his nabhi [navel] and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is [sic] our God. This supreme vision of Godhead is the very core of our concept of ‘nation’ and has permeated our thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural heritage.[vii]

Sarsanghchalak ji! The truth is that Hindutva is nothing but an ideology which stands for totalitarianism, Casteism and injustice. I would conclude with the words of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who said:

“If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country…it is a menace to liberty, equality and fraternity. On that account it is incompatible with democracy. Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost.”[viii]

Bhagwat ji! Reality is that Hindutva is not dangerous for minorities only but also for vast majority of Hindus, specially, Dalits and women.

I would be eagerly looking forward to receive your kind response to issues raised in this letter.

Thanking you.

Yours,

Shamsul Islam

Delhi, 25-06-2012

notoinjustice@gmail.com

[i] See the Indian Express, New Delhi & The Hindu, New Delhi dated 21-06-2012

[ii] Savarkar, V. D., Hindutva (Delhi: Bharti Sahitya Sadan, 1989) First edition 1939.

[iii] Savarkar cited in V. D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindusabha, Poona, 1963, p. 296.

[iv] Organizer, August 14, 1947.

[v] Golwalkar, M. S., Shri guruji Samagar Darshan (Collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Vol. I (Nagpur: Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, nd), p. 11.

[vi] Savarkar, V. D., ‘Women in Manusmriti’ in Savarkar Samagar, Vol. 4 [Collection of Savarkar’s Writings in Hindi] (New Delhi: Prabhat), 416.

[vii] Golwalkar, M. S., We or Our Nationhood Defined, (Nagpur:Bharat Publications, 1939), p.36.

[viii] Ambedkar, B. R., Pakistan or the Partition of India: Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings & Speeches, vol. 8 (Bombay: Govt. of Maharashtra, 1990, reprint of 1946 edition). P. 358

Shamsul Islam is Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Satyawati College, University of Delhi.

Derogatory statements about Hinduism

You might cringe when someone makes an idiotic remark about Hinduism and Hindu practices.

A majority of Indian Muslims will never make a negative statement about Hindus or Hinduism. Indeed, they will defend it as Hinduism is one of the most misunderstood religions like theirs.

They are driven by the wisdom found in the Quran, 6:108 (Itani), “Do not insult those they call upon besides God, lest they insult God out of hostility and ignorance. We made attractive to every community their deeds. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.” The Quran warns us from taking the low road and destroying mutual respect and trust.

Wisdom is available when people disagree, the best way to part is narrated in the Quran109:6 (Itani), you have your idea, and I have my way.” Let’s respectfully disagree.

Please be aware, the

re are about three mistranslations of Quran in the market, and we hope you read at least five versions out of the 50 plus translations to get it right. It is easy for one to jump to conclusions by seeing one person’s interpretation. Humans make mistakes.

From Allama Iqbal to Sahir Ludhinavi to Shakeel Badyuni and hundreds of poets and authors have written accolades, bhajans and uplifting commentary about Hinduism. On my part, I will continuously uphold and defend Islam and Hinduism, along with all religions. The wisdom of the Quran calls for people to learn about each other, and when they do, conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

I shared the following note (Pluralism 101) to a WhatsApp group with a video as a forewarning to stall Muslims from making derogatory comments. The video was about our Hindu friends drinking urine right of a Cow and washing their faces. Please remember what is sacred to you is not sacred to others, and vice versa.

A Muslim is an ultimate human being who cares for other’s wellbeing and stands up for justice to each one of the 7.5 billion inhabitants of the earth. A Muslim is an exemplary citizen and an Amin – A model citizen. We have a few bad apples, and we need to work and redeem them through critical notes like this.

The administrator of that WhatsApp group and I received a few disgusting comments, and the administrator chose to dissolve the group rather than engage in the conflicts, that was his choice. The other group also had a few negative comments. What a shame!

Muslims are developing good checks and balances, if one idiot among us makes a wrong statement, there are ten to pounce on him/her.  Our Hindu, Sikh, Jewish and Christian friends are also doing the same, speaking out against idiotic statements. There are plenty of them in each group. The new book American Muslim Agenda documents many such incidents.

I hope I am speaking for a majority of Indian Muslims, if not, please let me know. We have to talk out what is right.  

Appended below are:

1. The Pluralism 101 note (below).
2. Video of my Hindu friends drinking cow urine (not included).
3. NPR’s Muslim woman forced to resign – Indianewengland.com
4. Achche Din Aayienge? – A poem and I hope you will enjoy it and share it.
   Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/MikeGhouse/videos/463727984228407?sfns=mo

YouTube – https://youtu.be/zX8PDnNqvkI

5. Standing up for Hindus (hundreds of items to be added after 2012). http://standingupforothers.blogspot.com/2012/04/standing-with-hindus.html

Pluralism 101 (posted on two WhatsApp groups)

I’m sharing the attached 1-minute video with a specific purpose, that is, for each one of us to respect the otherness of the other. If you can watch this without making faces or sounds, you’ll earn 10/100 points in the beautiful journey of pluralism.

Others’ belief appears weird, but in reality, each faith has weirdness in it, that only others can see and not the believer.

Do you know what heaven is? It’s a state of mind that is free from conflicts, tensions, fears, and phobias. When you do your Jihad, which means an inner struggle against negative feelings, you will free yourselves from the temptations that flutter you, and achieve full freedom, Nirvana, Salvation, Mukti, Moksha or Nejat from anxieties.

Happy freedom to you!

Published at Counter-Currents:  https://countercurrents.org/2019/09/derogatory-statements-about-hinduism

 Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, author, thinker, newsmaker and an interfaith wedding officiant. His new book American Muslim Agenda is available at Amazon and the book stores.  https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeghouse/

RSS - Marketing Fascism as Hindu Nationalism

The title of the book may deter some of you from reading the book, and I hope you will make a point to read it.  It is in the interests of all people of a nation to learn each other’s point of view, to enable us to see the complexity of the issue and make decisions that are sustainable and beneficial to all Indians. What is good for you has got to be good for all to sustain. 

A majority of the people within the majority, any nation for that matter– regardless of their religion or race, are oblivious to the world around them.  In the US, a majority of white people don’t even know the apprehensions and fears the minorities endure. 

If you ask the Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, Arabs, Chinese, Somali, and the LGBT community, they can tell you the truth. Likewise, the majority community in Pakistan does not know the pain the minorities go through. Now, the same case is made with the Hindu majority of India; they just have no idea what difficulties, discrimination, and harassment the Dalits, Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs go through. They don’t even know that some of them, among them, are misrepresenting Hinduism. Hinduism does not suggest lynching of Muslims, raping Dalits, burning Adivasis and beating up on Christians.  It is time for the majority of Hindus to take back their religion, Hinduism is not about violence, it is about peaceful coexistence.  Muslims have endured that kind of label on them, but finally, they are regaining control of their religion.

The majority of Whites in America, Blacks in South Africa, Hindus in India, Atheists in China, Muslims in Pakistan and Jews in Israel assume that the other people who are less in number are living a secure life like themselves.    Since they don’t face the problems, they assume all are happy and should not complain. That is not the case; you have to be serious and read the issue to bring security to all people. You cannot be secure if people around you are not. 

Minorities are a group of people who do not have the votes to oppose or rectify the decisions of the majority that may be unjust to them.  As an example, Muslims are a majority in Pakistan and Hindus are a majority in India, Buddhists are a majority in Burma,  but in the United States, all are minorities.

The cover page of the book reads as follows: 

“Indian democratic-secular polity is passing through the most critical phase since its birth on August 15, 1947. Our constitutional polity has been taken over by RSS/BJP leaders committed to Hindutva politics which was neither part of modern India's its anti-colonial heritage nor have been faithful to the principles enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution. The Hindutva politics decried and continues to denounce democracy, secularism, egalitarianism and an all-inclusive India.

This book provides an insight into the philosophical moorings of the followers of Hindutva, and their action plans to convert India into a theocratic Hindu State. This insight is based solely on the internal documents of RSS/BJP and other fraternal Hindutva organizations. It is hoped that this Reader on RSS book will help researchers and common readers in getting acquainted with an ideology and its perpetrators who present the most lethal challenge to democratic-secular India.”

My goal in life is to open people's hearts and mind towards each other so we all can live cohesively and with least conflicts. I am pleased to offer pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. 

Mike Ghouse

Related Articles:

India Bulletin – March 18, 2018

India is at a dangerous curve now – you can laugh all you want to laugh. But if we don’t wake up and restore our democracy, each one of us will lose at the end. http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2018/03/india-bulletin-march-18-2018.html

........................................

Standing up for Hindus
http://standingupforothers.blogspot.com/2012/04/standing-with-hindus.html

........................................

Religious freedom in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh

There is a dire need to address the violations of religious and political freedoms in South Asia comprising the nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Full report  http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2018/03/religious-freedom-in-India-pakistan.html

........................................

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar owes an apology to Hindus

His statements are fodder for conflicts. To suggest that Indians will go to civil war, no matter how supreme court decides is ridiculous.  He does not respect the majority of moderate Hindus and Muslims who have accepted the verdicts of Supreme court in the past without creating a mess.  http://mikeghouseforindia.blogspot.com/2018/03/sri-Sri-Ravi-Shankar-owes-apology-to.html

Modi-ji, here is guidance for you to restore India to her greateness

Modi-ji,

India ko Langda na karo. Nehruji, Gandhiji, Patelji, Azadji, Ambedkarji aur kayee freedom fighters aap say kehte hain, "Hum laye hain toofan say kishti nikal ke, es desh ko rakhna mere baccho sambhal ke" They gave a great India in your hands, please don't cripple it. Let every Indian feel secure! All you have to do is speak up and tell your party members that you will not tolerate any Indian to be harassed by them. 

Caution:

This article, “How did Hindus become Hindu” is a very long article but worth reading as it offers solutions to the conflicts that Indians face.  No nation will prosper and stand firmly on the ground if it’s social and economic structures are not firmly rooted. They are two legs of a nation, both need to work in tandem, one will not stand without the other.  We need to fix the current policies, otherwise we will end up with a Langda India, that will make each one of us handicapped uploaded with distrust, ill-will and hatred for each other.

The author rightfully writes, “ It is not a religious idea, but a far-right political ideology, just as Zionism is the far right political ideology of Judaism.” To which I will add, Islamism is the far right political ideology of Islam, like Neocons of Christianity, Khalsa in Sikhism and of course Buddhism has one too. They are political groups fighting for their rights in the wrong way creating more divide than the intended harmony. We the people, the moderate majorities of each group have to make full blown effort for the common man to understand that these groups do not represent the beautiful religions they claim to represent.

A few days ago, I wrote the following and am glad to see someone was thinking along the same lines and wrote this article at Daily O.  What I see is the author has made people think and deliberate their actions.  

What I wrote:

The greatest task in front of Indians is to save the Democratic form of Governance where every Indian is respected and treated with dignity.  No one should have more privileges than the other, and everyone should expect and get justice, that is when we can sustain peace and harmony for everyone, yes every one.

In almost every conflict we’ve seen in India, the following revengeful references have been thrown: Babar ki Aulad, Aurangzeb, Somnath, Guru Gobind Singh and the likes. There are a lot of myths out there that need to be brought into open and demystify them.  We (all Indians who care for an India where every Indian feels secure) cannot change the hard core men and women, but strengthen the majority who sits on the fence and earn their support with facts. It is a long term effort to build a cohesive India where no Indian has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. Indeed, that was unstated goal of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism and all religions.

There is a thought worth exploring; the baseness (animal) in human beings always seeks a target to attack or hate to dump their inexplicable anger on someone, to seek false security by creating chaos and fear among the targets.   

Until the British directed the manufactured ire of Hindus towards Muslims as a part of divide and rule, their hate and denigrations was directed at the Dalits for several centuries, now it is against Dalits, Muslims and Christians. We need to find channels to direct their anger and bring a sense of security to them. Please remember it is not about Muslims and Hindus, it is about the radicalized among us. 

Should Muslims defend the bad deeds of the Kings in the past who happened to be Muslims? Should Hindus take their anger out on Muslims of independent India who have nothing to do with those kings?  

Part of the reconciliation includes summary from our historians to put a brief history of kings, all kings including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhist, Sikhs, Zoroastrian and others. Wasn’t their agenda to loot and rob the next door land? Plunder the wealth of the weak? Don’t we find good and bad kings among all traditions? Was it their lust for power that drove them insane rather than their religion?  What has religion got to do with their greed?

Courtesy of  Daily O, India
 @devdanchaudhuri

Total Shares

May we never hate each other.

The Katha Upanishad

The aim of this essay is to recover the true history and real meaning of key words, which have got muddled in the time of aggressive political and cultural propaganda.

How did Hindus become Hindu

It was the imperial British who demarcated on basis of religious beliefs – before that all major religious beliefs and practices, which originated in India, were termed together as Hindu – a word coined by the Persians to denote the land beyond the Sindhu or Indus river – after whom India has been named.

The name Indica has been used by the Greeks to name India since the time of Herodotus and Megasthenes. Two works with the same title Indica – by Megasthenes and Arrian – described the Indian subcontinent.

So the name of India got linked to the Indus River. The Persians followed the Greeks and named India after the river. But they followed the original Sanskrit name for Indus, and derived Hindu from Sindhu. In old Persian, “s” sounded like “h”.

So Hindu originally had a geographical connotation – from the Persian perspective – to denote “the land beyond the Sindhu”; the term wasn’t coined to denote any religious meaning. The suffix “stan” – indicative of a geographical place – was added to form “Hindustan”.

Sindhu in Sankrit also means river. India is that ancient river which is flowing since 5,500 years, or according to a recent archaeological discovery that happened in 2016, for 8,000 years.

That’s why the word “Hindu” doesn’t appear in the four Vedas, the Upanishads and the Buddhist scriptures. Even Adi Shankaracharya – who is known to have revived “Hinduism” in the 8th century after centuries of Buddhism – didn’t have the word “Hindu” in his consciousness or vocabulary. He introduced the esoteric “Advaita” philosophy for the learned, while he simultaneously revived the worship of gods and goddesses for the masses.

Adi Shankaracharya also established the famous four peethas at Sringeri (South), Joshimath (North), Puri (East) and Dwarka (West). But he never used the word “Hindu” in any of his works of philosophy, commentary and spiritual poetry.

But Buddhism didn’t completely vanish from India. The Buddhist Pala dynasty ruled Eastern India – including Vanga – from 750 CE to 1174 CE during which the proto-Bengali language was developed along with the early “Bengali” culture.

The word “Hindu” doesn’t appear in any ancient text of Sanatan Dharma – of all sub-religions and sub-cultures – before few Sanskrit texts started to use the word after 12th century.

The various traditions used their philosophical and spiritual practices such as Vaishnavs, Shakta, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Advaita etc – to identify themselves. But no one called themselves Hindus.

5000 Year old Culture

India is that ancient river which is flowing since 5,500 years, or according to a recent archaeological discovery that happened in 2016, for 8,000 years.

The Punjab region – Sapta Sindhava of the Vedas – has been called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. A 6 BCE stone inscription of Persian King Darius I mentioned the land of Hi(n)dush – referred to North-Western India. The people of India were also referred as Hinduvan and Hindavi in the 8th century Persian text Chachnama. As pointed out earlier, the word “Hindu” is an ethnographic geographical word and didn’t denote any religion. Al-Biruni’s 11th century text Tarikh Al-Hind and also the texts of the Delhi Sultanate used the word “Hindu” to denote all non-Islamic people of India, and it remained ambiguous about whether Hindu denoted a region or a religion.

In the late 12th century, Prithviraj Raso by Chanda Bardai – that some scholars say was written later than 1192 – documented the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori. That text is full of references to “Hindus” and “Turks”.

Here as well geographical meaning was used – it was a battle between “Hindus and Turks”; not Hindus and Muslims.

The Indian invaders didn’t come from Persia – the seat of Islamic high culture represented by modern day Iran – but they came from Central Asia and they were mostly Turks.

The main religion of ancient Persia was Zoroastrianism. That was transformed by the Arab Conquest of Persia in 651 CE that expanded the Islamic Caliphate.

King Darius I of the Zoroastrian Persia annexed parts of the Indus Valley in the north in 515 BCE, when the rest of ancient India was dominated by sixteen Mahajanapadas (great countries in Sanskrit) that included Magadha in the East – from where the Maurya and the Gupta Empires evolved and spread.

The Muslim Persian never tried to conquer India throughout its history. They never sent out an army towards Hind to annexe it with the Persian Empire and their scholars translated countless Sanskrit texts into Persian.

So what is being viewed as “Muslim invasions” in present India in context of our history wasn’t viewed as such in the medieval times of the invasions. The invaders were Central Asian Turkish warriors who were exceptionally skilled as horsemen. The first Mughal emperor Babur was a Central Asian Uzbeg. He was born in Andijan, Timurid Empire that is present day Uzbekistan.

Even the Lodhi Sultanate Dynasty that Babur dethroned in Delhi originated from Afghan Pastun dynasty that was ruling North India since 1451.

Muhammad of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori and the Khilji dynasty – all originated from modern-day Afghanistan.

One has to keep in mind that the great empires of ancient India – such as the Mauryas and the Guptas – had extended beyond Afghanistan into Central Asia. Many of the Turks and Afghans who are now seen as “invaders into India” came from regions which were once part of the ancient empires of India.

*

The Persian “Hindu” slowly caught on among the people of India and they started to use that word to denote the difference between them and the Turks. Certain 16th-18th century Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava texts started to use the word Hindu to contrast themselves with Yavanas (foreigners).

Chaitanya Charitamrita (16th century) and Bhakta Mala (17th century) – both in Bengali – used the phrase “Hindu dharma”.

There are countless more examples. But the essential truth is that the people of India started to think themselves to be “Hindus” slowly over several centuries, after 12th century. This happened because of the Central Asian invasions that slowly popularised the Persian word among the populace. And the Imperial British added “ism” to Hindu in the early 19th century in order to execute its divide and rule strategy.

All the three words: Hindus, Hindustan and Hinduism have no connection with ancient India, prior to 12th century. They began to get accepted gradually after 16th century by a larger populace.

The recent DNA genealogy studies – from multiple sources – suggest: India has been populated primarily by three waves of ancient migrations. The last two waves from Central Asia, Caucus region and southern Siberia – around 12,000-15,000 years and 4,500-3,500 years ago – have given birth to India of now, in terms of “Hindu” population.

Hindus are also the descendents of “invaders” into India; our world has been formed by migrations, and continues to be formed by migrations.

But the Hindutva ideology thinks India as a “pure land” for “pure Hindus”. The ideology staunchly identifies with the three crucial words – “Hindu” and “Hindustan” coined by the Persians and “Hinduism” coined by the British – which are at the heart of its nationalistic narrative and worldview.

The three words – Hindu, Hindustan and Hinduism – were coined and popularised by Muslims and Christians – whom the Hindutva ideology identifies as “invaders”.

The irony of this truth is astonishing.

All the diverse philosophical traditions and the sub-traditions which originated in India are part of Sanatan Dharma that translates to “Eternal Law” or “Eternal Way of Things” or “Eternal Order”. What are now called Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism were the sub-cultures (with sub-sub-cultures) within the larger culture of Sanatan Dharma.

Sanatan Dharma has to be seen like a Great Wheel whose spokes are the diverse thoughts and belief systems which originated in India. Most of the major systems also imbibed aspects from the other systems of thoughts – ideas were mixed with other ideas to create more ideas. So the flow of Sanatan Dharma over time was like a braided stream.

Plurality and syncretism were the essential part of Sanatan Dharma; this is reflected in the diversity of modern India.

S Radhakrishnan’s Indian Philosophy and Surendranath Dasgupta’s A History of Indian Philosophy record the progression of all the major schools of thought which have shaped our history and culture. All the traditions and sub-traditions of all the religions under Sanatan Dharma stem from the major schools of Indian thought: the Vedas, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhyas, Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism and so on. They have got mingled with myths, legends, folklore, epic literature, passage of history and regional propensities to produce the diversity of religious and spiritual practices of India.

So where does Hindutva fit within this scheme of things? From where did the word come into our consciousness?

Hindutva is not Hinduism

I have observed that books which have been written while the author is incarcerated tend to have a lasting impact in some sphere or the other.

In 1923, while being incarcerated in Ratnagiri, VD Savarkar wrote his manifesto Essentials of Hindutva. He coined the word Hindutva to frame his far-right political philosophy that uses nationalism and religious identity. Hindutva was ideated by Savarkar, not the spiritual sages of India. In the essay Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Savarkar himself wrote, “Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism.” His aim was the political mobilisation of all those with “Hindu” identity to form a nation of militant nationalists.

By this time Savarkar was already a political person. In 1915, he had founded the right wing political party Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha.

VD Savarkar coined the word Hindutva to frame his far-right political philosophy.

Dr KB Hedgewar read Savarkar’s Essentials of Hindutva and was greatly inspired by the ideas. He severed his association with Indian National Congress and founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925.

The Sangh Parivar started its journey when Hindu Mahasabha joined forces with RSS, and the Parivar adopted Savarkar’s Hindutva to frame their essential far-right ideology that was also influenced by MS Golwalkar – the second sarsanghchalak or the second supreme leader of the RSS.

Veer Savarkar

Golwalkar

So Hindutva took birth as a political ideology and has little connection with the esoteric philosophical and spiritual ideals of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. It has always linked itself with patriarchal conservatism and ritualistic religion which they framed as “Hindu culture” and “Indian culture” while neglecting the plural and secular traditions of the broader and more diverse Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma.

The RSS also campaigned for Manusmriti as the Indian Constitution. Its inherent ultra-orthodox worldview always opposed liberal and progressive principles. They still dream to alter the Indian Constitution and change the Indian Tricolour to saffron.

They also tend to think that the “Hindi-Hindustani” version of Hinduism is superior to the other kinds of Hinduism that are practised, especially in the South and Eastern India. They look down upon plurality as a sort of “religious and cultural” distortion.

India never had a single all-powerful Church-like organisation to define the practices of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. This allowed multiple orthodox and unorthodox traditions and sub-traditions to take birth and flourish in India.

Respecting the freedom of the human spirit to seek, interpret, develop and pursue religious and spiritual activities as per one’s own will and preference is an unsung hallmark of Indian civilisation. Plurality is not only the reality of modern of India, but it is also the essential “civilisational spirit” of our land.

*

In reality, when one looks behind the symbolisms, tokenisms and propaganda, one can assess that the ideals and principles of “Hindu Rashtra” resemble Hindutva Rashtra. More than “Hindu” interests, they represent Hindutva interest.

The far-right ideology was also influenced by MS Golwalkar – the second sarsanghchalak.

Looking at our times, I am not sure, whether the Hindutva leaders and supporters believe in any of the prime concepts of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma: truth, non-violence and karma.

So one shouldn’t confuse Hindutva with Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma; Hindutva is not a religious idea, but a far-right political ideology, just as Zionism is the far right political ideology of Judaism.

The essential aim of any political ideology is to seek political power. The far right ideologies tend to exploit religion in a way that other moderate, liberal and progressive ideologies don’t.

By supporting or opposing Hindutva, one doesn’t necessarily support or oppose Hinduism.

By supporting or opposing the government, one doesn’t necessarily support or oppose India.

Democracy gives the power to the people to rightfully oppose those who are in power; when this power of the people is diluted, then democracy turns into anti-democratic authoritarianism.

The government is not the nation; neither Hindutva is Hinduism.

The “politically-motivated” practice to call those who oppose the BJP government or the Hindutva ideology as “anti-nationals” and “anti-Hindus” is absurd. It’s a manufactured polarisation and a psychological operation to divide people for the sake of political power.

The “non-Hindutva Hindus” in our country are not “lesser Hindus” as the far-right would want their supporters to believe. The “non-Hindutva Hindus” are being derided as “sickulars”, “libtards”, “leftists” and so on.

The Hindutva brigade is aggressively fighting the fellow citizens of one’s own country and all the fellow Hindus who don’t ascribe to its ideology. They have made “enemies” out of people, who simply don’t agree with them.

Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma is so vast and diverse, that no single definition of Hinduism can exist or be imposed upon India. That’s why the Supreme Court of India defined Hinduism as a “way of life”.

The socio-cultural engineering mission of the Hindi-Hindustan-Hindutva brigade to “convert” all the Hindus of India with their practices, worldview and angst-ridden ideals, is doomed to flounder.

India is syncretic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and diverse. When a single political party, religious organisation or a linguistic cultural group self-select themselves as the sole custodian of Hinduism, and wish to impose their ways on the rest, then they not only cause regional anxieties and stressful fissures in the wider social fabric, but they also violate the traditional “civilisational spirit” of our land.

Theocracy-infused nationalism or ‘theo-nationalism’ that supplants humanism cannot also define patriotism in the 21st century when our collective progress is deeply inter-connected with the world.

One also doesn’t need to hate targeted groups of fellow citizens to display love for one’s nation. Social, cultural and communal tensions in the time of a severe economic downturn will only peg back India.

Those who are misunderstanding Hindutva as Hinduism and Hindutva nationalism as Indian nationalism should examine the nature of the ideals, values and actions which they are unwittingly supporting, and contrast them with the essential spiritual and philosophical principles of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma.

# # # #

s

India: Perfect Article on India’s Social Conflicts

 Dr. Mike Ghouse    December 17, 2017    Comments Offon India: Perfect Article on India’s Social Conflicts

Caution:

This article, “How did Hindus become Hindu” is a very long article but worth reading as it offers solutions to the conflicts that Indians face.  No nation will prosper and stand firmly on the ground if it’s social and economic structures are not firmly rooted. They are two legs of a nation, both need to work in tandem, one will not stand without the other.  We need to fix the current policies, otherwise we will end up with a Langda India, that will make each one of us handicapped uploaded with distrust, ill-will and hatred for each other.

The author rightfully writes, “ It is not a religious idea, but a far-right political ideology, just as Zionism is the far right political ideology of Judaism.” To which I will add, Islamism is the far right political ideology of Islam, like Neocons of Christianity, Khalsa in Sikhism and of course Buddhism has one too. They are political groups fighting for their rights in the wrong way creating more divide than the intended harmony. We the people, the moderate majorities of each group have to make full blown effort for the common man to understand that these groups do not represent the beautiful religions they claim to represent.

A few days ago, I wrote the following and am glad to see someone was thinking along the same lines and wrote this article at Daily O.  What I see is the author has made people think and deliberate their actions.  

What I wrote:

The greatest task in front of Indians is to save the Democratic form of Governance where every Indian is respected and treated with dignity.  No one should have more privileges than the other, and everyone should expect and get justice, that is when we can sustain peace and harmony for everyone, yes every one.

In almost every conflict we’ve seen in India, the following revengeful references have been thrown: Babar ki Aulad, Aurangzeb, Somnath, Guru Gobind Singh and the likes. There are a lot of myths out there that need to be brought into open and demystify them.  We (all Indians who care for an India where every Indian feels secure) cannot change the hard core men and women, but strengthen the majority who sits on the fence and earn their support with facts. It is a long term effort to build a cohesive India where no Indian has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. Indeed, that was unstated goal of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism and all religions.

There is a thought worth exploring; the baseness (animal) in human beings always seeks a target to attack or hate to dump their inexplicable anger on someone, to seek false security by creating chaos and fear among the targets.   

Until the British directed the manufactured ire of Hindus towards Muslims as a part of divide and rule, their hate and denigrations was directed at the Dalits for several centuries, now it is against Dalits, Muslims and Christians. We need to find channels to direct their anger and bring a sense of security to them. Please remember it is not about Muslims and Hindus, it is about the radicalized among us. 

Should Muslims defend the bad deeds of the Kings in the past who happened to be Muslims? Should Hindus take their anger out on Muslims of independent India who have nothing to do with those kings?  

Part of the reconciliation includes summary from our historians to put a brief history of kings, all kings including Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhist, Sikhs, Zoroastrian and others. Wasn’t their agenda to loot and rob the next door land? Plunder the wealth of the weak? Don’t we find good and bad kings among all traditions? Was it their lust for power that drove them insane rather than their religion?  What has religion got to do with their greed?

Here is the article

How did Hindus become Hindu

Courtesy of  Daily O, India
 @devdanchaudhuri

Total Shares

May we never hate each other.

The Katha Upanishad

The aim of this essay is to recover the true history and real meaning of key words, which have got muddled in the time of aggressive political and cultural propaganda.

It was the imperial British who demarcated on basis of religious beliefs – before that all major religious beliefs and practices, which originated in India, were termed together as Hindu – a word coined by the Persians to denote the land beyond the Sindhu or Indus river – after whom India has been named.

The name Indica has been used by the Greeks to name India since the time of Herodotus and Megasthenes. Two works with the same title Indica – by Megasthenes and Arrian – described the Indian subcontinent.

So the name of India got linked to the Indus River. The Persians followed the Greeks and named India after the river. But they followed the original Sanskrit name for Indus, and derived Hindu from Sindhu. In old Persian, “s” sounded like “h”.

So Hindu originally had a geographical connotation – from the Persian perspective – to denote “the land beyond the Sindhu”; the term wasn’t coined to denote any religious meaning. The suffix “stan” – indicative of a geographical place – was added to form “Hindustan”.

Sindhu in Sankrit also means river. India is that ancient river which is flowing since 5,500 years, or according to a recent archaeological discovery that happened in 2016, for 8,000 years.

That’s why the word “Hindu” doesn’t appear in the four Vedas, the Upanishads and the Buddhist scriptures. Even Adi Shankaracharya – who is known to have revived “Hinduism” in the 8th century after centuries of Buddhism – didn’t have the word “Hindu” in his consciousness or vocabulary. He introduced the esoteric “Advaita” philosophy for the learned, while he simultaneously revived the worship of gods and goddesses for the masses.

Adi Shankaracharya also established the famous four peethas at Sringeri (South), Joshimath (North), Puri (East) and Dwarka (West). But he never used the word “Hindu” in any of his works of philosophy, commentary and spiritual poetry.

But Buddhism didn’t completely vanish from India. The Buddhist Pala dynasty ruled Eastern India – including Vanga – from 750 CE to 1174 CE during which the proto-Bengali language was developed along with the early “Bengali” culture.

The word “Hindu” doesn’t appear in any ancient text of Sanatan Dharma – of all sub-religions and sub-cultures – before few Sanskrit texts started to use the word after 12th century.

The various traditions used their philosophical and spiritual practices such as Vaishnavs, Shakta, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Advaita etc – to identify themselves. But no one called themselves Hindus.

5000 Year old Culture

India is that ancient river which is flowing since 5,500 years, or according to a recent archaeological discovery that happened in 2016, for 8,000 years.

The Punjab region – Sapta Sindhava of the Vedas – has been called Hapta Hindu in Zend Avesta. A 6 BCE stone inscription of Persian King Darius I mentioned the land of Hi(n)dush – referred to North-Western India. The people of India were also referred as Hinduvan and Hindavi in the 8th century Persian text Chachnama. As pointed out earlier, the word “Hindu” is an ethnographic geographical word and didn’t denote any religion. Al-Biruni’s 11th century text Tarikh Al-Hind and also the texts of the Delhi Sultanate used the word “Hindu” to denote all non-Islamic people of India, and it remained ambiguous about whether Hindu denoted a region or a religion.

In the late 12th century, Prithviraj Raso by Chanda Bardai – that some scholars say was written later than 1192 – documented the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan at the hands of Muhammad Ghori. That text is full of references to “Hindus” and “Turks”.

Here as well geographical meaning was used – it was a battle between “Hindus and Turks”; not Hindus and Muslims.

The Indian invaders didn’t come from Persia – the seat of Islamic high culture represented by modern day Iran – but they came from Central Asia and they were mostly Turks.

The main religion of ancient Persia was Zoroastrianism. That was transformed by the Arab Conquest of Persia in 651 CE that expanded the Islamic Caliphate.

King Darius I of the Zoroastrian Persia annexed parts of the Indus Valley in the north in 515 BCE, when the rest of ancient India was dominated by sixteen Mahajanapadas (great countries in Sanskrit) that included Magadha in the East – from where the Maurya and the Gupta Empires evolved and spread.

The Muslim Persian never tried to conquer India throughout its history. They never sent out an army towards Hind to annexe it with the Persian Empire and their scholars translated countless Sanskrit texts into Persian.

So what is being viewed as “Muslim invasions” in present India in context of our history wasn’t viewed as such in the medieval times of the invasions. The invaders were Central Asian Turkish warriors who were exceptionally skilled as horsemen. The first Mughal emperor Babur was a Central Asian Uzbeg. He was born in Andijan, Timurid Empire that is present day Uzbekistan.

Even the Lodhi Sultanate Dynasty that Babur dethroned in Delhi originated from Afghan Pastun dynasty that was ruling North India since 1451.

Muhammad of Ghazni, Muhammad Ghori and the Khilji dynasty – all originated from modern-day Afghanistan.

One has to keep in mind that the great empires of ancient India – such as the Mauryas and the Guptas – had extended beyond Afghanistan into Central Asia. Many of the Turks and Afghans who are now seen as “invaders into India” came from regions which were once part of the ancient empires of India.

*

The Persian “Hindu” slowly caught on among the people of India and they started to use that word to denote the difference between them and the Turks. Certain 16th-18th century Bengali Gaudiya Vaishnava texts started to use the word Hindu to contrast themselves with Yavanas (foreigners).

Chaitanya Charitamrita (16th century) and Bhakta Mala (17th century) – both in Bengali – used the phrase “Hindu dharma”.

There are countless more examples. But the essential truth is that the people of India started to think themselves to be “Hindus” slowly over several centuries, after 12th century. This happened because of the Central Asian invasions that slowly popularised the Persian word among the populace. And the Imperial British added “ism” to Hindu in the early 19th century in order to execute its divide and rule strategy.

All the three words: Hindus, Hindustan and Hinduism have no connection with ancient India, prior to 12th century. They began to get accepted gradually after 16th century by a larger populace.

The recent DNA genealogy studies – from multiple sources – suggest: India has been populated primarily by three waves of ancient migrations. The last two waves from Central Asia, Caucus region and southern Siberia – around 12,000-15,000 years and 4,500-3,500 years ago – have given birth to India of now, in terms of “Hindu” population.

Hindus are also the descendents of “invaders” into India; our world has been formed by migrations, and continues to be formed by migrations.

But the Hindutva ideology thinks India as a “pure land” for “pure Hindus”. The ideology staunchly identifies with the three crucial words – “Hindu” and “Hindustan” coined by the Persians and “Hinduism” coined by the British – which are at the heart of its nationalistic narrative and worldview.

The three words – Hindu, Hindustan and Hinduism – were coined and popularised by Muslims and Christians – whom the Hindutva ideology identifies as “invaders”.

The irony of this truth is astonishing.

All the diverse philosophical traditions and the sub-traditions which originated in India are part of Sanatan Dharma that translates to “Eternal Law” or “Eternal Way of Things” or “Eternal Order”. What are now called Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism were the sub-cultures (with sub-sub-cultures) within the larger culture of Sanatan Dharma.

Sanatan Dharma has to be seen like a Great Wheel whose spokes are the diverse thoughts and belief systems which originated in India. Most of the major systems also imbibed aspects from the other systems of thoughts – ideas were mixed with other ideas to create more ideas. So the flow of Sanatan Dharma over time was like a braided stream.

Plurality and syncretism were the essential part of Sanatan Dharma; this is reflected in the diversity of modern India.

S Radhakrishnan’s Indian Philosophy and Surendranath Dasgupta’s A History of Indian Philosophy record the progression of all the major schools of thought which have shaped our history and culture. All the traditions and sub-traditions of all the religions under Sanatan Dharma stem from the major schools of Indian thought: the Vedas, the Upanishads, Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhyas, Advaita, Kashmir Shaivism and so on. They have got mingled with myths, legends, folklore, epic literature, passage of history and regional propensities to produce the diversity of religious and spiritual practices of India.

So where does Hindutva fit within this scheme of things? From where did the word come into our consciousness?

Hindutva is not Hinduism

I have observed that books which have been written while the author is incarcerated tend to have a lasting impact in some sphere or the other.

In 1923, while being incarcerated in Ratnagiri, VD Savarkar wrote his manifesto Essentials of Hindutva. He coined the word Hindutva to frame his far-right political philosophy that uses nationalism and religious identity. Hindutva was ideated by Savarkar, not the spiritual sages of India. In the essay Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Savarkar himself wrote, “Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism.” His aim was the political mobilisation of all those with “Hindu” identity to form a nation of militant nationalists.

By this time Savarkar was already a political person. In 1915, he had founded the right wing political party Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha.

VD Savarkar coined the word Hindutva to frame his far-right political philosophy.

Dr KB Hedgewar read Savarkar’s Essentials of Hindutva and was greatly inspired by the ideas. He severed his association with Indian National Congress and founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925.

The Sangh Parivar started its journey when Hindu Mahasabha joined forces with RSS, and the Parivar adopted Savarkar’s Hindutva to frame their essential far-right ideology that was also influenced by MS Golwalkar – the second sarsanghchalak or the second supreme leader of the RSS.

Veer Savarkar

Golwalkar

So Hindutva took birth as a political ideology and has little connection with the esoteric philosophical and spiritual ideals of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. It has always linked itself with patriarchal conservatism and ritualistic religion which they framed as “Hindu culture” and “Indian culture” while neglecting the plural and secular traditions of the broader and more diverse Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma.

The RSS also campaigned for Manusmriti as the Indian Constitution. Its inherent ultra-orthodox worldview always opposed liberal and progressive principles. They still dream to alter the Indian Constitution and change the Indian Tricolour to saffron.

They also tend to think that the “Hindi-Hindustani” version of Hinduism is superior to the other kinds of Hinduism that are practised, especially in the South and Eastern India. They look down upon plurality as a sort of “religious and cultural” distortion.

India never had a single all-powerful Church-like organisation to define the practices of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma. This allowed multiple orthodox and unorthodox traditions and sub-traditions to take birth and flourish in India.

Respecting the freedom of the human spirit to seek, interpret, develop and pursue religious and spiritual activities as per one’s own will and preference is an unsung hallmark of Indian civilisation. Plurality is not only the reality of modern of India, but it is also the essential “civilisational spirit” of our land.

*

In reality, when one looks behind the symbolisms, tokenisms and propaganda, one can assess that the ideals and principles of “Hindu Rashtra” resemble Hindutva Rashtra. More than “Hindu” interests, they represent Hindutva interest.

The far-right ideology was also influenced by MS Golwalkar – the second sarsanghchalak.

Looking at our times, I am not sure, whether the Hindutva leaders and supporters believe in any of the prime concepts of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma: truth, non-violence and karma.

So one shouldn’t confuse Hindutva with Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma; Hindutva is not a religious idea, but a far-right political ideology, just as Zionism is the far right political ideology of Judaism.

The essential aim of any political ideology is to seek political power. The far right ideologies tend to exploit religion in a way that other moderate, liberal and progressive ideologies don’t.

By supporting or opposing Hindutva, one doesn’t necessarily support or oppose Hinduism.

By supporting or opposing the government, one doesn’t necessarily support or oppose India.

Democracy gives the power to the people to rightfully oppose those who are in power; when this power of the people is diluted, then democracy turns into anti-democratic authoritarianism.

The government is not the nation; neither Hindutva is Hinduism.

The “politically-motivated” practice to call those who oppose the BJP government or the Hindutva ideology as “anti-nationals” and “anti-Hindus” is absurd. It’s a manufactured polarisation and a psychological operation to divide people for the sake of political power.

The “non-Hindutva Hindus” in our country are not “lesser Hindus” as the far-right would want their supporters to believe. The “non-Hindutva Hindus” are being derided as “sickulars”, “libtards”, “leftists” and so on.

The Hindutva brigade is aggressively fighting the fellow citizens of one’s own country and all the fellow Hindus who don’t ascribe to its ideology. They have made “enemies” out of people, who simply don’t agree with them.

Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma is so vast and diverse, that no single definition of Hinduism can exist or be imposed upon India. That’s why the Supreme Court of India defined Hinduism as a “way of life”.

The socio-cultural engineering mission of the Hindi-Hindustan-Hindutva brigade to “convert” all the Hindus of India with their practices, worldview and angst-ridden ideals, is doomed to flounder.

India is syncretic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and diverse. When a single political party, religious organisation or a linguistic cultural group self-select themselves as the sole custodian of Hinduism, and wish to impose their ways on the rest, then they not only cause regional anxieties and stressful fissures in the wider social fabric, but they also violate the traditional “civilisational spirit” of our land.

Theocracy-infused nationalism or ‘theo-nationalism’ that supplants humanism cannot also define patriotism in the 21st century when our collective progress is deeply inter-connected with the world.

One also doesn’t need to hate targeted groups of fellow citizens to display love for one’s nation. Social, cultural and communal tensions in the time of a severe economic downturn will only peg back India.

Those who are misunderstanding Hindutva as Hinduism and Hindutva nationalism as Indian nationalism should examine the nature of the ideals, values and actions which they are unwittingly supporting, and contrast them with the essential spiritual and philosophical principles of Hinduism/Sanatan Dharma.

# # # #