|
Rejecting Science and History 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. 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,
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
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). 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:
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). |
|
|