Hindu Rashtra Part2

 

Home ] Up ]

 

Rejecting Science and History

Chapter 4
What is this Hindu Rashtra ?
by
Sitaram Yechuri

 

Totally ignoring - in fact rejecting - the recorded history of this period which was available to Golwalkar's generation, he straitjackets these centuries into a static time-frame whose only denominator is 'Hindu kings'. Even amongst the kings he names, why was it that the same Pulakeshin-II stopped the southward march of Harshavardhana and defeated him on the banks of the river Narmada ? Both were great Hindu kings according to Golwalkar and members of the same nationhood ! His exercise defies not only history but also the laws of social development. My do kings fight against one another, why do empires rise and fall ? Why did the slave system give way to the feudal agrarian order ? Or how and why did the British succeed in subjugating 'Hindu kings' through superior arms? Why did the great Hindu nation not produce such firepower ? All such questions are irrelevant to Golwalkar's exercise. In a similar vein, revolts against the oppressive. Hindu rituals and caste order are ignored. Buddhism is described merely as a variant of Hinduism. In fact, all other religions (especially Sikhism and Jainism) which originated in India are, sought to be appropriated into the Hindu monolith. Indian history for over eight hundred years is depicted as a single thread of along war by the 'Hindu nation as a whole' against the invading Muslims. Golwalkar, however, says that the Hindu nation, which was finally emerging victorious, was subjugated by a new foe - the British. The First War of Independence against the British in 1857 is depicted as "the last great nation-wide attempt. to end the long war" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 11) by the Hindu nation. "The
 
 

  attempt failed but even in their defeat a whole galaxy of noble Hindu patriots stands out - glorious objects of the Nation's worship." (Colwalkar, 1939, p.11). Golwalkar conveniently forgets that the symbol of this revolt against the British, even by the heroic and devout Hindu queen, Rani Laxmi Bhai of Jhansi, was the Mughal monarch, Bahadur ShahZafar! Was this the war of 'Hindus' against Muslim invaders or that of Indians for their freedom ? Such facts of history, however, are irrelevant for Golwalkar. Further, Golwalkar adduces five characteristics (or "unities") which according to him define the nation. "Geographical(Country), Racial (Race), Religious (Religion), Cultural (Culture) and Linguistic (Language)" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 33). The entire exercise that follows is to establish that the Hindus in India possessed all these characteristics and hence have always been a nation. But the task, even for Golwalkar, is not easy. Of all, " the knotty point is Religion and to a certain extent language" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 33). Race for Golwalkar is "... by far the most important ingredi- ent of a Nation" (Golwalkar,1939, p. 21). It is for this reason that he always uses the terms Hindu and Aryan synonymously. Historical evidence, of course, is irrelevant.

Appropriating Aryans

Chapter 5
What is this Hindu Rashtra ?
by
Sitaram Yechuri

 

According to his entire body of argument, the Indus Valley civilisation would be an indigenous Aryan civilisation. In which case, why did it disintegrate ? What were the internal causes ? If this civilisation was overrun from outside, who were these people ? After coming into this land, did these people continue to live here or did they go back? And if evidence points to the fact that they continued to live here, what was the race that emerged as a result of this admixture ? All these questions areas inconvenient for Golwalkar as historical evidence is inconvenient for the Saffron Brigade today. Such questions are countered by the formidable assertion of `matters of faith'. Noted historian Romila Thapar, for example, says,

"The linguistic evidence of Vedic Sanskrit supports the coming into India of an Indo-European language from Iran but does not support the notion that India was the homeland of the Aryan-speaking people" (Seminar 400, December 1992; also see Seminar 364, December 1989).
Golwalkar dismisses all such historical evidence in a footnote:
"But obsessed with the idea, that Aryans came to Hindusthan from somewhere near the Caspian Sea or the Arctic region or some such place,

p.10

and invaded this land in bands of marauders, that later they settled down first in the Punjab and gradually spread eastward along the Gunga, forming kingdoms at various places, at Ayodhya among them, the Historian feels it an anachronism, that the kingdom of Ayodhya in the Ramayan should be older than the more western Pandava Empire at Hastinapur. And he, with pedantic ignorance, teaches us that the story of the Mahabharat is the older. Unfortunately such misconceptions are stuffed into the brains of our young ones through text books appointed by various Universities in the country. It is high time that we studied, understood and wrote our history ourselves and discarded such designed or undesigned distortions'(Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 5-6).
The inspiration for the BJP State Governments to change the syllabi and curricula in accordance with such an understanding originates in this source. However untenable this theory may be, on this basis Golwalkar asserts the overall supremacy of religion in social life. This has little to do with religiosity. This had to reestablished to achieve the political objective Golwalkar sets out for the RSS. He dismisses the modern concept of secularism where religion is separated from both politics and state and treated as an individual question. Treating secularism as virtual blasphemy, he argues:
"There is general tendency to affirm that Religion is an individual question and should have no place in public and political life. This tendency is based upon a misconception of Religion, and has its origin in those, who have,as a people, no religion worth the name" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 23).
Since no other religion is worth its name except Hinduism he asserts:
"Such Religion - and nothing else deserves that name - cannot be ignored in individual or public life. It must have a place in proportion to its vast importance in politics as well... Indeed politics itself becomes, in the case of such a Religion, a small factor to be considered and followed solely as one of the commands of Religion and in accord with such commands" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 24).
He thus negates the historical experience - different nations having the same state religion, or secular nations having no state religion and the existence of multi-national states - and the scientific validity of the fact that religion has nowhere and at no time cemented national unity. The fact that Islamic Bangladesh separated from Muslim Pakistan as a result of the national struggle of the Bangladeshi people despite a common religion is, of course, uncomfortable for such a standpoint to consider. But it is necessary for Golwalkar to assert the overall supremacy of religion for his political project.

Golwalkar's ingenious perfidy is, however, in relation to language. The multitude of languages that exist in our country, each with its own history, culture and tradition, and the fact that nationalities have emerged on this basis and continue to co-exist is dismissed with contempt.

"It appears as if the Linguistic unity is wanting, and there are not one but many Nations, separated from each other by linguistic differences. But in fact that is not so. There is but one language, Sanskrit, of which these many `languages' are mere offshoots, the children of the mother language. Sanskrit, the dialect of the Gods, is common to all from the Himalayas to the ocean in the South, from East to West and all the modem sister languages are through it so much interrelated as to be practically one. It needs but little labour to acquire a going acquaintance with any tongue. And even among the modern languages Hindi is the most commonly understood and used as a medium of expression between persons of different provinces" (Golwalkar, 1939, p.43).
Such incredible logic, however, is only applicable to India. Many a European nation uses a common language, or their languages have been the offshoots of a single Indo-European mother. They exist because of different languages and accompanying cultures and traditions as different nations and nationalities today. This is, however, irrelevant for Golwalkar as the purpose of his exercise, divorced from scientific analysis and historical experience, is to straitjacket Indian diversity into a monolithic unity for political purposes. It is precisely on the basis of this understanding that the Saffron Brigade all along opposed and continues to oppose today the linguistic re-organisation of States. It is, of course, of no concern to them that at least Tamil and Kashmiri have their origin in a non-Sanskrit group of languages. Or for that matter Sanskrit itself was a branch of Indo-European languages which evolved and developed in this part of the world. The Saffron Brigade's opposition to Urdu, a language that completely and thoroughly evolved only in India, and its efforts to impose Hindi, ate also to be traced to this source. Its current slogan, "Hindu, Hindi, Hindusthan", portends what its political project holds for the future of crores of non-Hindi-speaking people of India. Golwalkar finds himself in complete isolation from both the Western concept of a nation and the concept found in the Indian scriptures. He himself says: "For the Rashtra concept to be complete it should be composed of 'Desh' country, 'Jati' race and 'Janpad' people" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 52). But in order to reconcile his theory he conveniently twists this understanding to assert that though "no

p.12

mention is found of the three components Religion, Culture and Language" (in the ancient Indian scriptures), "the concept of 'Janpad' explicitly includes these" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 52).

Rabid Intolerance

Chapter 6
What is this Hindu Rashtra ?
by
Sitaram Yechuri

 

Having thus "established" that the Hindus were always and continue to remain a nation on the basis of an unscientific and a historical analysis, Golwalkar proceeds to assert the intolerant, theocratic content of such a Hindu nation:

" ... The conclusion is unquestionably forced upon us that... in Hindusthan exists and must needs exist the ancient Hindu nation and nought else but the Hindu Nation. All those not belonging to the national, i.e., Hindu Race, Religion, Culture and Language naturally fallout of the pale of real `National' life. We repeat: in Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus, lives and should live the Hindu Nation - satisfying all the five essential requirements of the scientific nation concept of the modem world. Consequently only those movements are truly `National' as aim at re- buildimg, revitalizing and emancipating from its present stupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalist patriots, who, with the, aspiration to glorify the Hindu race and nation next to their heart, are prompted into activity and strive to achieve that goal. All others are either traitors and enemies to the National cause, or, to take a charitable view, idiots" (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 43-44).
He continues:
"We must bear in mind that so far as 'nation' is concerned, all those, who fall outside the five-fold limits of that idea, can have no place in the national life unless they abandon their differences, adopt the religion, culture and language of the Nation and completely merge themselves in the National Race. So long, however, as they maintain their racial, religious and cultural differences, they cannot but be only foreigners " (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 45).
And further:
"There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the country at the sweet will of the national race... From this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu

p.13

nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation,claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any prefer- ential treatment - not even citizen's rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let us deal, as old nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races, who have chosen to live in our country." (Golwalkar, 1939, pp. 47-48).
 

Hindu Rashtra Part2
Hindu Rashtra Part 3

HINDU ,Dalit, Muslims, INDIA , 

Fascism, Nazism, GenocidesHuman rights

Indian fascism :Intro,Myths, Organizations, Cultural Fascism,Babri Masjid, Bombay Riots , Role of Govt. 

Images  Posters  Cartoon  Audio & Video   News & Events  What'sNew E-Zine About US

Discuss The Topic Further On Our Public Bulletin Board 

To subscribe our newsletter and to get future update notifications, Join our mailing list! Enter your email address below, then click the button
 

1 Add this page to Favorites * Share it with a Friend : Make it your Homepage!

Your suggestions  will keep us abreast of what do u like to see in these pages.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Opinions expressed in the articles are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publishers. This Web contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making these available in our efforts to advance understanding of human rights, democracy and social justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use these copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Last updated: January 15, 2001 .