For the benefit of those who say that this book was not written by Golwalkar but was merely a translation of the Martha work Rashtra Meemansa by Babarao G.D. Savarkar, brother of V.D. Savarkar ( as claimed by a senior official of the RSS-run Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Research Center, New Delhi, in Jansatta. January 7, 1993) here is a quote from the preface written by Golwalkar on March '), 1939 to the first edition of the book:

" In compiling this work, I have received help from numerous quarters, too many to mention. I thank them all heartily; but I cannot help separately naming one and expressing my gratefulness to him. Deshbhakta G.D. Savarkar. His work Rashtra Meemansa in Marathi has been one of my chief sources of inspiration and help. An English translation of this is due to be shortly out and 1 take this opportunity of directing the reader to that book for a more exhaustive study of the subject. The manuscript of this book was ready as early as the first week of November1938, but its appearance earlier, however desirable, was not possible due to many difficulties." (Golwalkar, 1939, p.4).

The authorship thus being beyond dispute, we can say quite certainly that the book was neither barred from re-publication nor withdrawn after 1942 (on the basis of such a claim by the same RSS, official in lansatta, the editor of Navbharat Times went to the unethical extent of appending a comment to one of my articles that the RSS claims that it has withdrawn this book ! ). We have in our possession the fourth edition of the book published in 1947 (Golwalkar, 1947). Certain advocates of fascistic Hindu Rashtra themselves, however, concede this and admit the fact that the book was re-published in several editions after 1942 (Modak, 1993).The fourth edition in certain places modifies the offensive language used in the first (for example, 'idiots' is replaced by 'misguided', etc.) but the content remains the same. Such modification, however, was considered so marginal that the author does not mention it in his preface; neither is it discernible unless closely scrutinized. An important omission from the latter edition was the foreword to the book by one 'Lok Nayak' M.S.Aney. The reasons are not far to see. Aney says:

"I also desire to add that the strong and impassioned language used by the author towards those who do not subscribe to his theory of nationalism is also not in keeping with the dignity with which the scientific study of a complex problem like the Nationalism deserves to be pursued. It pains me to make these observations in this foreword"
(Golwalkar, 1939, p. xviii).

Such views could not have been allowed to be propagated at a time when the RSS was reaping most of the benefit of the growing communal tensions and strife preceding Partition. The inflammatory propaganda value of the book could not be undermined.
 
 

The disinformation 1 that the advocates of the Saffron Brigade are now spreading is to conceal their ideological foundations, as Golwalkar's book continues to be the clearest expression of the real nature of the Saffron Brigade's mission today.

The RSS 'Bible' We can do no better than quote a very sympathetic account of the RSS, J.A. Curran's Militant Hinduism in Indian Politics - A Study of the RSS:

"The genuine ideology of the Sangh is based upon principles formulated. by its founder, Dr. Hedgewar. These principles have been consolidated and amplified by the present leader in a small book called WE OR OUR NATIONHOOD DEFINED, written in 1939. "WE' can be described as the RSS 'Bible'. It is the basic primer in the indoctrination of Sangh volunteers. Although this book was written twelve years ago, in a national context different from the contemporary one, the principles contained in it are still considered entirely applicable by the Sangh membership" (Currant, 1979, p. 39. Emphasis as in the original).

" Golwalkar's announcement soon after legality had been restored, that he had given no agreement or assurances to the Government was an ineffectual attempt to maintain face'. The provisions for elections within the organization and the promise to denounce communalism and to maintain a tolerant attitude towards other communities were quite contrary to past Sangh practice and obviously had been accepted because of Government insistence. However, these provisions have not been observed; 'm practice, the Sangh membership has consistently ignored them." (Curran, 1979, pp. 31-32. Emphasis as in the original).

"The Constitution gives no hint of a militant and intolerant advocacy of a hindu state. There is a basic difference between the formal profession of aims embodied in the constitution and actual plans of the Sangh. The Sangh abjures secrecy of ends and means, but the, incompatibility of the tolerant Hindu philosophy of the constitution and the fanatically pro-Hindu and anti-non-Hindu aims instilled in the membership is clear. The proclaimed philosophy is a pale and often deceptive reflection of the real objectives of the Sangh... Too open an expression. of Sangh ideals would undoubtedly result in repression of RSS activities. The Sangh leaders are too shrewd to risk an open struggle with the Government while the odds heavily favour the latter' (Curran, 1979, pp. 35-36. Emphasis as in the original).

 It is in line with this that Golwalkar in September 1949 publicly voiced in Lucknow the RSS criticism of the Indian Constitution which he termed "UnBharat". There is a similarity indeed here with the present leaders of the VHP who describe it as "UnHindu".

 sian technique (Goebbels was Hitler's Propaganda Minister) of telling big enough lies, frequently enough to make them appear as the truth. Its necessary to note, at this stage, that the external enemy was not identified by the RSS as the British, against whom the Indian people were then in struggle. The hate against the Muslim community was sought to be spread much deeper than against the British by the RSS precisely because the Indian people could not be united for their 'Hindu Rashtra' against the British, since their anti-British feel- ings found expression the growing strength of the united freedom movement. It is for this precise reason that the RSS never nailed down the British as its enemy. For that matter, it virtually boycotted and at times opposed the freedom struggle. Even sympathetic accounts of the RSS (The Brotherhood in Saffron by Walter K. Andersen and Shridhar D. Damle, 1987, amongst others) detail the virtual absence of the RSS in the freedom movement and the consequent concessions it gained from the British. Even Nanaji Deshmukh raises the question: "Why did the RSS not take part in the liberation strug- gle as an organization?" (Deshmukh, 1979, p. 29). In fact, the Bombay Home Department, during the 1942 Quit India movement, observed:

" ... the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942..." (quoted in Andersen and Damle, 1987, p. 44).

"We Hindus - have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over 8 or even 10 thousand y ears before the land was invaded by any foreign race' and therefore, this land, 'came to be known as Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 6).

ancient Indian history including the possibility of the name Hindusthan originating from people outside India who described this land as the land of the Indus river. Having asserted this, he proceeds to prove' that Hindus did not come here from anywhere else. This is absolutely central to Golwalkar's political project since, if this cannot be proved, then logi- cally the Hindus would be as much of a 'foreign race' as anybody else who came to this land. A remarkably perfidious exercise is employed to prove this point. All through this book Golwalkar uses the term "Hindu" and "Aryan race" synonymously. He thus sets out to show that the Aryans did not migrate to India from anywhere but originated here. All histori- cal evidence to the contrary is dismissed as the "shady testimony of Western scholars" (Golwalkar 1939, p. 6). The RSS guru, however, had to contend with Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak's theory of the Arctic origin of the Vedas. However, Golwalkar, unable to reject the thesis of a popular leader, who was also a Hindu, comes up with the incredible assertion that the Arctic zone was originally that part of the world which is today called Bihar and Orissa,

"...that then it moved northeast and then by a sometimes westerly, sometimes northward movement, it came to its present position. If this be so, did we leave the Arctic Zone and come to Hindusthan or were we all along here and the Arctic Zone left us and moved away north- wards in its zigzag march? We do not hesitate in affirming that had this fact been discovered during the lifetime of Lok. Tilak, he would unhesitatingly have propounded the proposition that 'The Arctic Home of the Vedas' was verily in Hindusthan itself and that it was not the Hindus who migrated to that land but the Arctic Zone which emigrated and left the Hindus in Hindusthan" (Golwalkar,1939, p. 8).

 In order to achieve an internal consistency for such an incredible theory, Golwalkar had to resort to a gross distortion of history. Presenting the "glory of Hindu civilisation" till the time of the Mahabharata he says that later,

".. we have another gap of many centuries, which the accredited history has not been able to fill. But we can surmise that the nation lived its usual life without any serious occurrence. Then came Buddha and the great Emperors of the Gupta Dynasty, Asoka, Harshavardhan, Vikramaditya, Pulakeshi, and others of whose rule of peace, power and plenty, we obtain incontrovertible evidence. The invasion of the 'world-conqueror' Alexander was a - mere scratch. In fact he cannot be said to have invaded the country at all, so hasty was his retreat" (Golwalkar, 1939, p. 9).