A “nationalism” rooted in Sanatan Dharma
I have never been an�avid�reader of Panchjanya but started admiring Shri Tarun Vijay�after reading some of his articles in the last few months (e.g. see here).
As some of you may know, he has recently resigned as editor of the weekly to head up BJP’s think tank…Here are excerpts on how he felt making the transition…It makes some important points about dialogue, ideology and the need to separate personalities from “issues” (Anirban: Thanks for alerting me to this)
Excerpts from “The blessed path” by Tarun Vijay
…Atal Bihari Vajpayee was not only my first editor, but first reader too. Many of our issues were warmly appreciated and severely criticized by him. He would call even when he became Prime Minister to say what we have published is good or simply intolerable. He didn’t like criticising opponents personally and would always advise: “Oppose as vehemently you can, but on policies and programmes. Refrain from personal attacks.”
…Everyone who opposed our ideological stand was published honourably without a single cut, from Somnath Chatterjea to A.B. Bardhan and D. Raja to Shahabuddin and Bukhari. IPTA’s theatre new items got published along with Sanskar Bharati’s. It shocked our opponents but pleased our friends � it showed the strength of our commitment to what we believe in � dialogue. That’s Hindutva and not the Siberia-ism or creating of a Gulag on every news desk by the so called ‘independent’, ‘objective’ and ‘fearless’ journalists of the secular hue.
…It’s difficult, if not impossible to work in a Hindi journal to cater ideological arsenal to the faithful when the entire intellectual discourse has been confined to just one language � English. You end up creating more foes than friends.
…My take is: never compromise on your commitments. It’s your actions alone that save. Ultimately you have to bear your own cross. As a Hindu, the life and soul are immortal, only the attire, the body, perishes and a new life awaits. So why fear?
…To cap it, we went to Vaishno Devi on 25th Feb and it taught me strength of higher values, of ideology overpowering micro-identities. If life was just bread and butter, pilgrimages would be a non-starter and music wouldn’t have been described as ennobling.
In times of precipitated intolerance against each other based on parochial and religious identities, the pilgrims’ progress shows the strength of nobler bonds. There were Marathis and Biharis, UP- wale bhaiyyas and Gujaratis mingling with Malyalees and Punjabis of all shades � amdasis, Sikhs and Monas (Hindus) and Buddhists from Leh and Sikkim .All melted in one colour – Jai Mata Ki. Each one helps the other to walk miles of steep climb and encourages the other to keep at it. They may be complete strangers and none notices if the other is well dress or poorly attired. A billionaire and a cobbler walk the same path with the same confidence and commitment.
That’s the miracle of sharing and believing I saw during the Ramjanmabhoomi movement where provincial, caste and language identities were completely submerged in the broader, higher goal of rejuvenating the bruised national icon of Sri Ram. During the Kargil war too, the same spirit of harmony was exhibited extraordinarily and it bound Indians of all faiths with a thread of patriotism. This can be achieved only through ideology of purpose and not through personality cults.
…The myth of Aryan invasion, a Dhimmitude directing our polity and actions, intense hateful assaults on anything Hindu and spineless responses by an ill-informed crowd that represents the durbari class of Raibahadurs of the colonial period, absence of unity of purpose and the threat of barbaric intolerance can be faced with an uncompromising and unapologetic pride in being Indian inheritors of a great Hindu civilization.
Being a Hindu should be an elevating and enriching factor of our life instead of making us feel embarrassed.
Sri Aurobindo had clearly and unambiguously defined our nationalism as Sanatan Dharma, the eternal righteousness that defines what people understand as Hinduism. None has ever said that Sri Aurobindo was communal, so why do have fear today? He believed in the great destiny of India and gave us a path that was universal yet distinctly Indian. Why hesitate to redefine it and adopt for contemporary polity?
Defeating ideologies incompatible with the contemporary values of egalitarianism and plurality should form our foundation of nationalism which strives for material progress and ecological safeguards too as an essential part of Hindu dharma.
As much as 1.25 lakh sq km of our land is in enemy possession; this, as well as two flags for Kashmir fluttering over Srinagar Secretariat and the killing and uprooting of patriots should hurt us, give us sleepless nights and steel our resolve to undo the wrongs….”
*** End ***
Well said, Tarun-ji.� Posts by Tarun Vijay on this blog:
As the Government sleeps, dark clouds gather on the�horizon�
Dear Shantanu,
Thanks a lot for publishing this article. It was classy and super. So sophisticated and well written.
Wish you all the best in publishing some more on this subject.
Regards,
vck
1. Those Hindus read and inculcate even a bit of Swami Vivekanada, Sri Aurobindo and other great personalities of Bharat are the proud Hindus, and those who not are the confused lot.
2. And those who trained in christian missionary and pseudo-secular schools are the lot who feel embarrased to call themseves as Hindu, and they don’t stop there only. It is they who bad-mouth on anything Hindu, and some even form anti-hindu forums to serve their personal selfish agendas. They have low self-esteem and lacks self-confidence.
3. People who have no swabhiman or self-respect, are dead fellows. For them, ignorance is their proud, hating others is the best thing in life. They live a life of extreme frustations and insecurity.
4. What is needed for the Bharatiya/Hindus is to develop self-respect and self-confidence. By learning and inculcating even a bit of great personalities one can achieve that. If we think of Buddha, we become Buddha; if we think of Vivekanada, we become Vivekanada.
5. Everyone needs role-models in life, to shape and build good characters. One of the greatest role-models for todays Bharat is the Swami Vivekanada. He was not only a spiritual personality, he was a fierce nationalist and patriot. About Vivekananda, Shri Ravindranath Thakur said: “If you want to know India, read Vivekanada. In him everything is positive and nothing negative.”
Bharat
=====
In India if you call yourself as secular, you get various benefits like membership to academic bodies and government committee ( with fat remunerations), awards and trips abroad for so called seminars to defame all related to Hinduism and Hindus. You can also network with similar kind (Marxist and Mullahs) to loot the country. For this what you have to do is to denounce Hinduism, nationalism and Indian culture and adopt a holier than thou attitude towards Islam and Muslim fundamentalism.
In my view:
1. Of course we must take pride in our culture…one of the richest in the world, also MOST TOLERANT and respectful of other faiths. Most inclusive.
2. We are not Hindus….this is a term invented by moguls to describe us…I would prefer my faith to be described as Vedic or Sanatan Dharma. I am a Bhartiya or Indian. Not a hindu…no such thing in our ancient culture. (Even Indian indeed is a foreign term, but India the official name of my country, so I do not mind being called Indian….Hindustan is a name given to my country by invaders (yet, I would happily sing the song “saare Jahan se acchha, hindustan hamara.”..as it poetically gives a true depiction of my country….and being in Urdu, harmlessly calls my country “Hindustan”)
3. I cannot take any pride in demolishment of Barbari Masjid or any other fanatical acts…indeed such acts bring shame to my country.
4. My faith teaches me to love all, unconditionally. If some of my brotehren’s thought process is not in accord with mine, what I need to do is lovingly try and bring up mutual level of awareness through honest dialogue, not spread hate or kill or condemn another.
5. What is needed most of all is to inculcate proper moral values amongst youngsters and not encourage anti this or that type of divisive attitude.
Namaste,
The Meaning, Definition and Origin of the word Hindu
by Jayaram V.
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_meaning.asp
—–
Here my response to Jayaram V’s article and the word Hindu.
Namaste,
Sri Jayaram’s article gives (somehow) origin of the word Hindu, but not who is a Hindu in the sense of Hindu Dharma.
1. Sri Jayaram V mentioned, “The word ‘Hindu’ is not a sanskrit word…”; Then, what it is? In which language of the world, we can find the word Hindu? It is not a Persian word, nor Arabic. Persians, as well other west Asians (Arabs), used to call the people living in the sapta Sindu/Sindhu River areas as Hindu (instead of Sindu, as Persians pronounce S as H, same as Ohomiya/Assamese people pronounce S as H). Sindhu region comprise the sapta/seven river areas (which is the Saraswati-Sindhu civilization area).
2. The word ‘Hindu’ is a Tad-bhava (that bhava) of the word ‘Sindu’, so it is very much a sanskrit-moy (sanskrit-based) word, if not a pure sanskrit word. It is derived from the pure sanskrit word Sindhu. In Bangla language, about 90% words are from Sanskrit (tad-sama and tad-bhava). What we going to say? It is Bangla language, but Sanskrit-moy (-based) Bangla. As per the Constitution of India, our rastra-bhasa (national language) is the sanskrit-moy Hindi.
3. Sindhu word is the root for both word Hindu and India. British used word ‘India’ is the tad-bhava of Greek used word ‘Indo’. India is the derivative of Indo. Similar to the word ‘Hindu’, the word ‘India’ is also a sanskrit-moy (-based) word; we can’t find the word Indo or India in any languages of the world. Merely derivations does not make the word Hindu or Indo or India as Persian or Greek or English words).
4. The word Hindu and India are more geographical, civilizational and cultural concept. They reflect the Saraswati-Sindhu-Ganga (and expanded areas) civilization and culture. Culture is more broader and comprehensive than religion. It is more of the culture/samskriti, which binds us together as one nation Bharatvarsha, from Manipur to Gujarat and Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
5. Now, who is a Hindu? In cultural-religious sense, all followers of Sanatan Dharma or Vaidika dharma or Arya (means noble) Dharma or Hindu Dharma are Hindus, and we identify us as Hindu. In geographic-cultural sense, all the people of Bharat are Hindus (irrespective of religions), just as we all are Indians (Bharatiya).
I found the definition of ‘Hindu’ given by Sri Bal Gangadhar Tilak is a comprehensive and beautiful one, as accepted by the Supreme Court of India:
“Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realization of the truth that the number of deva-devis (gods) to be worshiped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion.” B.G. Tilak’s definition of what makes one a basic Hindu, as quoted by India’s Supreme Court. On July 2, 1995 the Court referred to it as an “adequate and satisfactory formula.”
It must be noted that, a definition of Hindu have to include all Hindus (followers of Sanatan Dharma), practicing or non-practicing, theists or atheists, by-birth or by-adoption, vaisnavite or shaivite, vegetarian or non-vegetarian, and so on.
Bharat
====
Vck, Bharat, Srinivas and Suresh,
Thank you for your comments.
***
@ Suresh and Bharat:
Re. the origin of the word “Hindu” and whether it is more appropriate to call our “religion” or “belief-system” Hindu-ism or “Sanatan Dharma”, please read:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/25/more-on-origin-and-usage-of-word-hindu/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/03/04/origin-of-the-word-hindu/
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/27/hindu-india-and-bharat-word-origins/
***
@ Suresh: Re. your point #3, I don’t believe anyone is asking us to take “pride in demolishment of Babari Masjid or any other fanatical acts”.
And yes, you are right, our faith does teach us “to love all, unconditionally”…
However there are times when you do have to fight back, when words, entreaties and requests fail and when all other options have been exhausted. Under such circumstances, force and use of force remains the only option.
I am sure you know that this is similar to what Shri Krishna said to Arjun on the battlefield the evening before the Great War began.
I also agree with you that we need to inculcate an inclusive, tolerant attitude amongst children and the younger generation. And what better role model than India and Hinduism for this? Please do read this article by Jean Pierre Lehmann and you will see what I mean:
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2006/05/30/excerpts-from-the-dangers-of-monotheism/
***
@ Bharat:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the “Meaning, Definition and Origin of the word Hindu”. It is a controversial topic, as you know, on which numerous articles have been written.
I liked your except of Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s quote (#5).
Separately, you mention that “As per the Constitution of India, our rastra-bhasa (national language) is the sanskrit-moy Hindi” (point #2).
This is a common mis-perception.
See for example,
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/04/23/bharatiya-passion-firangi-thoughts/#comment-10660 and
https://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/04/23/bharatiya-passion-firangi-thoughts/#comment-11134
You may also enjoy reading: “Of Bharatiya Passion and Phirangi Thoughts”
That was really insightful article by Tarun Vijay. I am confident the sentiments like nationalism, patriotism and being proud to be a hindu is not lacking in the young hearts of new generation of Indians. The pseudo-secularism is outdated and we need change .Thanks to Tarun vijay for opening the blocked senses of many indians. All his articles have rare power of truth. I wish indians could read more such columns and articles from different persons in media and politics.
this is amarender. Really it is a fantastic article, i read in this blog. i appreciate to you. wish you all the best in publish some more articles in this blog.
warm regards,
amar.
Extracts from a recent article in Outlook by Francois Gautier, A Fatherhood More Equal?:
Francois Gautier has always been rather radical in his views…more Hindu than the Hindutva brigade!
Well, he is welcome to his views but, to place Aurobindo on a higher pedestal than Gandhi, this is a bit too hard for me swallow! Aurobindo was a great saint… no doubt, a great poet and writer……absolutely no doubt, but to claim that he did more for India than Gandhi, it is on the verge of ridiculous!
Aurobindo lived a great dream, of bringing ‘down’ (that concept itself is ridiculous!! Supra conscious was always here…and will remain, it is you and me! That alone is! This body is a mirage…of limited existence just like that of a wave in the ocean; water alone is; and similarly consciousness alone is; it is that simple!! I do not know why he (and Mother) in their Intense Sadhna did not get it! I think they never found a true teacher…and Self Knowledge is NOT POSSIBLE without the guidance of a Realized teacher). Aurobindo started his life as a freedom fighter, but ended up becoming a spiritual seeker (yes, seeker, not a realized master…because had He been a Master, He would not talk about bringing Down (!) what already is down, up and everywhere!). He merely wished India’s Independence, Gandhi went out there and DID IT! (He did not run away to a French Colony to escape imprisonment).
Furthermore, I have no doubt in my mind that Gandhi was a Realized Master. He is the greatest saint history has produced so far. Someone who lived a down to earth life, amongst the masses, totally transparent, readily accessible to one and all; a puny man yet he shook the world! Churchill declared him to be just a fakir! Churchill was a mere politician, may be even a Statesman, Gandhi was 100 times taller; he will remain the one who influenced human thought in recent times more than anyone else…more even than the mythological Rama, Krishna or even Christ. It is a matter of great pride that besides being Universal, he was an Indian too!! What an exemplary example he set for us all…I would consider myself blessed if I could come up to even 10% of what his lofty ideals were. No Francois Gautier!!
No…There is no comparison at all! Aurobindo was great! Gandhi was 1000 times greater. I am prepared to have a dialogue with Gautier face to face any time!
15th Aug , Aurobindo’s birthday. 15th Aug India’s independence. Good karma and Good dharma rewarded.
No leader has this achievement.
Aurobindo, was earlier a freedom fighter who wanted to go like Bhagat Singh et al. He was stereotyped by the British , so he became a yogi a la Valmiki. Gandhi started with non-violence right from his arrival in South Africa. So there was no going back to other methods. I feel stereotyping was the result of many failing with their methods. Many were stereotyped during freedom movement. More later.
@ Suresh Anand-10
>>>”Francois Gautier has always been rather radical in his views more Hindu than the Hindutva brigade!”
That is neither here nor there.
>>>”Aurobindo lived a great dream, of bringing ‘down'(that concept itself is ridiculous!! Supra conscious was always here and will remain, it is you and me! That alone is!”
Perhaps what you understand of Supra consciousness is not what Sri Aurobindo meant ?
As in the case of the frog in the well that refused to understand the concept of anything bigger than its own well, you need not refuse to accept the possibility of Supra consciousness merely because you have not experienced it.
>>>” This body is a mirage… of limited existence just like that of a wave in the ocean; water alone is; and similarly consciousness alone is; it is that simple!! I do not know why he (and Mother) in their Intense Sadhna did not get it!”
Did they inform you that they ‘did not get it’ ?
>>>”I think they never found a true teacher; and Self Knowledge is NOT POSSIBLE without the guidance of a Realized teacher”
The fact people who are accepted by society as having acquired self-knowledge, such as Buddha, Jesus, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Sankaracharya etc., did so by their own efforts indicates the falsity of the above statement.
Moreover, your ‘thinking’ that ‘they never found a true teacher’ is also baseless, as you will understand if you go through the Uttarpara speech of Sri Aurobindo that Francois Gautier referred in his article.
>>>”..yes, seeker, not a realized master…because had He been a Master, He would not talk about bringing Down (!) what already is down, up and everywhere!”
Maybe what he wanted to bring ‘down’ is not what you perceive to be already down, up and everywhere ?
>>>”…He merely wished India’s Independence, Gandhi went out there and DID IT!”
‘DID IT’?
What ‘DID’ he ‘IT’?
If you only read the literature produced by congress, you will continue to think that Gandhi ‘DID IT’ and perhaps, that Aurobindo was a ‘terrorist’, which is what congress would like people to believe, as Gautier mentions in his article about manuals written by congress.
>>>”Furthermore, I have no doubt in my mind that Gandhi was a Realized Master. ”
Just as you have no doubt that Sri Aurobindo remained a seeker.
Maybe it is good to have doubts sometimes.
>>>”He is the greatest saint history has produced so far. ”
Obviously you are unaware of people such as Adi Sankaracharya, Ramana Maharshi, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Dayananda Saraswati and millions of other rishis of india.
Would be good if you understand that there is more to world than just your well.
>>>”Someone who lived a down to earth life, amongst the masses, totally transparent, readily accessible to one and all;”
By that reasoning each of those who comprise the ‘masses’ could lay legitimate claim to sainthood.
>>>”a puny man yet he shook the world! ”
So much so that he could not even prevent partition of his own country.
>>>”Churchill was a mere politician, may be even a Statesman, Gandhi was 100 times taller;”
That ‘mere politician, may be even a statesman’ still managed to keep the integrity of his country against an assault by what is arguably the most determined and powerful war machine in history.
Yet the ‘100 times taller’ one could not achieve even that.
>>>”he will remain the one who influenced human thought in recent times more than anyone else”
If that allegation is true, it is definitely not creditworthy considering the plight of humanity at present, particularly in the political sphere of India.
>>>”more even than the mythological Rama, Krishna or even Christ.”
Apparently Gandhi himself considered these so-called ‘mythological’ ones as worthy of worship and revered them, indicating that he himself was infuenced by their thoughts. So when he himself claims to take guidance from these so-called ‘mythological’ ones, your statement is automatially false.
>>>”It is a matter of great pride that besides being Universal, he was an Indian too!!”
I think this is an advanced case of idol worship.
Mohammed is supposed to have advocated destroying of all idols. Obviously he was referring to the idols of the mind.
May be a good advice for you to follow .
>>>”What an exemplary example he set for us all; I would consider myself blessed if I could come up to even 10% of what his lofty ideals were. No Francois Gautier!!”
Francois Gautier does share your sentiments as he says in his article- “ everybody quotes conveniently from Gandhi, although nobody applies his ideals of charkha, non-violence, khadi and birth control by sexual abstinence.”
>>>”No…There is no comparison at all! Aurobindo was great! Gandhi was 1000 times greater.”
You sure you did not miss out on a few more zeros ?
>>>”I am prepared to have a dialogue with Gautier face to face any time!”
About Gandhi being 1000 times greater than Aurobindo?
How is Gautier going to substantiate or contest that ?
Did Auobindo make Gautier his spokesman before he left the world?
In comment no 4-
>>>”Of course we must take pride in our culture…one of the richest in the world, also MOST TOLERANT and respectful of other faiths. Most inclusive.”
What you have mentioned as ‘richest’, ‘MOST TOLERANT’ and ‘Most inclusive’ are at best peripheral attributes of ancient indian culture, a by-product.
It is not these attributes that makes ancient indian culture worthy of respect.
It is the whole of ancient indian culture and philosphy that is worthy of respect. That it produced a society which was rich- materially, culturally, philosphically and spiritually – substantiates the argument.
Attributing “.. respectful of other faiths” to ancient indian culture is not correct. Ancient indian culture ‘respected the freedom of choice of individuals to follow different faiths’ without judging those faiths as respectable or otherwise.
>>>”I cannot take any pride in demolishment of Barbari Masjid or any other fanatical acts…indeed such acts bring shame to my country.”
In describing the building that was demolished you seems to have missed out a ‘c’ at the end of the prefix ‘Barbari’ that you used.
To call it Masjid is incorrect since the said building was locked since 1949 and such a building where no namaz is read for forty years cannot be called a masjid.
Moreover, people have been worshipping Rama outside that building during those forty years, arguably a practice that had been continuing for centuries before that.
To call the act of demolishing such an abandoned buidling as ‘fanatical’ is unreasonable.
>>>”indeed such acts bring shame to my country”
For people who believe in allowing abandoned buildings which serve no purpose to decay further on their own, the act of demolishing them may appear to be an inexcusable effort. But surely, not an act that bring shame to ‘my country’.
>>>”My faith teaches me to love all, unconditionally. If some of my brotehren’s thought process is not in accord with mine, what I need to do is lovingly try and bring up mutual level of awareness through honest dialogue, not spread hate or kill or condemn another.”
Since indian culture allows you to follow any faith of your choice, you are free to do so.
While doing so, I hope you will ‘lovingly try and bring up mutual level of awareness through honest dialogue’ and not condemn your “brotehren” as fanatical for having demolished an abandoned building.
While at it, I also hope that you will extent the same consideration of ‘love’ to Francois Gautier instead of condemning him as being ‘radical’ and ‘more Hindu than the Hindutva brigade’.
I also hope that you will have some ‘love’ leftover to give to those of the ‘Hindutva brigade’ too.
>>>”What is needed most of all is to inculcate proper moral values amongst youngsters and not encourage anti this or that type of divisive attitude.”
Is it proper and moral to be intolerant towards the intolerant ?
Is it improper and immoral to be anti-deceitful?
As said before, you have the freedom to choose your faith, thanks to indian culture.
But you must recognise that others also have the same privilege in india.
You must recognise that your faith is not superior to that of others.
This is the essence of ancient indian culture.
@Suresh Anand-10: Mahatma Gandhi once told Nehru: “I believe in Hindu-Muslim harmony and not disharmony. Vivisection of India can only take place over my dead body.†But our country was divided. Why ? Even after the Nehru-Liaqat accord about the minorities, where are the minorities (especially hindus) in Pakistan and present day Bangladesh. Who is to be held responsible for the almost total annihilation of hindus in Pakistan (about 24% to less than 1%) and Bangladesh (from about 30% to less than 8.5%).
“It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace. Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man? (Harijan: January 30, 1937)” This is Gandhiji on conversion. You can read more on this by following the link:http://www.stephen-knapp.com/mahatma_gandhi_on_conversion.htm
Gandhiji was a true hindu who respected all relgions. His ideals were Ram Rajya of Maryada Purushottam. His last words were “Hey Ram”. But see what is happening and what happened during the last few years. They went and filed an affidavit swearing that Lord Rama and Ramayana are myths though subsequently withdrawn under pressure). The highest elected authority of a state called Lord Rama a drunkard. There are more and more instances like these. They are just giving lip services to Gandhiji all the while doing exactly the opposite of Gandhiji stood for. This is the way they are honouring a saint and our Father of the Nation. Indeed words and deeds are poles apart.
Not only this, Vikas swarup allows his Q &A to be mutated by by the Brits. This man is supposed to be an ambassador in SA and he allows his novel to be changed lock stock and barrel to show Lord Rama in bad light in SDM. What a shame !!! and then it wins OScars and this Vikas Swarup was showing his 32 teeth during the award ceremony.
Mr Anand , would MK Gandhi sided with the hypocrisy of Vikas Swarup and the cunning atitude of the Brits in their display and divide presentation?
Aurobindo would have not minced words for this Avikas Roop. He would have called him spineless.
Excellent Incognito!
I have lived in Pondicherry and the labelling or stereotyping existed during the British as they had to rule with dividing. The Thevar community produced a great freedom fighter called Puli Thevar is 1760. The British who had come then, called him a robber and thief and the process of labelling stared right from that time. The Thevars were given the label Kallalar , which is simliar to robbers and this was used to divide the Thevars into good and bad. This continued till PMuthuramalinga Thevar came, in 1905. He gave a direction. His association with Netaji Bose , gave the Thevars a sense of identity. This made them join INA and due to this many are there in the Indian army. For the Thevars , Netaji Bose is a hero. Even though we consider Mahatma as a great man, for us to drive away the inferiority complex created by the British could be achieved only when we accepted Netaji and PM Thevar as our leaders.
Even now , the Thevars are labelled in Tamil films and even in the some media ( not all). This mischief was started by the British rulers.
Everybody has his own hero. Mahatma Gandhi was a great man, but for us , the man who removed our inferiority complex was Netaji Bose. Removing the inferiority complex and raising the level of labelled community is extremely important for positive growth.
From French President Confronts Radical Islam Head-On
“There is not a single free thinker, Freemason, or atheist who doesn’t feel the tug of a Christian heritage that has left so many deep furrows in the French mind-set,” he (Sarkozy) said.
Wondering about the impact if one substitutes “Christian” by “Hindu” and “French” by “Indian” as in…
Thought-provoking excerpt from a post by Acorn, “Who says Nationalism must be intolerant?“:
The political expression of nationalism depends on the values of the nation concerned (the nation being an “imagined community†that has cultural kinship). If nationalism in twentieth-century Europe resulted in intolerance and violence it is because the intolerant and violent values of Europe’s nations were dominant. There is no reason to believe that this will happen everywhere else.
Indian nationalism since the middle of the nineteenth century was informed by the quintessentially Hindu values of tolerance and pluralism. As long as Indian nationalism continues to be driven by these dominant Hindu values, we need not worry too much about the colours with which Western discourse paints it with.
The politics of liberal nationalism is not only possible but presents modern society with a enlightened way to manage its affairs. Actually, this has been the way in India for much of history, with the exceptions being Islamic and European attempts to impose religious intolerance in some parts during some periods. These attempts largely failed except in 1947. Even so, the outcome of Partition showed that systems that reject the values of tolerance and pluralism will come to grief.
From Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Gandhi too oxymorons? by S Gurumurthy, some excerpts:
..
Take Swami Vivekananda first. The Swami’s nationalist exhortations deified the nation, seeded the freedom movement. The British Police repeatedly found Swami’s literature in the hands of the freedom fighters and revolutionaries, even mulled action against the Ramakrishna Math. Vivekananda inspired the passivists as well as the revolutionaries. The tallest leaders acclaimed him. Mahatma Gandhi: ‘reading Vivekananda had made me love the country ‘hundred fold.’ Subhash Bose: he ‘was the spiritual father of modern nationalist movement’. Rajaji: but for him ‘we would have lost our religion, not have gained our freedom; we owed everything to him’. Rabindranath Tagore: ‘if you want to know India, study Vivekananda.’ Finally, the ultra-secular Jawaharlal Nehru: ‘he was one of the great founders of national movement, who inspired the freedom fighters.’ Even mystics like Maharishi Aurobindo and Subramanya Bharati were inspired by him. And what did Swami Vivekananda stand for. “A nation in India,†declared Vivekananda, “must be a union of those whose hearts beat to the same spiritual tune.â€
Swamy Vivekananda repeatedly declared India as Hindu nation. Comparing the three living nations – English, French and Hindu – he said ‘the Hindu nation is still living’ because of its religion. He condemned the Hindus saying most of the real evils for which the foreign races abuse the Hindu nation are only owing to us and pointed to jealousy as the reason why the Hindu nation with all its wonderful intelligence have gone to pieces.
…
Maharishi Aurobindo, revolutionary, freedom fighter and mystic-philosopher, asserted Nationalism is no longer “a creed, a religion, a faith…. This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatan Dharma, with it it moves and with it it grows. When the Sanatan Dharma declines, then the nation declines, and if the Sanatan Dharma were capable of perishing, with the Sanatan Dharma it would perish. The Sanatan Dharma, that is nationalism.†Is Aurobindo oxymoron?
Move further. ‘If we lay stress on common heritage forgetting all our differences that exist among the different sects…we shall ere long be able to consolidate different sects into a mighty Hindu nation. That ought to be the ambition of every Hindu.’
This is not Mohan Bhagwat. It is Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the first Indian to declare “Swaraj is my birth rightâ€. Before Mahatma Gandhi arrived on the scene, the famous threesome ‘Lal-Bal-Pal’ [Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal] guided the freedom movement. They are Hindu nationalists. Even today the Odisha government website proclaims them so. Are Lal-Bal-Pal oxymorons? More.
“Though the majority of the Mussulmans of India and the Hindus belong to the same ‘stock’, the religious environment has made them different…….being heir to fresh traditions he exhibits the virility of a comparatively new system of life…….1,300 years of imperialistic expansion has made the Mussulmans fighters as a body. They are therefore aggressive. Bullying is the natural excrescence of aggressive spirit. The Hindu is an age-old civilisation. He is essentially non-violent.†Who’s this? Mahatma Gandhi.
In Hind Swaraj, which is his fundamental ideological text, he pointed out how Hinduism is the core of Indian nationalism. Gandhi said: ‘those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setubandha (Rameshwaram) in the South, Jagannath in the East and Hardwar in the North as places of pilgrimage were no fools. They knew that the worship of God could have been performed just as well at home and yet they argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India, and fired the people with an idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world. But they saw that India was one undivided land.’
…
And finally the Supreme Court of India. The highest court declared, “Hinduism or Hindutva are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the people of India or depicting the way of life of the Indian people…..in the abstract these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith.â€
The court quoted with approval the views of Maulana Wahiuddin Khan who wrote: ‘The strategy worked out to solve the minorities problem was, although differently worded, that of Hindutva or Indianisation. This strategy, briefly stated, aims at developing a uniform culture by obliterating the differences…. This was felt to be the way to communal harmony and national unity and put an end once and for all to the minorities’ problem.’ Is the law declared by the highest Court oxymoron?
One thing is evident. The national discourse is devoid of historic sense. It does not even look at the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Result. Whatever inspired the freedom movement, whether it is Vande Mataram composed by Banchim Chandra or the ideal of Rama Rajya revered by Mahatma Gandhi or the concept of Hindu nationalism expounded by Swami Vivekananda and Maharishi Aurobindo, is regarded in the dictionary of Indian secularism as communal and anti-secular.
Are Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Tilak, Gandhi and all other revered national leaders, who spent their whole life to arouse the people to battle for freedom with their inspiring life and thoughts, all oxymorons then?
Courtesy Sh Ashok-ji, this is Nehru on Hindu nationalism:
“It (is) not easy….to draw a line between Hindu nationalism and true
nation-alism. The two overlap as India is the only home of Hindus and
they form a majority there.”
From: Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of World History (p 720).
Excerpts from Varshney’s Hindu Nationalists are True Universalists & Humanists by Ram Madhav:
…
Varshney’s intentional bias, as against genuine scholarship, is glaring in every sentence of his write up. For, a true scholar looks at the entire gamut of literature before jumping to any conclusion on any subject. But past masters in academic deception take statements out of context, quote them partially, twist them to suit their biased arguments and deliberately ignore all the other available material. Varshney had done no better.
Let us look at the first distortion about Hindu Rashtra. Hinduness as a cultural identity that this ancient nation has come to acquire is what Hindu nationalists have always propagated. In this proposition, Hindu doesn’t come to represent any religion or mode of worship. Instead, it is a set of values that have come to be known as the Sanatana Dharma. Savarkar himself had given a clear definition to the word Hindu in his book ‘Hindutva’ thus:
Aasindhu sindhu paryantaa Yasya Bharata Bhoomika
Pitrubhu Punyabhuchaiva Tavai Hinduriti Smritah
‘Those who regard this land of Bharat spread between river Sindhu (in the north) to the ocean Sindhu (Sindhu Sagar – Indian Ocean in the south) as their Pitrubhumi – Fatherland and Punyabhumi – Holy land are called as Hindus’.
It is more about emotional bonding with the country in which they were born. But Savarkar never differentiated Hindus and Muslims as superior and inferior. In the manifesto of ‘Hindu Rashtra’, which Varshney had referred to as the basic text, Savarkar states: “Religious minorities will have all the right to practice their religion in a Hindu Rashtra and the State will ensure that; but the Hindu Rashra won’t allow creation of a nation within a nation in the name of religious minoritysm.†What’s wrong with it? This is exactly the situation in the country where Varshney has grown up and prospered, the USA.
…
Talking to some media persons in 1970, he made a categorical statement that: “So far as the work for the country is concerned, I do not distinguish between Hindus and Muslimsâ€. To a question as to what he meant by ‘Muslims joining the mainstream’, Shri Golwalkar replied: “They should experience the same ‘sense of belonging’, as the Hindus do, to this country, its people, its culture, tradition and history and also its past memories and future aspirations. If, after fulfilling all these, anybody says that he has studied the Koran or the Bible and that way of worship strikes a sympathetic chord in his heart, he is welcome to follow it. Thus he has his choice in a portion of his individual life. For the rest, he must be one with the national current.
We have been in existence as a nation for scores of centuries. There are some fundamentals on which our national life is resting. That is our mainstream. We want all people to come to the mainstream of national life but not to lose their identityâ€.
…
Firstly, one fails to understand what objections one can have with regard to asking people to have “undivided†loyalty to their ‘motherland’ or ‘fatherland’. But Varshney’s objection seems to be about the other part, “Indian loyalties cannot be assumed to existâ€.
…Here it is also important to understand the context – the prevailing situation in India at that time. Large sections of Muslim population were influenced by Jinnah’s Two Nation theory causing serious consternation in the minds of many a leader of those times. Forget about what leaders like Sardar Patel had said, even a leader like Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the darling to Varshney and his ilk, had raised a voice of concern about the loyalty of the Muslims that remained in India.
“I have said that I am proud of our inheritance and our ancestors who gave an intellectual and cultural pre-eminence to India. How do you feel about this past? Do you feel that you are also sharers in it and inheritors of it and, therefore, proud of something that belongs to you as much as to me? Or do you feel alien to it and pass it by without understanding it or feeling that strange thrill which comes from the realisation that we are the trustees and inheritors of this vast treasure? I ask you these questions, because in recent years many forces have been at play diverting people’s minds into wrong channels and trying to pervert the course of history. You are Muslims and I am a Hindu. We may adhere to different religious faiths or even to none; but that does not take away from us that cultural inheritance that is yours as well as mineâ€
– This is what Nehru asked the students of Aligarh Muslim University in 1948. How is it different from what Savarkar had said at that time?
Let me quote another senior leader of those times on this issue.
…
Ambedkar also makes the same point that Varshney objects to in Savarkar’s arguments, namely their loyalty. “Islam is a system of social self-government and is incompatible with local self-government, because the allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. To the Muslim, wherever there is the rule of Islam, there is his own country. In other words, Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kinâ€, he says.
…
Unlike Savarkar and Golwalkar who believed that Hindu – Muslim unity is possible through genuine reform, Ambedkar was categorical that it was a near impossibility. “… a great gulf has remained fixed between the two and their enforced political union either under the Moghuls or the British ….has only accentuated their mutual antipathy. Neither religion nor social code can bridge this gulf. The two faiths are mutually exclusive and whatever harmonies may be forged in the interest of good social behaviour, at their core and centre they are irreconcilableâ€, concludes Ambedkar. I hope Varshney wouldn’t call Ambedkar a Hindu supremacist. However, even these statements of Ambedkar shouldn’t be taken out of context to suggest that he was anti-Muslim. The primary concern of all the national leaders at that time was to somehow ensure national unity by understanding and exploring socio-religious dynamics.
That brings us to the third point about caste and Hinduism. Here again, Varshney uses his sleight to distort the argument because of his inherent bias. Hindutva’s emphasis on minimising caste distinctions and creating Hindu unity is interpreted by him as forcing lower castes to follow ‘Brahminical model of Hinduism’. As is the standard practise, Varshney doesn’t explain as to what was that ‘Brahminical model of Hinduism’. He knew that both Savarkar and Golwalkar were opposed to hierarchical system of caste superiority which has come to be identified with the word ‘Brahminical’.
All his life, Savarkar fought against caste-based inequalities and untouchability. He was the first to launch temple entry campaign for Harijans. He was unequivocal in his condemnation of the distorted caste system. “As the Sanatana Dharma did not die due to this tectonic change, so too it will not die if the present-day distortion that is caste division is destroyedâ€, he exhorted.
Infact, Varshney’s Hindu nationalist is at core not an exclusivist, but a universalist and humanist. ..
Brief extract from Ram Jethmalani’s article on Secularism referring to Supreme Court’s observations on the term “Hindu” and “Hindutva”:
Now, what is Hindutva? Agreed, it is rooted in the word Hindu that historically referred to people beyond the Indus, but was created into a religious denomination by the British. All it means is, “the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos”, and by no means an anti minority or anti Muslim potion. “Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism… it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption… that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion…” These are not my words, but of the Supreme Court judgement of 1995 on Hindutva. For further details that I cannot explain owing to space constraints, I request my readers to go through the judgement which is available on the Internet. Do the Hindutva bashing “secular” sceptics cast aspersions on the Supreme Court order, or that Hindutva is nothing but a secular way of life?
…
Before I close, let me quote one of the last paras of the judgement: “The mischief resulting from the misuse of the terms by anyone in his speech has to be checked and not its permissible use. It is indeed very unfortunate, if in spite of the liberal and tolerant features of Hinduism recognised in judicial decisions, these terms are misused by anyone during the elections to gain any unfair political advantage. Fundamentalism of any colour or kind must be curbed with a heavy hand to preserve and promote the secular creed of the nation. Any misuse of these terms must, therefore, be dealt with strictly.” Let the manipulators of the word Hindutva realise that articulating it with religious connotation is in violation of the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court judgement.