06-18-2004, 01:28 AM
Title: Hindutva - about keeping up a faith
Author: M.V.Kamath
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: June 17, 2004
http://www.samachar.com/features/170604-features.html
In his first public utterance after the fall of the NDA government, L. K. Advani made an interesting remarks. He said that Hindutva remained the guiding force of the BJP and there was no need to be apologetic about it. If he has been correctly reported, if not in words at least in spirit, the time has come to engage in a public discussion of the subject. So much has been said and written about Hindutva and no two persons seem agreed on an acceptable definition. Decades old writings and sayings of Veer Savarkar and Guru Golwalkar are often cited by secularists not so much to elucidate the phrase as much as to damn both and add to the hate propaganda.
In the `secular' mind Hindutva is associated with jingoism, communalism, anti-minoritism, fascism and everything negative. Debate becomes impossible. It is also associated with Hindu separatism, it a divisive factor in Indian society. The very word `Hindu' has become anathema to many `intellectual' Hindus.
To the Communists,especially in West Bengal, Hinduism stinks. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the CPM Chief Minister of West Bengal could even say, with a smirk on his face, that his party would support the Congress if only to keep the BJP out. The CPM government had gone to the extent of making the activities ofthe non-political Sri Ramakrishna Mission in the field of education so hard to pursue that the Mission, set up by no less than Swami Vivekananda felt forced to approach the Calcutta High Court to seek for itself a separate non-Hindu minority status.
The Mission's affidavit in the High Court and,later, its written arguments in July 1983 contended that "Ramakrishnaism is definitely no part of Hinduism" but is" a religion separate and different from the religion of the Hindus" and that" it has its own separate god, separate name, separate Church, separate worship, separate community, separate organization and, above all, separate philosophy".
What Swami Vivekanand, would have to say about this religious turn-coatism is another matter. What is it that is turning otherwise decent and religious Hindus against themselves? One has to read Pawan Varma's nauseating book `Being Indian'to appreciate the depth to which hatred of Hinduism has gotten inside the Hindu mind.
It is self-flagellation at its worst. One can understand the anger of the reformer who has set out to change Hindu society. India down the centuries had several of them. One of the last, Sri Aurobindo could say: "These hollow worm-eaten outsides of Hinduism crumbling so sluggishly, so fatally to some sudden and astonishing dissolution, do not frighten me. Within them I find the soul of a civilization alive, though sleeping".
Sri Aurobindo was no ordinary critic of what was crumbling about Hinduism, but even when he was being critical he could see through the devastating influence of westernisation that was affecting Hindu society at the beginning of
the twentieth century. He was one of the original pleaders for Hindutva.
As Jyotirmaya Sharma, a sociologist says in his work Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism: "If Savarkar's exposition of Hindutva is the most radical, the most extreme and, certainly the most militant, it is only because his universe of ideas and its milieu was nourished by predecessors like Dayananda (Saraswati), Vivekananda and Aurobindo." Each of them was a product of his times.
Each had seen the damage wrought to Hinduism by alien religions. Writes H. N. Bali in his book `Hinduism at the Crossroads':"In their zeal both Islam and Christianity did everything possible to distort the essence of the Hindu faith and paint it in the darkest hues to make Hindus self-conscious of the inadequacies of their religion... For centuries our tradition of tolerance and catholicity has been grossly abused..." It was out of this that Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda were born. Decades have passed. The anger of the Hindu, it seems, still remains. Not among the westernised Hindu `liberals'but among the masses. But what is the answer? How should one reinvigorate Hindus and Hinduism?
Bali, in his book India's Wounded Polity notes "how a fatal flaw Hindu civilization has been its inability to stand up to defend itself, militarily, against the onslaught of foreign aggressions" and concludes by saying that "this has almost entirely been because of the unpardonable incompetence of a self-complacent leadership and had nothing to do with the religious faith that the Hindus professed". But how is this to be reversed? Can so-called secularism do the trick? Can secularism as propounded by our Congress and Leftist leaders give back to the Hindus the greatness of the civilization to which they are the natural heirs? In a way the secularists have no clear concept of Hindutva.
As Dr Makarand Paranjape, Professor of English at the Jawaharlal Nehru University says in Dialogue Quarterly (Jan. March 2004) "we need a much greater
degree of introspection and self-examination before we can occupy the higher moral and intellectual ground from which to mount an attack on Hindutva. But
instead we find ourselves incapacitated and blinded by the deceptions and distortions of the very secularism which we claim to espouse..." As Prof. Paranjape sees it, secularism is really "inverse communalism", and corruption.
Hyper-secularism actually took Hindu away from themselves, in effect "de-Indianised" them. And that is the special tragedy. But should the assertion of Hindutva become a political weapon? Can't the concept of Hindutva be effectively separated from politics? An activist, Ram Gopal has sought to define Hindutva in his own way. He writes:
* Briefly speaking Hindutva is a clarion call for Hindu revival. It is geo-cultural concept which, in the present circumstances, has acquired a political bias.
* Hindutva is rooted in Hindu culture, distinct from Hindu religion and is poised gainst the present hybrid of Marxism or Socialism and the capitalist philophy of the West.
* The word `Hindutva' should not and need not raise an alarm in any quarters as falsely made in the English media and reflected in the Vernacular Press.
* Hindutva based on Hindu culture must be catholic and must aim at peaceful co-existence with all sections of mankind and with Nature, too. It has to be eco-friendly respectful to all great souls, irrespective of their religion or religious faith who devoted their lives for the upliftment of man.
* Hindutva bereft of Hindu culture is dangerous and even suicidal. Viewed in this light, Hindutva becomes a liberating force and a uniting force that could bring Hindus, Muslims, Christians together instead of dividing them. When, in Indonesia, the second largest Islamic country in the world, population- wise, the government consciously puts the figure of Lord Ganesh on its currency notes and names its national airline after Garuda, it is going back culturally to its Hindu cultural roots.
When Indonesians consciously name their children as Sukarno, Suharto, Meghavati and so on they are going back again to their cultural roots. When Christians in India demand that Mass be said in their local mother tongue(Konkani, Kannada, Telugu or Gujarati) instead of in Latin, they are going back to their cultural roots. When Christian women after marriage, wear mangal- sutra and a `tilak' they are again going back to their cultural roots without forsaking their religion.
Christians these days are increasingly giving their children Sanskritnames. Here it must be emphasised as strongly as possible that there are no Hindu, Christian or Muslim names. What we have are Sanskrit, Hebraic, Latin or Arab names. It does not make a Christian less Christian if he or she is given a Sanskrit name. Sanskrit is the heritage of every Indian whether born in a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jain family.
Sanskrit has nothing to do with Sanatana Bharma. It was to Sanskrit that
Mahatma Gandhi took recourse to whenhe spoke about satyagrah, swaraj, sarvodaya and ahimsa, though this was viciously exploited by the Muslim League
during its campaign for Pakistan to estrange Muslims from the nationalist struggle. Gandhi could have translated these words into English but then the Anglicised words would have had no impact on the populace at all. That is why he spoke about Rama Rajya which every Indian would instantly understand. If he had used
the word `Utopia' he would have become the laughing stock of the country.
Who knows what utopia is when the meanest and most illiterate of Indians would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of Rama Rajya? Gandhi was
no `communalist' but had he lived now he would most certainly have been dubbed
as one.
The minorities in India have nothing to fear about Hindutva, but it has to be explained in all its catholicity, to the minorities who see in Hindutva an aggressiveness that frightens them. Much of the blame for this state of affairs
should be laid on secularists whose mindless hatred has brought about damaging
rifts in Indian society. As Prof. Paranjape puts it "Hinduism must not go in the
defensive, apologeticaly seeking refuge in secularism.... Hindutva can be defeated not by substituting Hinduism with secularism, but by replacing a corrupt and rotten secularism with a genuinely pluralistic and satisfying Hinduism...."
As matters stand the propagation of Hindutva needs to be accompanied by
largescale social reform, a task that calls first for introspection and understanding of the issues involved among Hindus themselves. A renewed and re-invigorated Hinduism, freed from its many defects and sure of itself can serve as a model, to all communities. But Hindutva must be separated from politics, if it has to gather wide acceptance, a point that Advani could well take note of. Politicising Hindutva robs it of its essence which is revolutionising Hinduism as Sankara in his time did or as Dayananda, Vivekanand and Aurobindo had done in their times.
Author: M.V.Kamath
Publication: Free Press Journal
Date: June 17, 2004
http://www.samachar.com/features/170604-features.html
In his first public utterance after the fall of the NDA government, L. K. Advani made an interesting remarks. He said that Hindutva remained the guiding force of the BJP and there was no need to be apologetic about it. If he has been correctly reported, if not in words at least in spirit, the time has come to engage in a public discussion of the subject. So much has been said and written about Hindutva and no two persons seem agreed on an acceptable definition. Decades old writings and sayings of Veer Savarkar and Guru Golwalkar are often cited by secularists not so much to elucidate the phrase as much as to damn both and add to the hate propaganda.
In the `secular' mind Hindutva is associated with jingoism, communalism, anti-minoritism, fascism and everything negative. Debate becomes impossible. It is also associated with Hindu separatism, it a divisive factor in Indian society. The very word `Hindu' has become anathema to many `intellectual' Hindus.
To the Communists,especially in West Bengal, Hinduism stinks. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, the CPM Chief Minister of West Bengal could even say, with a smirk on his face, that his party would support the Congress if only to keep the BJP out. The CPM government had gone to the extent of making the activities ofthe non-political Sri Ramakrishna Mission in the field of education so hard to pursue that the Mission, set up by no less than Swami Vivekananda felt forced to approach the Calcutta High Court to seek for itself a separate non-Hindu minority status.
The Mission's affidavit in the High Court and,later, its written arguments in July 1983 contended that "Ramakrishnaism is definitely no part of Hinduism" but is" a religion separate and different from the religion of the Hindus" and that" it has its own separate god, separate name, separate Church, separate worship, separate community, separate organization and, above all, separate philosophy".
What Swami Vivekanand, would have to say about this religious turn-coatism is another matter. What is it that is turning otherwise decent and religious Hindus against themselves? One has to read Pawan Varma's nauseating book `Being Indian'to appreciate the depth to which hatred of Hinduism has gotten inside the Hindu mind.
It is self-flagellation at its worst. One can understand the anger of the reformer who has set out to change Hindu society. India down the centuries had several of them. One of the last, Sri Aurobindo could say: "These hollow worm-eaten outsides of Hinduism crumbling so sluggishly, so fatally to some sudden and astonishing dissolution, do not frighten me. Within them I find the soul of a civilization alive, though sleeping".
Sri Aurobindo was no ordinary critic of what was crumbling about Hinduism, but even when he was being critical he could see through the devastating influence of westernisation that was affecting Hindu society at the beginning of
the twentieth century. He was one of the original pleaders for Hindutva.
As Jyotirmaya Sharma, a sociologist says in his work Hindutva: Exploring the Idea of Hindu Nationalism: "If Savarkar's exposition of Hindutva is the most radical, the most extreme and, certainly the most militant, it is only because his universe of ideas and its milieu was nourished by predecessors like Dayananda (Saraswati), Vivekananda and Aurobindo." Each of them was a product of his times.
Each had seen the damage wrought to Hinduism by alien religions. Writes H. N. Bali in his book `Hinduism at the Crossroads':"In their zeal both Islam and Christianity did everything possible to distort the essence of the Hindu faith and paint it in the darkest hues to make Hindus self-conscious of the inadequacies of their religion... For centuries our tradition of tolerance and catholicity has been grossly abused..." It was out of this that Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda were born. Decades have passed. The anger of the Hindu, it seems, still remains. Not among the westernised Hindu `liberals'but among the masses. But what is the answer? How should one reinvigorate Hindus and Hinduism?
Bali, in his book India's Wounded Polity notes "how a fatal flaw Hindu civilization has been its inability to stand up to defend itself, militarily, against the onslaught of foreign aggressions" and concludes by saying that "this has almost entirely been because of the unpardonable incompetence of a self-complacent leadership and had nothing to do with the religious faith that the Hindus professed". But how is this to be reversed? Can so-called secularism do the trick? Can secularism as propounded by our Congress and Leftist leaders give back to the Hindus the greatness of the civilization to which they are the natural heirs? In a way the secularists have no clear concept of Hindutva.
As Dr Makarand Paranjape, Professor of English at the Jawaharlal Nehru University says in Dialogue Quarterly (Jan. March 2004) "we need a much greater
degree of introspection and self-examination before we can occupy the higher moral and intellectual ground from which to mount an attack on Hindutva. But
instead we find ourselves incapacitated and blinded by the deceptions and distortions of the very secularism which we claim to espouse..." As Prof. Paranjape sees it, secularism is really "inverse communalism", and corruption.
Hyper-secularism actually took Hindu away from themselves, in effect "de-Indianised" them. And that is the special tragedy. But should the assertion of Hindutva become a political weapon? Can't the concept of Hindutva be effectively separated from politics? An activist, Ram Gopal has sought to define Hindutva in his own way. He writes:
* Briefly speaking Hindutva is a clarion call for Hindu revival. It is geo-cultural concept which, in the present circumstances, has acquired a political bias.
* Hindutva is rooted in Hindu culture, distinct from Hindu religion and is poised gainst the present hybrid of Marxism or Socialism and the capitalist philophy of the West.
* The word `Hindutva' should not and need not raise an alarm in any quarters as falsely made in the English media and reflected in the Vernacular Press.
* Hindutva based on Hindu culture must be catholic and must aim at peaceful co-existence with all sections of mankind and with Nature, too. It has to be eco-friendly respectful to all great souls, irrespective of their religion or religious faith who devoted their lives for the upliftment of man.
* Hindutva bereft of Hindu culture is dangerous and even suicidal. Viewed in this light, Hindutva becomes a liberating force and a uniting force that could bring Hindus, Muslims, Christians together instead of dividing them. When, in Indonesia, the second largest Islamic country in the world, population- wise, the government consciously puts the figure of Lord Ganesh on its currency notes and names its national airline after Garuda, it is going back culturally to its Hindu cultural roots.
When Indonesians consciously name their children as Sukarno, Suharto, Meghavati and so on they are going back again to their cultural roots. When Christians in India demand that Mass be said in their local mother tongue(Konkani, Kannada, Telugu or Gujarati) instead of in Latin, they are going back to their cultural roots. When Christian women after marriage, wear mangal- sutra and a `tilak' they are again going back to their cultural roots without forsaking their religion.
Christians these days are increasingly giving their children Sanskritnames. Here it must be emphasised as strongly as possible that there are no Hindu, Christian or Muslim names. What we have are Sanskrit, Hebraic, Latin or Arab names. It does not make a Christian less Christian if he or she is given a Sanskrit name. Sanskrit is the heritage of every Indian whether born in a Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Jain family.
Sanskrit has nothing to do with Sanatana Bharma. It was to Sanskrit that
Mahatma Gandhi took recourse to whenhe spoke about satyagrah, swaraj, sarvodaya and ahimsa, though this was viciously exploited by the Muslim League
during its campaign for Pakistan to estrange Muslims from the nationalist struggle. Gandhi could have translated these words into English but then the Anglicised words would have had no impact on the populace at all. That is why he spoke about Rama Rajya which every Indian would instantly understand. If he had used
the word `Utopia' he would have become the laughing stock of the country.
Who knows what utopia is when the meanest and most illiterate of Indians would have no difficulty in understanding the meaning of Rama Rajya? Gandhi was
no `communalist' but had he lived now he would most certainly have been dubbed
as one.
The minorities in India have nothing to fear about Hindutva, but it has to be explained in all its catholicity, to the minorities who see in Hindutva an aggressiveness that frightens them. Much of the blame for this state of affairs
should be laid on secularists whose mindless hatred has brought about damaging
rifts in Indian society. As Prof. Paranjape puts it "Hinduism must not go in the
defensive, apologeticaly seeking refuge in secularism.... Hindutva can be defeated not by substituting Hinduism with secularism, but by replacing a corrupt and rotten secularism with a genuinely pluralistic and satisfying Hinduism...."
As matters stand the propagation of Hindutva needs to be accompanied by
largescale social reform, a task that calls first for introspection and understanding of the issues involved among Hindus themselves. A renewed and re-invigorated Hinduism, freed from its many defects and sure of itself can serve as a model, to all communities. But Hindutva must be separated from politics, if it has to gather wide acceptance, a point that Advani could well take note of. Politicising Hindutva robs it of its essence which is revolutionising Hinduism as Sankara in his time did or as Dayananda, Vivekanand and Aurobindo had done in their times.