HARROWING FREEDOM OF RELIGION
HARROWING
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Freedom of religion
cannot be denied to any one is the hallmark of the Indian constitution. To this
effect the word secular is inserted into the preamble of the Indian
constitution and the state is declared to be a secular state. The religious
neutrality of secularism and secular state is often criticized by communally
oriented organizations. The critics also belittle the existing form of
secularism as western and propose a positive secularism based on Hinduism. There
is still an outcry, as to the inclusion of the word propagate in article twenty
five of the Indian constitution for it can lead to the claim that it guarantees
the freedom to convert a person from one religion to another. Another issue
connected with this and currently vogue in public debates is conversion. Many
Hindu organizations oppose conversion and yet they themselves practice it with
different names.
This chapter mainly focuses on the
role of Hindutva forces’ efforts in thwarting freedom of religion and trying to
implement Hindutva ideals, which are disturbing to any plural society. In order
to deny the plurality of life in
3.1 Hindu
In order to understand the intricacies of Hindutva forces against religious freedom in India let us explain the viewpoints of Hindutva proponents in defining the word Hindu, how communal meaning is attributed to the term Hindu and how the attributed meaning is emphatically pursued, their own development of Hindu history, and the demands they make on the basis of these constructs.
3.1.1Definition
M. S. Golwalkar writes about the
complexity of defining the word Hindu as “all the sects, the various castes in
the Hindu fold, can be defined, but the term ‘Hindu’ cannot be defined because
it comprises all.”[1] No doubt
it is a complex one. Before going to analyze the religious use of the
terminology one thing needs to be noted is that originally the term was used
with geographical implications and now it is used purely in the religious
sense. It is also to be remembered that the word Hindu was used only to denote
the people who lived near the
The fact that originally the word
Hindu was not used with a narrow religious connotation to denote the so called
Hindus in the religious sense but used with wider geographical connotation to
indicate the people residing in and around
According to Ram Puniyani also,
“initially the term Hindu began with regional tones. The term was coined by
Arabs and others, who pronounced ‘S’ as ‘H’, and to denote the people living on
this side of Sindhu (
It is generally agreed, including the
Hindutva proponents, that the word Hindu is a degenerated form of Sindhu and it
is the contribution of the Persians.
Savarkar, considering the possibilities of the degeneration writes “the
letter‘s’ in Sanskrit is at times changed into ‘h’ in some of the Prakrit
languages, both Indian and non-Indian.”[4] He confirms the Persian origination of the
terminology as “and then we actually find that the Vedic name of our nation
Sapta Sindhu had been mentioned as Hapta Hindu in the Avesta by the ancient
Persian people. Thus in the very dawn of history we find ourselves belonging to
the nation of the Sindhus or Hindus and this fact was well known to our learned
men even in the Puranic period.”[5]
Taking clue from the Persian
contribution to the derivation of the term Hindu, it is claimed that even
before the usage of the term Sindhu the word Hindu was in vogue. According to
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar ‘so far as definite records are concerned, it is
indisputably clear that the first and almost the cradle name chosen by the
patriarchs of our race to designate our nation and our people, is Sapta Sindhu
or Hapta Hindu and that almost all nations of the then known world seemed to
have known us by this very epithet, Sindhus or Hindus.[6]
Although admitting it as a conjecture he emphasizes that the word Hindu was
older than Sindhu. For him, ‘Hindu would be the name that this land and the
people that inhabited it bore from time so immemorial that even the Vedic name
Sindhu is but a later and secondary form of it’.[7]
The communal tinge of the implication
of defending the earliest possible use of the term Hindu is conspicuous when
the Hindutva proponents out rightly deny any possibility of Arabian invention
of the term Hindu. It is strongly asserted that, “long before Mohammad was
born, nay, long before the Arabians were heard of as a people, this ancient
nation was known to ourselves as well as to the foreign world by the proud
epithet Sindhu or Hindu and Arabians could not have invented this term, any
more than they could have invented the Indus itself. They simply learnt it from
the ancient Iranians, Jews, and other peoples.”[8]
The simple fact that is very clear
from this painstaking derivation of the term ‘Hindu’ is that the Hindu
fundamentalists, although claiming to be larger in number, suffer from
inferiority complex. Their aim to show that they are superior to the Arabs and
they are prior to the Muslims are stated, as “the fact is that the word Hindu dates
its origin not from the Mohammedanized Persian but from the ancient language of
Iran, the Zend, and then the Saptasindhu meant Saptasindhu alone.”[9] Although historically the Persians too
migrated along with the Aryans, the Hindu fundamentalists have no problem in
accepting that the Persians contributed the term Hindu. But they deny any role
to the Arabs. This is a standing evidence to say that the Hindu fundamentalists
do not want to accept the existence and practice of any other religion than the
newly customized Hinduism, although its present from is the amalgamation of
Aryan and native Indian religious elements.
M.S. Golwalkar also accepted the
derivation of the term and writes “we find the name Sapta-sindhu in the
oldest records of the world- the Rig-Veda itself- as an epithet applied
to our land and our people. And it is also as well known that the syllable ‘S’
in Sanskrit is at times changed to ‘H’ as in some of our Prakrit languages and
even in European languages. And thus the name Hapta –Hindu and then
‘Hindu’ came into currency. Thus Hindu is a proud name of our own origin and
others learnt to denote us by it only later on.”[10]
He again writes “and the name ‘Hindu’ derived from the river Sindhu, has been
associated with us in our history and tradition for so long that it has now
become our universally accepted and adored name.”[11]
Further he claims, “in all that we do, in our behavior and in all walks of our
life, that stamp of positive conviction should be vividly manifest. This is the
prime responsibility that rests upon us.”[12]
Still further “the name ‘Hindu’ carries with it the fragrant memories of all
those great lives, their deeds and their aspirations. It has thus become a word
that at once reflects the unity, the sublimity and the specialty of our
people.”[13]
M.S.
Golwalkar’s acceptance and further elaboration of the substance of the word
also prove that he has a plan in mind. It looks that the proponents of Hindutva
wanted to establish that theirs was the only religion existed in
Harping on the question whether the
term Hindu was used in limited geographical sense or religious is out of place
as now there are two terms-Hindu and Indian to denote the religion of a group
of people and to denote the nation as a whole. While things are clear, going
back to find irritant materials to divide the people is unprofitable and
non-constructive. It is not substantial to use a limited geographical
expression “Hindu” to include the people of whole
Identifying the Aryans as invaders is
not to the liking of the Hindutva advocates. It is viewed as ‘forced’ into
them. M.S. Golwalkar remarks about such identification as “they suggest the
name ‘Ārya’ or ‘Bharatiya’ in the place of ‘Hindu’.”[14] In order to conceal and subjugate the foreign
origin of Aryans it is claimed “the word ‘Hindu’ alone connotes correctly and
completely the meaning which we want to convey.”[15]
The Hindutva ideologues want to convey new meaning to the natives and they do
not want to accept the name given to them by the natives. Nevertheless the
Hindutva promoters look for superiority claims to their ideology through
unfounded myths and beliefs. This is glowing in their conception of Arya. It is
said “some time, in trying to distinguish our people from others, we are called
‘the enlightened’ –the Āryas- and the rest Mlechhas.”[16]
The use of the term Arya is a marriage of convenience at the cost of the
self-respect of the original inhabitants of this land.
3.1.2 Building on the Attributive
Meaning of the Term Hindu
The Hindutva proponents wanted to capitalize
on the accidental and unscientific usage of the term Hindu. According to
Savarkar “as it stands at present the word Hindu has come to be the very banner
of our race and the one great feature that above all others contributes to
strengthen and uphold our racial unity from Cape to Kashmir, from Attock to
Cuttack.”[17] This is
not a true statement.
It is vainly assumed that the term
Hindu will some day be used to denote the religion and the people of this
country. The horrifying implication is that only those who call themselves,
Hindu alone are entitled to be in
The partisan, divisive, disharmonious
and communal agenda is very clear in the definition of the term Hindu. One such
definition is ‘a Hindu is he who looks upon the land that extends from Sindhu
to Sindhu –from the Indus to the Seas as the land of his forefathers - his
Fatherland (Pitribhu), who inherits the blood of that race whose first
discernible source could be traced to the Vedic Saptasindhus and which on its
onward march, assimilating much that was incorporated and ennobling much that
was assimilated, has come to be known as the Hindu people, who has inherited
and claims as his own the culture of that race as expressed chiefly in their
common classical language Sanskrit and represented by a common history, a
common literature, art and architecture, law and jurisprudence, rites and
rituals, ceremonies and sacraments, fairs and festivals; and who above all,
addresses this land, this Sindhusthan as his Holyland (Punyabhu), as the land
of his prophets and seers, of his godmen and gurus, the land of piety and
pilgrimage.”[19] In
nutshell Hindutva looks for a common nation (Rashtra), a common race (Jati) and
a common civilization (Sanskriti) where it is naught. This is done not
according to the facts but according to their own whimsical thinking.
This is the dangerous situation that
the Hindutva forces are creating and persuading people to fall into. Although
this will not materialize, the efforts of these forces in trying to imbibe such
notorious ideals always create unrest in the society. It causes hatred and
enmity in a plural society. From the point of this study it also goes against
the constitutional provision of the freedom of religion.
According to Savarker “the Hindus are
not merely the citizens of the Indian state because they are united not only by
the bonds of the love they bear to a common motherland but also by the bonds of
a common blood. They are not only a Nation but also a race-jati.”[20]
Hindutva fans cannot forget that all the Indians are not Hindus in the way the
word is used in the religious sense. When people are divided on caste basis and
disallowed to interact with each other and purity pollution concepts are
imposed, where is the possibility for looking for common blood? This is a villainous effort to exploit the
patriotic spirit of the Indian citizens. Imbibing Indian nationalism is
constitutional and justifiable. But asking for Hindu nation in a country, which
proudly upholds the reality of plurality of religion, culture, language, race, etc.
is determined aberration to the sanctity of the nation. The intrinsic agenda is
to deny plurality of religious affiliation so that other factors like plurality
of language, race and cultures can be easily undermined.
The good will and harmonious nature of
sober people who identify with different religious and cultural traditions
particularly celebrating festivals is misinterpreted as “we have feasts and
festivals in common. We have rites and rituals in common.”[21]
Beyond these feasts and festivals and
rites and ritual there is an attempt to identify a common culture and language,
as “we Hindus are not only a Rashtra, a Jati but as a consequence of being
both, own a common Sanskriti expressed, preserved chiefly and originally
through Sanskrit, the real mother tongue of our race. Everyone who is a Hindu
inherits this Sanskriti and owes his spiritual being to it as truly as he owes
his physical one to the land and the blood of his forefathers.”[22]
This notion is erroneous as
The simple agenda of the Hindutva
group is to force a homogeneous
The Hindutva interpretation of Hindu
is not acceptable to vast majority of people following different strands of
faith traditions. Even in the most corrupt form, the word Hindu does not
include majority Indians. This nefarious interpretation is aimed at creating
communal hatred and disharmony and to divide people so that political ends may
be achieved.
In spite of variations within Hindu
traditions and inequalities among the Hindus, the pretentious declaration that
there is one religion, race, language, culture, etc. is peculiar to the Hindu
fundamentalists. Swami Dharma Theertha writes, “no other people have shown
greater tenacity in clinging to ancient abominations than the Hindus. No other
people deny justice and humanity to their own kith and kin, their own
religionists and compatriots, without rhyme or reason as the Hindus do even
to-day.”[23] As long
as the spirit of communal disharmony and social inequality runs through the
veins of cerebrum with the ulterior motive of conquering power, all that they
propose and force will be a subject of grave concern.
Their claim for a superior culture is
under attack as “the present generation of Hindus has hardly anything to
justify the superior airs which some of them assume when they talk of Hindu
culture.”[24] The
fundamentalist themselves should know that their superiority claims are untrue
and unacceptable. The fallacy of cultural superiority is highlighted as “the
claim of superior culture is an utter false imposture and a clever manoeuvre,
with the help of ancient books and theories, intended to conceal the
hideousness of Hindu life and the brutality of its caste masters.”[25]
Although obtaining political power is the main thrust, the Hindutva
ideology upholds and sanctifies the caste system. On the basis of Purusa Sukta
it is argued that “this means that the people who
have this four fold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is our God.”[26]
Rather than regretting for the ill effects of caste in the Indian society, its
sanctification confirms that the Hindutva agenda is not liberative rather
enslaving. It is not harmonious but
divisive.
Caste is even mixed with the idea of
service. The Hindutva notion is that those who serve others should continue to
do so for generations together and such a degraded life shall be pleasing to
God. Hence it is said, ‘in our culture, the spirit of social service has been
sublimated into worship of God’.[27]
If the higher castes too serve the lower ones that will be meaningful. But in
the Hindutva plans only the lower castes need to serve the higher ones. This is
stated, as “service to humanity is verily service to God. This has been a special
feature of our philosophy of life.”[28]
The Hindutva forces are not asking to
just accept caste system but consider it to be part and parcel of life. This is
decoratively presented as “once our life becomes soaked with this true spirit
of service, we will feel that all our individual and family possessions,
however abundant they may be, do not really belong to us. These are only the
means to worship God in the form of society. Our whole life will then be an
offering in the service of society.”[29]
While every one decries the evil of
caste, the fundamentalists make it as dharma. It is said “our definition of dharma
is twofold. The first is proper rehabilitation of man’s mind; and the second is
adjustment of various individuals for a harmonious corporate existence, i.e., a
good social order to hold the people together.”[30]
For them “…the establishment of dharma means the building of an
organized social life wherein each individual has realized his oneness with
others in society and is imbued with a spirit of sacrifice to make others’
material life richer and happier, and develops spiritual strength which leads
to the realization of the Ultimate Truth.”[31]
The supreme form of upholding discrimination is put, as “pulling of swadharma
and transplanting something else in its place will only result in utter
chaos and degeneration.”[32]
The danger is originally the word
Hindu was used to denote a group of people living in a particular geographical
locality and hence it cannot be used to the whole of
Further, under such unclear term
looking for common festivals, language, culture, blood etc or meant to
terrorizing the minds of people and no way constructively helpful to the nation
or even to the votaries of the so-called Hinduism. One thing is obvious that
the Hindutva group wants to divide the people. Earlier they divided on caste
grounds. Now they wanted to divide on religious grounds. Along with this they
wanted to create disharmony and inequality in the society. The intimidating
nature of the Hindu fundamentalists is echoed in their perception of History as
well, besides the efforts of defining the term Hindu.
3.1.3 Hindu History
The fundamentalists’ notion of Hindu
history is distorting. According to them Hindus do not have a beginning. It is
claimed, “in a way, we are ‘anadi’, without a beginning.”[33]
They also claim “we existed when there was no necessity for any name.[34]
Added to this eternal existence is their assertion for a superior race that “we
were the good, the enlightened people.”[35]
The flimsy ground of their Hindu
history is exposed as they begin it from the hero of the epic Ramayana called
Rama. Savarkar writs “the day when the Horse of Victory returned to Ayodhya
unchallenged and unchallengeable, the great white Umbrella of Sovereignty was
unfurled over that Imperial throne of Ramschandra, the brave, Ramachandra the
good, and a loving allegiance to him was sworn, not only by the Prince of Aryan
blood but Hanuman, Sugriva, Bibhishana from the south- that day was the real
birth-day of our Hindu people. It was truly our national day: for Aryans and
Anaryans knitting themselves into a people were born as a nation.”[36]
The acceptance that the Hindutva ideology acknowledges the foreign origin of
the Aryans is noteworthy. But it is
dangerous that they want to un-account for the original people of this land and
begin their history abruptly. They want
to make the history of Aryans at the expense of the natives. Natives are
already considered as secondary class knitting together with them. This is a
damaging activity that the proponents of Hindutva are deliberately doing. Many
Indian indigenous writers have rightly identified this intriguing nature of
Hindu history.
Having admitted that the Aryans have
come from beyond the borders of
The irony of this claim is that the
real Indians have become unpatriotic and secondary citizens in the country of
their own and the invading Aryans have become real patriots and first class
citizens in a nation where they came for their survival. The mockery is that
the Aryans force their way of life on the original people of this nation and
ask them to leave the country if unable to accept.
Not realizing the fact that the Aryans
are settlers in
In
the narration of their partisan and divisive history the fundamentalists take
shelter under the constitution as “it is
clearly written in our Constitution that the term ‘Hindu’ includes Sikhs, Jains
and Buddhists which means that the expression ‘Hindu and Sikh’ is opposed to
the constitution.”[39]
Sunita Gangwal also observes this point.[40]But
the fundamentalists should know that these religious communities have a
distinctive identity of their own entirely different from the Hindu. Again the
travesty is that the fundamentalists do not accept and respect the fundamental
rights in relation to freedom of religion guaranteed in the Indian constitution
to the entire citizens of this nation.
That
is why they call the natives and sons and daughters of the soil as Mlechhas
while claiming for themselves a superior place. They do not want to correct and
nullify the divisive caste system but say, “the root cause of our national
tragedy then, a thousand years ago, and now, a thousand years later, is the
same-the utter lack of organized and unified life among the Hindus, the
children of this soil.”[41]
That implies all should follow the religion of the fundamentalists and not the
religion of their convenience and choice.
The plain agenda of this foreign force
is to divide the nation on caste basis. They are successful in that. Now their
next agenda is to divide the nation on religious grounds, which they are trying
hard. M.S.Golwalkar makes it explicit that “the conclusion that we arrive at is
that all those communities which are staying in this land and yet are not true
to their salt, have not imbibed its culture, do not lead the life which this
land has been unfolding for so many centuries, do not believe in its
philosophy, in its national heroes and in all that this land has been standing
for, and are, to put it briefly, foreign to our national life. And the only
real, abiding and glorious national life in this holy land of Bharat has been
of the Hindu People.”[42]
Although they are successful in creating communal riots and mass killing in the
name of religion their dream will never be realized in
The
fundamental forces are bent on developing religious history particularly Hindu
religious history rather than plain Indian history. This they do to perpetuate
and instill communal hatred in
3.1.4 Hindu Demands
Many of the demands of the Hindu
fundamentalists are without having any consideration for other people,
religions and culture. One of their
demands is to have a Hindu state which if accomplished would have disastrous
consequences to a nation like
With the good and prudent sense of
purifying the society, many cruel practices were abolished in
The fundamental forces are no way
willing to correct the evils that are perpetuated in the name of religion. Some
time it is superstition and at other times inhuman and torturing practices.
Their design to keep this nation as a non- progressive one is obvious in their
laments as “in no period of
To continue their cruel, inhuman and
unenlightened practices they ask for a Hindu nation. In the words of Pannalal
Dhar, “Hindus further feel that to save their identity from extinction it is
necessary to establish Hindu Rashtriya.”[47]
This is nowhere possible but out of some complex this kinds of issues are
always brewed and kept alive to disturb the peace and development of the
nation.
Another demonic and bloody demand is
to assume that many churches and mosques are constructed upon the debris of
Hindu temples and hence those places need to be restored back to the Hindus.
For example “Hindus now demand return of those sites on which Hindu temples
once existed.”[48] This is
nothing but well planed strategy to destabilize the nation with the hidden plan
of attaining political power. This is a costly affair. Whenever such attempts
took place there were heavy lose of life, property and the exchequer of the
nation in terms of police, military and investigation. It is clear beyond doubt
that the Hindu fundamental forces are bent on keeping the nation in utter
darkness and leading the mass into confusion and loss.
The
single strategy of the Hindu fundamental forces is to divide and discriminate
people for the purpose of grabbing power. This is apparent, in their attempt to
define the term Hindu, developing Hindu history and placing Hindu demands. At
this juncture it shall be convenient and in place to analyze their
understanding of Hinduism from the point of their opposition to freedom of
religion in
3.2
Hinduism
Many Hindu fundamentalists are of the
view that the word Hinduism is not to their liking. According to Savarkar ‘if
there be really any word of alien growth it is this word Hinduism and so we
should not allow our thoughts to get confused by this new-fangled term’.[49]
Nevertheless they have a specific
content to this term. In their view “any definition of Hinduism that leaves out
any important section of our people and forces them either to play false to
their convictions or to go outside the pale of Hindutva stands self-condemned.
Hinduism means the system of religious beliefs found common amongst the Hindu
people.”[50] This is
to say that all Indians are Hindus and hence should subscribe to the Hindu
religious principles. This point is reiterated, as “Hinduism is a word that
properly speaking should be applied to all the religious beliefs that the
different communities of the Hindu people hold.”[51]
To make Hinduism all encompassing the fundamentalists sweep down to reduce one
of the chief tenets of Hinduism as “therefore the Vaidik or the Sanatan Dharma
itself is merely a sect of Hinduism or Hindu Dharma, however overwhelming be
the majority that contributes to its tenets.”[52]
Similarly, to put the fundamental ideas forward the universally accepted
expression Hindu Dharma is reduced to a minimum bearing as “Hindutva is not
identical with Hindu Dharma; nor is Hindu Dharma identical with Hinduism.”[53]
The fundamentalists are of the view
that Hinduism comprises of itself varieties of faiths and practices. Their aim
to include other systems of beliefs and practices under the nomenclature
Hinduism cannot be admitted because many religions emerged as protest against
the caste and other evil and oppressive elements in Hinduism. It is a fact that
the primal, tribal and folk religions do not fall under the umbrella of
Hinduism but the fundamentalists want to bring them also under the list.
Similarly Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. These religions too emerged as protest
against the Brahmanical systems.
At the same time, in order to disseminate
Hindutva principles a Hindu is attributed with so many qualities and Hinduism
is viewed as conveying only the religious nature of the Hindus. That is why it
is said, “Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva."[54]
Again it is asserted that Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely
indicated by the term Hinduism.[55]
It is very clear from their own utterances that there is no connection between
Hinduism and Hindutva and Hindutva is an ideology, which includes Hinduism
also. It is surprising that Hindutva supersedes Hinduism in its desperate
attempt to control power in
This is very significant to note that
the Hindu fundamental and communal forces are trying to impose an ideology on
every one. This ideology is colored with so many compartments like-religion,
culture, nationalism, language, blood relationship, etc. This is a serious
threat to the integrity of the nation.
Another crafty idea is that Hinduism
is only a part of Hinduness. It is stated, “had not linguistic usage stood in
our way then ‘Hinduness’ would have certainly been a better word than Hinduism
as a neat parallel to Hindutva. Hindutva embraces all the departments of
thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race.”[56]
This is in fact laying foundation for the heinous communal and political
ideology of Hindutva.
The civil society sees the plots of
these fundamentalists from different perspective. It has criticized and rightly
pointed out the false claims of the Hindu fundamentalists as “the pre-modern
Hinduism was not a monolithic religion, as being projected by the Sang Parivar,
but was a juxtaposition of multiple religious sects.”[57]
This fact cannot be denied. Romila thapar also has made reference to this
effect: “Thapar calls Hinduism, currently being propagated by Sangh Parivar as
‘Syndicated Hinduism’.”[58]
The plan behind reformulating meaning
to commonly used terminologies is remarked, as “the attempt of this exercise is
to present a modern reformed religion. The net result is a repackaged
Brahminism.”[59] The
comment is correct. Their ultimate aim is to gain political power to implement
these traditional, orthodox, fundamental and communal programs. As religion
could sentimentally play significant role in fetching votes the fundamental
forces are committed to polarize the society as Hindu and others. That is
provoking one community over the other. The connection and differences between
the terms Hinduism and Hindutva shall be cleared as we analyze the term
Hindutva.
3.3 Hindutva
Although the expression Hindutva
appeared in many places, it is the right place to discuss it elaborately. At
the outset it is a fundamental and communal ideology. The fundamental and
communal nature of the Hindutva ideology in the words of Noorani is “as for
ideology, since it is rooted neither in economics not in politics but in the
religion of the majority community, Hindutva is inherently divisive and not
susceptible to compromise.”[60]
No doubt Hindutva is rooted in the religion of the majority community but it is
not bereft of economic and political assumptions.
3.3.1 Derivation and Definition
An analysis of the derivation and
definition of the expression Hindutva help understanding its context and
content. To begin with “it was Savarkar who, in 1923, gave substance to the
neologism “Hindutva” or Hinduness in his book, Hindutva: Who is Hindu?”[61]
To put this in proper perspective “the combination of ‘Syndicated Hinduism’
with nationalism was brewed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar who can be called the
first exponent of the doctrine of Hindutva.”[62]
In general “Hindutva is a derivative
word from Hindu.”[63]
But it is different from its derivative, Hinduism.[64]
It implies that the word’s content is vast. It is clear from the statement that
“Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva."[65]
The proponents of this terminology do not want to equate the term even with
Hindu Dharma, which is again a very comprehensive term.[66]
In short Hindutva is not Hinduism, it is not Hindu Dharma, but comprises all
these and many more. The more close expression to Hindutva is Hinduness.
The all inclusive nature of the
expression Hindutva is put as “the ideas and ideals, the systems and societies,
the thoughts and sentiments which have centered round this name are so varied
and rich, so powerful and so subtle, so elusive and yet so vivid that the term
Hindutva defies all attempts at analysis.”[67] A
vast meaning is attributed to this expression as “Hindutva embraces all the
departments of thought and activity of the whole Being of our Hindu race.”[68]
That is why “Savarkar argued that geography, race, and culture reveal a
commonality, which he identified as “Hindutva”.”[69]
In order to avoid the immediate
parochial antecedents of this construct it is maintained, “Hindutva is not a
word but a history.”[70]
Although it attempts to present an erroneous history, its own history will be
useful for us to understand the content of its ideology and also how it is used
to obstruct freedom of religion in
Ram Puyani traces Hindutva’s history
back to the early days of congress. According to him “the early simmering of
Hindutva can be seen in the opposition to the secular Congress movement of 19th
century.”[71] He also
brings out the fact that the parochial interests of some specific groups are
behind this ideology. According to him “as Hindutva was emerging as a movement,
it was spearheaded mostly by Brahmins. Its support came from the landed
aristocracy and some sections of middle classes.”[72]
Hence it can be maintained that Hindutva is different from the genuine
Hinduism. It is communal and fundamental in ideology and designed to serve
certain parochial interests.
The critics of the new invention argue
that it is in fact the distortion of the real Hinduism. J. Kuruvachira writes, “Hiduism is not
Hindutva. Hindutva is not the tradition of spiritual practices that we call
Hinduism… Hindutva is a total distortion and perversion of Hindu religion and
Hindu spirituality. The ideology of Hindutva is an attack on the genuine values
which Hinduism profess.”[73] A
cursory knowledge of the great values of the Hindu religious tradition will
help any one to distinguish between the true Hindu religion and the false
Hindutva.
3.3.2 Essentials of Hindutva
In order to explain the term Hindutva,
its proponents have first used the bare definition or connotation of the word
Hindusthan. For them “all those on this
side of the
Based on Savarkar’s definition of
Hindu and Hindustan Pannalal Dhar writes,
“coupled with this definition of Hindu and Hindusthan, the universality
and tolerance which are the principles on which Hinduism is based, constitute
Hindutva.”[76] For him
universality and tolerance are the second essentials of Hindutva. This
universality and tolerance are different from the general ones. In other words
it is to proclaim universality without admitting it and propagating tolerance
without tolerating others. To use a
Hindutva expression, it is pseudo universalism and pseudo tolerance.
Another two essentials of Hindutva are
accepting a common Hindu nation and common Hindu blood or race.[77]
More emphatically, ‘a moment’s consideration would show that these two
qualifications of one nation and one race –of a common fatherland and therefore
of a common blood-cannot exhaust all the requisites of Hindutva’.[78]The
impossibility of one Hindu nation and common blood or race was already
established.
Ram Puniyani’s summarization of
Savarkar’s Hindutva ideology provides the fourth essential of the Hindutva
namely ‘common culture’. He states, “thus Hindutva, according to him, rests on
three pillars: geographical unity, racial features and common culture.”[79]
The risky nature of Hindutva brand of culture is underlined, as “Hindutva is a
deviation from all noble ideals of tolerance and acceptance of the Other which
are part of the cultural ethos of
3.3.3 Criticisms against Hindutva
Hindutva is an imaginary Hinduism
based upon extra-historical, extra-religious resources. It is a political
credo. Its traditions are manufactured. It is a method to invent a new identity
for the ruling classes. To achieve these ends it uses the language of religious
discourse. The attempt of this fundamentalist movement is to impose their
(elite’s) interests and programmes of the present, in the language of the past.
All these things were put together as:
To begin with fundamentalist Hindutva
is not the Hinduism practiced by millions of people. It (the Hindutva) is an
imaginary Hinduism which is essentially extra-historical, extra-religious and
is a political credo for those who want to make much of the ideology for their
political ends. This fundamentalism is neither based on traditional modes of
thought nor traditions as they existed. They win over people by propagation of
‘manufactured traditions’. They adopt the gains of modernity, science,
technology, weaponry and industrial production. It wants a modern apparatus of
life without the necessary relations between human beings, which would give
them space to struggle for their rights. In nutshell, it wants to achieve a
certain modern culture i.e. the modern production process sans the accompanying
space for improvement of human relationships. It is a post feudal phenomenon
aimed at inventing a new identity for the ruling classes. It uses the language
of religious discourse. Fundamentalism is possible only in Semitic religions.
The Semitisation process of Hinduism is going on for the last many decades.
This Semitic Hinduism which in fact is the Brahminical Hinduism has discovered
The Book in ‘Gita’ and ‘Vedas’; the holy deity in ‘Ram’ from amongst hundreds
of contenders for this status, and Acharyas and Mahants as the clergy. The
attempt of this fundamentalist movement is to impose their (elite’s) interests
and programmes of the present, in the language of the past.[82]
Ramachandra Guha writes, “Sociologists
have written of Hindutva as being an attempt to “Semiticize” Hinduism. By this
they mean that a previously plural, diffuse, unorganized and even anarchic
religion is being refashioned along more formal lines. Hindutva aims to create
a clear chain of command, a definite center of authority, where previously
there was none. For Hindus have failed
to act as a unified, cohesive community, complains the sangh parivar. They
have been hampered by the absence of one holy book, a Quran or a Bible,
and the absence of one holy place, a
It is also pointed out that the
Hindutva ideology is compared to Hitler’s. According to Shamsul Islam “in fact,
Golwalkar as early as 1938 unhesitatingly wanted to model his Hindu Rashtra on
Hitler’s totalitarian and fascist pattern….”[84]
This view is endorsed by others as “Hindutva is a sub-acute, chronic Fascism of
a caste-ridden, post-colonial society.”[85]
Hindutva is also criticized for
promoting a certain group of people at the risk of innumerable masses. As
Fascism’s core is the middle class the Hindutva’s core is the cash crop farmer,
the petty industrialist and multiple segments of middle classes (Bureaucracy,
professionals, traders etc.) latched on to the big capital. The imageries of
Hindutva are mainly around north Indian upper caste male. Its emphasis is on
subtle Brahminism, Brahminical culture, history, literature (Vedas, Geeta) and
upholding of Brahminical symbols. Its basic project is to continue their
dominant social position vis-à-vis workers, dalits, women, minorities and
adivasis. The democratic polity, providing a liberal space gives an opportunity
to these groups to struggle for their rights. These groups again wanted to sustain the declining pre-modern norms of
structural hierarchies. [86]
Thus, Hindutva is not for the liberation, empowerment and transformation of the
underprivileged in the society.
I. Arul Aram writes, “during Gandhi’s days,
the Hindutva brand of politics was a subculture. It had remained confined to a
section of upper caste Hindus. It had to go into oblivion in the mid-20th
century because of its involvement in the assassination of Gandhi, who had by
then evolved as the father of the nation. Later, only with the expansion of the
middle class by the 1980s the idea of Hindu religion being the base of
nationalism gained wider acceptance.”[87]
Others as well affirm this notion like “Hindutva is the political agenda of
petty industrialists, sections of middle classes and rich peasantry blessed by
capital.”[88] This is
proof for the purpose to which Hindutva ideology is created.
To go further deep “Hindutva is a
‘bourgeois device’, a conspiracy by the elites, of certain sections of the
upper castes of Hinduism to take control of India’s cultural patrimony and
power structure. The ideology nurtures itself on the negative feelings created against
certain sections of the Indian society like Muslims, Christians and communists
and other secularists, and its ultimate aim is to eliminate them from positions
of power and reduce them to a state of being slaves without rights, freedom and
dignity, and if possible obliterate them completely from India as they are
obstacles to the creation of a monolithic Hindu rashtra. Therefore,
success of Hindutva would mean the end of
The way in which Hindutva ideology has
affected the life of the minorities and the underprivileged in this country is
pointed out as “in a way, Hindutva came to prominence in 1990s as a counter to
the backward class movements and as a Mandal-affirmative action for the
backward classes. Time is not far off, when backward castes who would not get
assimilated into the upper caste ideology, would assert their identity with
more and more backward caste people coming into prominence.”[90]
In spite of the options open to the backward communities, it remains true that
the Hindutva is against their aspirations.
Even the political notions of Hindutva
are criticized for taking advantage of the Indian situation. It is said, “the
politics of Hindutva provides the most refined way to impose the rigid
hierarchies, and the semi secularized society becomes the fertile ground on
which this poisonous weed can proliferate with gay abundance.”[91]
In other words Hindutva has learned the art of fishing in the troubled waters.
One
of the false propagation of Hindutva reads, “Hindutva is not a covert attempt
to subvert minority religions but a daring attempt to give them back their
heritage.”[92] It is
evident that the Hindutva uses deceptive propagation to hoodwink the minorities,
especially religious minorities in
People who are committed to the
secular values of the country even decry the supreme Court Judgment that “by
concluding that the term ‘Hindutva’ was not in and of itself an appeal to
religion, nor an expression of enmity or hatred towards other religious groups,
but simply the way of life of Indian people, the Supreme Court has obscured the
historical background as well as the contemporary political context within
which the term has acquired meaning.”[94]
The main motive of liquidating the other communities from this land and if not to
treat them as second-class citizens or no people through ideology, politics and
intimidating propagations are already clear. Its success in this direction is
put forward as “Hindutva has created communal frenzy even in those States where
communal relations were relatively harmonious.”[95]
One of the ways in which Hindutva functions is through communal hatred and
religious disharmony.
Another
main agenda of the Hindutva ideology is to be intolerant towards other
religions. This is the medium of infiltrating communal politics. It is
observed, “Hindutva, often synonymous with “cultural nationalism,” excludes
other religious beliefs and promotes religious intolerance. With the return to
power of the Congress in 2004, communal politics and cultural (Hindu) nationalism
have taken a back seat.”[96]
The lesson that we learn is a secular and democratic political orientation is
the only alternative to the Hindutva ideology.
The deep concern over the increasing
activities of Hindutva is painfully stated as “today Hindutva has assumed the
form of a powerful extremist, militant, malevolent movement operative in the
country.”[97] This is
not in keeping with the secular values of this nation. Such distortion will
have considerable impact upon the programs of the religious minorities in
3.3.4 Hindutva Agenda
It
is unambiguous that Hindutva symbolizes religious antagonism and it thwarts
religious freedom in
Hindutva’s religious tinge is only
crocodile’s tear but the main agenda is to bring about unjust and unequal
society. Religious flavor is only to evoke religious sympathy and to create
mass communal violence focused at winning elections so as to constitutionally
implement their dreaded policies. That is why it is said, “this religiosity of
Hindutva is a mere facade for a more comprehensive societal reconstruction,
which is very materialistic in nature.”[101]
The ideology of Hindutva are Mainly
against the secular values of the state so that freedom of religion can be
deprived and people will be blindfolded to the pre-civilization. In the words
of J.Kuruvachira “Hindutva is
The only way to fight this evil is to
side with secularism. That is why it is said, “the tough communal questions
require a secular response. It is necessary, therefore, to project secularism
in its purity and uncompromising nature so that not even the so-called ‘soft
Hindutva’ is tolerated.”[103]
The perfect path to maintain a pure freedom of religion in
3.4 RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh)
Hedgewar
a congress person founded in 1925 a nationalist organization called the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Association of National[ist] volunteers.
Although his organizational skills and contacts with like-minded people from
his sort of background (Maharashtrian
Brahmins) built up the RSS, its
ideological development came with his successor, Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar. He
provided a systematic articulation of the RSS’s ideological grounds and aims in
his work of 1939, We, or Our Naionhood Defined.[104]
The formation of the RSS was for a
specific purpose. It is said “the RSS’s primary aim was to foster within
society those aspects of thought and conduct that would integrate and unite
Hindus.”[105] In
other words all the Hindutva agenda are propagated and implemented by RSS and
its offshoots called Sang Parivar.
From the beginning RSS had wrong
conceptions about other religious communities to the extent of suspecting their
patriotism. For example “Hindutva communalists started projecting that only
Hindus would free
The sympathizers of RSS perceive its
function differently. One such perception is that “the RSS motto is to devote
itself to nation building activities according to liberal Hindu culture without
interfering with the practice of any other religion and without appeasement of
any religion.”[107]
This is untrue because RSS does not tolerate any other religion except Hinduism.
It always projects the other religious communities as traitors. Its political
stalwarts always appropriated political gains by creating communal flare-ups
and the consequential lose of life and materials.
RSS does not like it to be called by
its real nature, communal organization. It accuses people and parties, which
are against their evil designs. Even its communal orientation is covered up as
“the current aspersions against the R.S.S. mostly by Congress leaders and
followers to the effect that it is a ‘communal organization’ and more dangerous
to the country than even Communism are a travesty of the fact.”[108]
Its advocates proclaim, “it is based on a philosophy of national
culture and envisages the whole of the nation.”[109]
Unfortunately their intellect could not permit them to think that
The whole agenda of the RSS is based
upon false premises. For example “it teaches loyalty and devotion to the
national society in the national homeland under the image of the Mother.”[111]
It is obscured because there are reliable and real historical evidences to show
that every community has sufficiently contributed to the cause of freedom
struggle in
Another false premise of RSS is
persuading other religious communities to venerate Hindu heroes and heroines.
In its view “the national identity requires that the whole of national society
including minorities should share in the best values of the past. They should
appreciate national dharma- the code of ethical principles and ways of
life enshrined in the best usage. In cultural history, they should all give
their mind and hearts whole- heartedly to an appreciation of the best types.
Rama and
Another false propagation is that the
RSS has no desire for political power. It is claimed, “the Sangh has no demands
to make. It does not fight for special rights or privileges. It does not
compete in electioneering politics, nor has it any desire to share power.”[113]
In reality it is the more power mongering communal organization using bloody
communal riots as means to reach quick political power. This is evident from the approaches the BJP
ruled states adopt. Once occupied power, they go against the Indian
constitution. Some of the worrisome facets are “Prime Minster of India, Sri
Atal Behari Vajpayee, declared himself to be a ‘Swayamsevak’ (Volunteer) of the
RSS during his last visit to the
The RSS’s disloyalty to the sentiments
of this nation and its commitment to communal activities is pointed out as
“unfortunately, the RSS which is found of demanding unwavering and unflinching
loyalty to the nation from the minorities is neither loyal to the constitution
of
3.4.1
RSS Agenda
RSS’s main agenda is communal,
specifically to disturb the Muslim community in
RSS’s focused agenda is to provoke one
religious community against the other. And this is done not just on caste
basis, but on the basis of religion as well. This tendency has been highlighted
as “the hallmarks of its beginning were:
(a) Emphasis on physical training, with the understanding that the upper castes
have to learn the skills of combat as lower castes are no more reliable in the
street combats; (b) A mix of religious symbols like saffron flag and a prayer
glorifying motherland; (c) An appeal to the interests of Brahmins, Bania
(traditional trader) and upper castes, which also incidentally were, and more
or less are, the overwhelming components of the Sangh and (d) Emphasis on
indoctrination of young ‘boys’ with the mythified history and anti-Muslim,
anti-secular, rabidly pro-upper caste ideas.”[119]
This propensity of the RSS is further
underlined as “the doctrines preached mainly centered around past glories of
Hindu gods and kings, the atrocities of Muslim rulers, futility of Gandhian
methods and the suffering of Hindus due to lack of organization.”[120]
There are reasons to even doubt the role of RSS in freedom struggle. Rather it
has concentrated on communal interests, for the reason that “RSS in nutshell
was not only consciously absent as far as freedom movement was concerned, but
on the contrary it was acting from the opposite angle by opposing various
movements for freedom struggle (especially Quit India movement). Also it was
active as a communal body, boosting the impact of Muslim communalism and
participating in the process of mutual supplementation of Hindu and Muslim
communalism.”[121] To
elaborate again “the SP had not been a
part of freedom struggle; it does not respect Indian Constitution; And does not
subscribe to the values of pluralism and multiculturalism, which emerged from
the process of building of the Indian Nation.”[122]
Even at trying times the main agenda of the RSS was communalizing the events or
in other words capitalizing on the confusions of freedom struggle. For example
“the Sangh kept aloof from all anti-British struggles but was very visible in
all activities related to Hindu- Musllim riots and later, rehabilitation of
victims of the riots,”[123]
The above view that the RSS promotes
and makes use of communal riots is further confirmed. It is pointed out “the
expansion of RSS took place slowly, initially encashing on its ‘successful
role’ in the communal riots in
The simple agenda of RSS is
establishing a Hindu nation without providing room and freedom to other
religious communities. According to Ram Puniyani “the core doctrine states that
Hindus and Hindus alone constitute Indian nation, since they are the original
inhabitants of this great land. Hindus have created this society and its
culture. Hinduism is superior to all other faiths since it is tolerant.
Unfortunately, this tolerance has been mistaken for weakness and aliens, e.g.
Muslims and then Christian British, have repeatedly conquered the Hindu nation.
To quell the threats of these alien cultures, Hindus need a Sanghtan (Organization,
by implication RSS). The entry of different religion has created a
misunderstanding that
Other
than communal agenda the RSS and its affiliates are bankrupt with ideas. This
communal frenzy is vivid in all aspects of RSS’s activities. This is apparent
from the statement “one gets a clear idea that Sangh Parivar has succeeded in
perpetuating a perception amongst Hindus to forge a communal solidarity through
elective projections of the past, and this does involve a deliberate
reformulation of history. Emergence of nation-state does bring in a
homogenization of religion. In case of
RSS’s main agenda of dividing people
on religious grounds is aimed at capturing political power. Hence, “anti-Muslim
sentiments were consistently used to project a political methodology of
consolidating the Hindus.”[128]
In other words “the true object of Sangh Parivar’s desire is not just
submission of the Muslims but of state power as a whole, and remaking of
The threat of RSS ideology to every
segment of the nation is clearly identified and summarized in the following
words: “the upholders of the status quo, those who are beneficiaries in the
present power equations, propagate the concept of homogenous and harmonious. It
is proclaimed, ours is a casteless society, the caste politics is divisive, and
we should (the lower castes) overcome the caste psychology, even at a time when
caste exploitation is going on at full speed. The woman is given the
‘respectable’ place of ‘mother’, ‘sister’, ‘wife’, and ‘daughter’-relations
which the patriarchs exploit to the hilt. The workers are supposed to be doing
the productive activity for the ‘nation’ and so should conform to the present
exploitative, unjust laws, lest the ‘nation’ will suffer. In this ‘national’
project the unrestricted right of employer to exploit is conspicuous by its
silent presence.”[132]
In short the RSS agenda is fundamentalist, communalist and no way relevant to
the Indian context, which requires a harmonious blend of many religions,
cultures, languages and practices towards liberating the underprivileged in the
society.
3.5
BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party)
Although the ultimate design of the
Hindutva group is to capture power, they publicly deny such intentions. For
example M.S. Golwalkar writes, “the political parties are by nature
transitory.”[133] RSS
also falsely declares that it is not interested in politics. For example “if in
the race for politics we give up society and destroy its inherent unity we will
have gone against our fundamental duty.”[134]
The fact is that they do not want a mere political party but a one, which will
be purely Hindu in the sense of Parivar’s use. This notion is reflected as “political power shall only reflect the radiance
of culture, integrity and power of the organized society that we want to build
up- just as the moon reflects the radiance of the sun.”[135]
In their idea establishing a Hindu society is prior to establishing a Hindu
political party. But the wish to have political control is not completely
absent.
Although concealed it is very clear
that the BJP is the political incarnation of the RSS’s Jan Sangh, which was the
original political arm of the Sang. It has been highlighted, that the political
executive of the Hindutva agenda is the BJP. Its political journey was so
flimsy. When attained power it was loaded with communal pistols. The communally
charged advocates of this principle justify the communal objectives of this
political party, like “as a back-lash against
muslim appeasement the Hindus are uniting under a common political platform
furnished by the Bharatiya Janata Party.”[136]
BJP, the present political
organization of Sang Parivar seeks political mileage by dividing the nation on
communal lines. It is said ”its credo- Hindutva- is inherently divisive and
splits the nation apart.”[137]
In other words the BJP is also against the freedom of religion to the minority
communities.
It not only divides people on communal
lines but also sees all possibilities to disturb the freedom of religion to the
minorities. The implication of such an unjust and undemocratic ideology affects
the very foundations of this nation. And it is more painful that such a
conspiracy is not yet fully exposed. For example “what is not realized is that
the BJP’s ideological commitment and its disruptive tactics pose a threat to
the survival of the Constitution and to the democratic parliamentary system.”[138]
A.G. Noorani indicates the ways the BJP challenges the very foundations of the
nation as “the BJP rejects the idea of secularism on which the Constitution
rests, prevaricating about “pseudo-secularism”. Its parent, the RSS, is not
committed to the Constitution.”[139]
Ram Puniyani sees BJP not as a plain
political party but as the carrier of Hindutva ideology. In his own words “all
in all, though Hindutva has played a ‘hide and seek’ expression through
Congress, it is the BJP which has been the major and preferred vehicle of
Hindutva agenda.”[140]
The BJP’s direct patronage of the Hindutva cause is again pointed out thus, “as
we have seen, its basic agenda is that of Hindu Rashtra, an idea which is
opposite to secular democratic
BJP has the tendency to communally
manipulate power. This has become truer in the recent years in its attack
against Christianity. For instance, “after BJP’s coming into power at the
Centre, the job of VHP and Bajrang Dal became far more easy as now they got a
blanket protection and umbrella which would not let the reaction of their
crimes hit them back.”[142]
In all the recent political programs of the BJP there was always a tinge of
communal element.
Even in their political plan freedom
of religion is an anathema. The majority chauvinistic tone is always echoed as
“all political parties except the BJP have pledged to continue minority rights
and only BJP pledges to repeal Art 370 and Art 30 and replace the Minority
Commission by a commission for Human Rights.”[143]
Having discussed some of the main designs of RSS and BJP in connection with
freedom of religion it may now be appropriate to analyze the agenda of the
entire Sangh Parivar.
3.6 Sang Parivar’s Agenda in Relation
to Religious Minorities
Unfortunately the
Sangh Parivar is not committed to social and economic development of
3.6.1
Minorities
The Sangh Parivar’s main plan is
against the freedom of religion of the minorities. Many Hindu writers have
veiled this fact. For example M.A. Venkata Rao writes “the outlook it offers
has room for all minorities on condition of their whole-hearted submission to
the supreme value of the nation in their lives.”[145]
To say that the minorities are not fully committed to the nation is a blatant
lie. The call is not for common national interest but for Hindu national
interests. They use such lies to intimidate and instigate one community over
the other.
Again the minority communities are
presented as destroyers of the faith and symbols of the Hindus. And the Hindu
society is always pictured as national society. According to the Parivar the
Muslims, Christians, and Jews etc., have perfect upāsanā swātantrya,
freedom of worship so long as they do not seek to destroy or undermine the
faith and symbolism of the national society.[146]
This is again a willful negative propagation against the minorities.
The Sangh Parivar also portrays the
minorities as people committed to convert one religious community into another
religion. It is a blatant obstruction to people who prefer a religion of their
own choice. This obvious falsification has been framed as “they could bear
witness to their faith in life and speech but they should not indulge in any
unfair and unspiritual modes of conversion”[147]
They always claim that there is forceful conversion, a claim that has no
evidence so far. In nutshell, their main agenda is to portray the minorities as
disloyal to nation, destroyers of Hindu culture and encouraging conversion.
3.6.2
Re-invitation
The Sang’s second agenda is
re-conversion of people to Hinduism. Although they are against any form of
conversion from one religion to another thy want to practice it under different
nomenclature. They name it with very fancy names and do it with much aggression
and force. The vehemence can be felt from the following rendering as, “it is
our duty to call these our forlorn brothers, suffering under religious slavery
for centuries, back to their ancestral home.”[148]
They consider the ones seeking liberation through conversion to other religions
as enslaved people. This is an erroneous interpretation.
The Parivar also represents the
liberated ones as missing their original place, like “this is a call for all
those brothers to take their original place in our national life.”[149]
People who wanted to live with self-respect and dignity are interpreted as
losers of the original place. Again it is said “this is only a call and request
to them to understand things properly and come back and identify themselves
with their ancestral Hindu way of life in dress, customs, performing marriage
ceremonies and funeral rites and such other things.”[150]
It is a misfortune that the Parivar does not regret for the life long caste
oppression that was forced on people and that was used to discriminate and
segregate people. Because of caste many have lost education and its
consequential economic and other underdevelopments are still visible.
The Sang has used two expressions for
their forms of conversion. They can be ascertained from the following that “the
shuddhi was more to attract those low castes that had adopted Islam or
Sikhism as their religion. The current Gharvapasi campaign of VHP draws
it legitimacy from the assertion that Adivasis are Hindus.”[151]
One was for ordinary and the other is for the tribals. This is nothing but to
keep them under the evil and oppressive social, religious, economic and
political structures.
Their hidden agenda in the conversion
program is revealed as “Hindutva, which is Brahmanical Hinduism based
Nationalism has used the conversions to strengthen Hinduisms’ flanks by
co-opting the low castes and Adivasis earlier through shuddhi and now through
Gharvapasi.”[152] It is
true that the Sang Parivar can make a non-issue as a magnificent one.
Conversion is a matter of personal choice. It is a sign of civility and it is
an insignificant issue. But this people have manipulated it for their own
advantage. For example “what is remarkable is not that conversions as a
marginal phenomenon have been a part of Indian reality from ages but the fact
that political phenomenon called Sangh Parivar can make an issue out of it even
today.”[153] It is
clear that a simple and personal issue, conversion, has assumed great
significance in the wake of Hindutva propagation.
3.6.3
Reservation
The Sang Parivar is also committed to
curtail all the privileges of the minorities toward social upward mobility and
to justify majority communalism. For example they kept a group of people under
bondage of ignorance and poverty for several centuries. Now there are steps to
bring them up. One such step is reservation. The Sangh Parivar oppose this and
claim that “separatist consciousness breeding
jealousy and conflict is being fostered in sections of our people by naming
them Harijans, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and so on and by parading the
gift of special concessions to them in a bid to make them all their slaves with
the lure of money.”[154]
It is a surprise that the Parivar does not promise equality at the same time it
misinterprets any endeavor towards that direction.
Asking for equality and justice is
twisted as communal. For example “all
such groups who consider themselves distinct from this national ethos and
cherish hopes and aspirations in opposition to the national ones and demand
separate rights and privileges for themselves are to be called “communal”’.[155]
Refusal to accept freedom of religion is fundamentalism and communalism. But
here the seekers of freedom of religion are wrongfully called communalists. Any
hooliganism committed by the Sang Parivar cannot be addressed as communal. It
is said, “the Hindu in Bharat can never be termed “communal”.”[156]
The topsy-turvy about-turn of the Sang Parivar is the clear indication of their
coveted ideology.
They maintain parochial and unjust
claim that only the majority will be recognized and the minorities should
always look up to the majority and the minority should not have any thing of
their own. The majority communalism is acceptable and not the minority. This
wrangling of fact is seen from the view that “the expression “communalism of
the majority” is totally wrong and misconceived. In a democracy the opinion of
the majority has to hold the sway in the day-to-day life of the people. As such
it will be but proper to consider the practical conduct of the life of majority
as the actual life of the national entity. From this point of view also,
efforts to uplift the life of Hindus is national and not communal. The term
“majority communalism” is thus opposed to the spirit of democracy….But under
independence, the rule being of majority, to speak of “majority communalism” is
opposed to logic, truth and justice.”[157]
The Sang Parivar’s open declaration that it practices majority communalism is
surely a threat to the integrity of the nation.
3.6.4
History
Another agenda of the Sang Parivar is
to belittle the history and development of others and to take undue privilege
on their own history, however, tailored or fabricated. They are against the
ones who suggest that the history of Hinduism is not indigenous. On the
contrary the Sang claims that Hindus are the only people who have succeeded in
preserving their history- riding through earthquakes, bridging over deluges. It
begins with their Vedas which are the first extant chapter of the story of our
race.[158] In
terms of history all communities have a history.
The Sang also need to remember that
the Vedas are not the product of
3.6.5
Majority Psyche
The fundamentalist wanted to deny any
place to the minorities and hence they invent new form of majoritarian psyche,
which is unethical and undemocratic. For example “the basic feature of
secularism in UK and USA is that there is no distinction between citizens on
ground of religion or form of worship, and that everybody is equal before law
and is entitled to its equal protection, but that the religion of the majority
community functions from the center of all state activities and presides over
other religious sub-cultures.”[159]
Coming back to the core issue of freedom of religion the Parivar want only the majority religion enjoy all
glory and the minority ones needs to be overthrown.
Even in the cultural realm they want
only the culture of the majority and not the minority. It is maintained “the
cultural traits of the Hindus should be accepted in state actions because the
Hindus are in overwhelming majority, and so their cultural traits form the
national heritage.”[160]
This is another unacceptable demand. If any attempts are taken to respect,
protect and develop the culture of the minority that shall be a positive
effort. Not only at the organizational level this tendency is prevalent but it
is also penetrating through the judiciary too. For example “Significantly, the
Hindu Right is not alone in this majoritarian approach to freedom of religion.
Rather, there are examples running through Supreme Court jurisprudence in which
the unstated norm of the Hindu Majority is all too evident.”[161]
This is also another grave concern from the point of freedom of religion.
3.6.6
Partitions
Another unachievable agenda is to
revoke partition. In the words of Goalwalkar “if Partition is a settled fact,
we are here to unsettle it. There is, in fact, no such thing as a ‘settled
fact’ in this world. Things get settled or unsettled solely by the will of man.
And man’s will is steeled by a spirit of dedication to a cause which he knows
to be righteous and glorious.”[162]
The reality is that the Parivar see the possibility of interrupting freedom of
religion in this matter as well.
They connect the partitions to the
freedom of religion as “even today the tragedy of Partition has not come to a
close.
3.6.7
Positive Secularism
Another agenda of the Sang Parivar
against the minority’s freedom of religion is the invention of positive
secularism. In this positive secularism there is no appeasement of minorities.[164]
It is vivid that the minorities for them are no people and no citizens. The
unintelligible new brand of secularism intends to jacket the minorities by the
good will of the majorities. This too is undemocratic form of argument.
The Parivar’s intentions can be read
from the following that, ‘Nehruvian nationalism was based on minority
appeasement to the exclusion of the majority community whereas positive
secularism of the BJP envisages welfare of the minorities on the good will of
the majority community like the minority welfare has functioned under the
majority Christian rule in Christian countries or under the majority Muslim
rule in Islamic countries.[165]
The absence of progressive thought and the presence of destructive elements in
the ideology of the Parrivar are bothersome.
It is also unwise to claim that this
brand of secularism was much older. For example it is asserted on the basis of
this arrogant brand of secularism that “this assimilation and co-existence in
Hindu India could be possible because of the positive secularism practiced in
those times in
However, the Sang Parivar has
influenced the society to some extent. The reasons for doing so is “in
contemporary India, passion and prejudice are displacing sanity and reason and
its agents are organizations like the RSS, BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv sena and
other affiliates of the Sangh Parivar.”[167]
About the parochial nature of their aspirations, J. Kuruvachira warns “their
highest expression of tolerance consists in conceding a subordinate position to
non-Hindus devoid of any rights and privileges. But Nehru, who was an
uncompromising secularist, was one of the few who perceived the danger involved
in the Hindu nationalists mixing religion and politics.”[168]
The effort to salvage freedom of religion in
[1] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
3rd ed., Reprint (
2000), 54.
[2]
Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of
[3] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar (
[4] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 6th ed. (
Sadan, 1989), 6.
[5] Ibid.,
7.
[6]Ibid., 8.
[7] Ibid.,
10.
[8] Ibid.,
71.
[9] Ibid.,
73.
[10] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
98.
[11] Ibid.,
55.
[12] Ibid.,
59.
[13] Ibid.,
98.
[14] Ibid.,
97.
[15] Ibid.,
97-98.
[16] Ibid.,
55.
[17] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 76.
[18] Ibid.,
83.
[19] Ibid.,
115-116.
[20] Ibid.,,
84. (jati from jan)
[21] Ibid.,
98.
[22] Ibid.,
99-100.
[23] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of
Hindu Imperialism, 5th ed. (
Literature Centre, 1992),271.
[24] Ibid.,
275.
[25] Ibid.
[26] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
6.
[27] Ibid.,
37.
[28] Ibid.,
57.
[29] Ibid.,
37.
[30] Ibid.,
44.
[31] Ibid.,
45.
[32] Ibid.,
65.
[33] Ibid.,
54.
[34] Ibid.,
55
[35] Ibid.,
55
[36] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 12.
[37] Ibid.,
29.
[38] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
117.
[39] Ibid.,
106.
[40] Sunita Gangwal,
Minorities in
[41] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
215.
[42] Ibid.,
154.
[43] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 45.
[44] Pannalal
(Calcutta:
Punthi- Pustak, 1993), 111.
[45] Ibid.,
117.
[46] Ibid.,
108.
[47] Ibid.,
111.
[48] Ibid.,
107.
[49] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 81.
[50] Ibid.,
102-103.
[51] Ibid.,
105.
[52] Ibid.,
109.
[53] Ibid.,
121.
[54] Ibid.,
3.
[55] Ibid.,
4.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 48.
[58] Ibid.,
[59] Ibid.,
49.
[60] A.G. Noorani, “Fractured Democracies,”
frontline (
[61] C.
Ram-Prasad, “Contemporary Political Hinduism,” in The Blackwell Companion to
Hinduism, edited by Gavin Flood (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 527.
[62] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 51.
[63] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 81.
[64] Ibid.,
4.
[65] Ibid.,
3.
[66] Ibid.,
121.
[67] Ibid., 3.
[68] Ibid.,
4.
[69] C. Ram-Prasad, “Contemporary Political Hinduism,” in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, 527.
[70] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 3.
[71] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 53.
[72] Ibid., 56.
[73] J.Kuruvachira, Roots of Hindutva: A
critical Study of Hindu fundamentalism and Nationalism
(
[74] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 45.
[75] Ibid.,
82.
[76] Pannalal
[77] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 90-91.
[78] Ibid.,
91.
[79] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 52.
[80] J.Kuruvachira, Roots of Hindutva: A
critical Study of Hindu fundamentalism and
Nationalism, 295.
[81] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 115-116.
[82] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 63-64.
[83] Ramachandra Guha, “Hindu Popes:
Politics and Play,” The Telegraph
(
2004, 10.
[84] Shamsul Islam, Know the RSS (
[85] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 76.
[86] Ibid.,
76-109.
[87] I. Arul Aram, “Media and the Rise of
Cultural Nationalism in
(December, 2006):6.
[88] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 108.
[89] J.Kuruvachira, Roots of Hindutva: A
critical Study of Hindu fundamentalism and
Nationalism, 297.
[90] I. Arul Aram, “Media and the Rise of
Cultural Nationalism in
[91] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 109.
[92] I. Arul Aram, “Media and the Rise of
Cultural Nationalism in
[93] Neera Chandhoke, Beyond Secularism,
the rights of Religious Minorities (
[94] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule of
Law (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1999) 34.
[95] J.Kuruvachira, Roots of Hindutva: A
critical Study of Hindu fundamentalism and
Nationalism, 296.
[96] I. Arul Aram, “Media and the Rise of
Cultural Nationalism in
[97] J.Kuruvachira, Roots of Hindutva: A
critical Study of Hindu fundamentalism and
Nationalism, 297.
[98] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 52.
[99] Ibid.,
110.
[100] Ibid.,
67.
[101] Ibid.,
68.
[102] J.Kuruvachira,
Roots of Hindutva: A critical Study of
Hindu fundamentalism and
Nationalism,294.
[103] Ibid., 295.
[104] C. Ram-Prasad, “Contemporary Political
Hinduism,” in The Blackwell Companion to
Hinduism, 529.
[105] Ibid., 529.
[106] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 24.
[107] Pannalal
[108] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, 3rd ed., Reprint
(
[109] Ibid.,
xiv.
[110] Ibid.
[111] Ibid.
[112] Ibid.,
xv.
[113] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
172.
[114] Shamsul Islam, Know the RSS ,
7.
[115] Ibid.,
15.
[116] Ibid.,
9-10.
[117] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xv.
[118] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar ,112.
[119] Ibid.,
24.
[120] Ibid.,
25.
[121] Ibid.,
40.
[122] Ibid.,
127.
[123] Ibid.,
26.
[124] Ibid.,
25.
[125] Ibid.,
26.
[126] Ibid.,
27-28.
[127] Ibid.,
50.
[128] Ibid.,
50.
[129] Ibid.,
68.
[130] Ibid.,
69.
[131] Ibid.,
72.
[132] Ibid.,
75.
[133] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
118.
[134] Ibid.,
118.
[135] Ibid.,
77.
[136] Pannalal
[137] A.G. Noorani, “Fractured
Democracies,” frontline (
[138] Ibid., 84.
[139] Ibid., 84.
[140] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 31.
[141] Ibid.,
113.
[142] Ibid.,
118-119.
[143] Pannalal
[144] Ram Puniyani, Fascism of the Sangh
Parivar, 110.
[145] M.A. Venkata Rao, “Introduction”, in
M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, xiv.
[146] Ibid.,
xv.
[147] Ibid.,
xv.
[148] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
128.
[149] Ibid.,
128.
[150] Ibid.,
129.
[151] P.R. Ram, “A Campaign Without
Content,” Indian Currents XI/50 (13-19 December, 1999): 46.
[152] Ibid.,
47.
[153] Ibid.
[154] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
110.
[155] Ibid.,
164.
[156] Ibid.,
165.
[157] Ibid.,
165.
[158] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Hindutva:
Who is a Hindu?, 93.
[159] Pannalal
[160] Ibid.,
104.
[161] Brenda Cossman and Ratna Kapur, Secularism’s
Last Sigh: Hindutva and the (Mis) Rule of
Law, 110-111.
[162] M.S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
93.
[163] Ibid.
[164] Pannalal
[165] Ibid.,
120.
[166] Ibid.,
159.
[167] J. Kuruvachira, Hindu Nationalists
of Modern
Genealogy of Hindutva. (Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2006), p.234.
[168] Ibid., 230.
Comments
Post a Comment