07-20-2004, 06:09 PM
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5983_...430005.htm
'Hindutva as coined to mean does not apply to British Hindus' Jaimin Patel
London, July 19
The BJP might call Hindutva a way of life but that's not how the new edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COD) defines it. Instead, Hindutva, as a noun, is explained as "a very strong sense of Hindu identity, seeking the creation of a Hindu state". The word Hindutva is one of the 900 words of Indian, largely Hindi, origin that have made an entry into the 11th edition of the dictionary.
"Having read the above extract from the HindustanTimes.com website,there was a momentary spark of anger and irritation. But then I decided to dig out the origins of the word. It must be new as it relates to 'Hindu' which in itself is a recent term, since the invasion of Bharatmata," says Jaimin Patel.
Patel pointed out that the word Hindutva was invented by Swatantrya Veer Savarkar in the 1920s. A commemoration volume on his life published by Savarkar Darshan Pratishtan (Trust) (1989) notes that "Apart from the religious aspect involved in the conception of the words 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' Veer Savarkar had to coin some new words such as 'Hindutva', 'Hinduness', 'Hindudom' to express totality of the cultural, historical, and above all the national aspects along with the religious one, which mark out the Hindus as a whole".
"The definition is not consequently meant to be a definition of Hindu religion. It is a definition of 'Hindutva' 'Hinduness'. It is essentially national in its outlook and comprehends the Hindus as a Hind-Rashtra".
Patel says: "Perhaps there is some truth in the Oxford dictionary translation after all. So then why is that feeling of agitation when the definition is put to print in a modern dictionary? <b>Perhaps it is time to stand tall and agree with the creation of a Hindu state."</b>
"There can be no harm in that at all. After all we have Christian states, Islamic states then why not a Hindu state! The world will have us believe that it is wrong, but could it be that they are afraid owing to the power that may emanate from just such a state? A Hindu state would be much better than a secular state. India as a secular state is ironical. The whole culture of the Hindu people, who incidentally are a majority in India, is based on a religious platform. The religion for want of a better world, becomes a way of life. Secular denotes that which relates to worldly things as opposed to religious and hence at the outset is at odds with the 'way of life' of the majority in Bharat."
"<b>Sadly, as Francois Gautier recently wrote on rediff.com that the so-called intellectuals, Marxists and Muslims in India who have, and continue to do so, prevent a Hindu majority to come to power by whatever means possible are shooting themselves in the foot. Where else do Muslims get the more than fair treatment that they get in India? Not even in Islamic states. </b>Apart from India, name one other nation that pays individuals for their pilgrimage to Mecca? Do the Hindus get such luxuries for their pilgrimages? Where else can the Marxists get to spread their gospel, as it were, but in India. Even China is embracing capitalism."
In fact their quivering will stop for once and all in a Hindu state, for where else in World do they believe in Vasudaiva Kutumbakam (the whole world is one family)? It is when there is constant injustice towards the majority that there is friction. Give them a fair share and see them become the best of all. Dare the minorities take the chance? Nay, there is far greater an inferiority complex embalmed into their minds and hence feel insecure to allow the most peaceful of all religions to lead them.
"So what of it here, in Britain. Well we are British and we are Hindus. <b>Hindutva concerns us only because India is the land of our heritage, a rich heritage that astounds the whole world. Preservation of that land is the salvation of the world. </b>But we owe our nationalist tendencies to Britain and not India. Our children are born here and are to grow up here and know this land better than India, it is our duty to teach them to be patriotic to Britain. Their duties as defined by Atithi Yagna and Bhoot Yagna should fall within the realms of the UK first before going abroad. Fulfilling responsibilities on the Pitri Yagna aspect may take them to Bharat, and so it should.
"Hence British first, as Anil Bhanot, General Secretary of Hindu Council UK, so eloquently put it in a recent Inter-Faith conference. We should be proud to call ourselves British Hindus but Hindutva as the word was coined to mean does not apply to us British, perhaps we should just stick to Hinduism. Or does it in reality apply to us here also, at least in spirit as a united Hindu, especially in the light of the threatened conversions of our vulnerable young?"
'Hindutva as coined to mean does not apply to British Hindus' Jaimin Patel
London, July 19
The BJP might call Hindutva a way of life but that's not how the new edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (COD) defines it. Instead, Hindutva, as a noun, is explained as "a very strong sense of Hindu identity, seeking the creation of a Hindu state". The word Hindutva is one of the 900 words of Indian, largely Hindi, origin that have made an entry into the 11th edition of the dictionary.
"Having read the above extract from the HindustanTimes.com website,there was a momentary spark of anger and irritation. But then I decided to dig out the origins of the word. It must be new as it relates to 'Hindu' which in itself is a recent term, since the invasion of Bharatmata," says Jaimin Patel.
Patel pointed out that the word Hindutva was invented by Swatantrya Veer Savarkar in the 1920s. A commemoration volume on his life published by Savarkar Darshan Pratishtan (Trust) (1989) notes that "Apart from the religious aspect involved in the conception of the words 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' Veer Savarkar had to coin some new words such as 'Hindutva', 'Hinduness', 'Hindudom' to express totality of the cultural, historical, and above all the national aspects along with the religious one, which mark out the Hindus as a whole".
"The definition is not consequently meant to be a definition of Hindu religion. It is a definition of 'Hindutva' 'Hinduness'. It is essentially national in its outlook and comprehends the Hindus as a Hind-Rashtra".
Patel says: "Perhaps there is some truth in the Oxford dictionary translation after all. So then why is that feeling of agitation when the definition is put to print in a modern dictionary? <b>Perhaps it is time to stand tall and agree with the creation of a Hindu state."</b>
"There can be no harm in that at all. After all we have Christian states, Islamic states then why not a Hindu state! The world will have us believe that it is wrong, but could it be that they are afraid owing to the power that may emanate from just such a state? A Hindu state would be much better than a secular state. India as a secular state is ironical. The whole culture of the Hindu people, who incidentally are a majority in India, is based on a religious platform. The religion for want of a better world, becomes a way of life. Secular denotes that which relates to worldly things as opposed to religious and hence at the outset is at odds with the 'way of life' of the majority in Bharat."
"<b>Sadly, as Francois Gautier recently wrote on rediff.com that the so-called intellectuals, Marxists and Muslims in India who have, and continue to do so, prevent a Hindu majority to come to power by whatever means possible are shooting themselves in the foot. Where else do Muslims get the more than fair treatment that they get in India? Not even in Islamic states. </b>Apart from India, name one other nation that pays individuals for their pilgrimage to Mecca? Do the Hindus get such luxuries for their pilgrimages? Where else can the Marxists get to spread their gospel, as it were, but in India. Even China is embracing capitalism."
In fact their quivering will stop for once and all in a Hindu state, for where else in World do they believe in Vasudaiva Kutumbakam (the whole world is one family)? It is when there is constant injustice towards the majority that there is friction. Give them a fair share and see them become the best of all. Dare the minorities take the chance? Nay, there is far greater an inferiority complex embalmed into their minds and hence feel insecure to allow the most peaceful of all religions to lead them.
"So what of it here, in Britain. Well we are British and we are Hindus. <b>Hindutva concerns us only because India is the land of our heritage, a rich heritage that astounds the whole world. Preservation of that land is the salvation of the world. </b>But we owe our nationalist tendencies to Britain and not India. Our children are born here and are to grow up here and know this land better than India, it is our duty to teach them to be patriotic to Britain. Their duties as defined by Atithi Yagna and Bhoot Yagna should fall within the realms of the UK first before going abroad. Fulfilling responsibilities on the Pitri Yagna aspect may take them to Bharat, and so it should.
"Hence British first, as Anil Bhanot, General Secretary of Hindu Council UK, so eloquently put it in a recent Inter-Faith conference. We should be proud to call ourselves British Hindus but Hindutva as the word was coined to mean does not apply to us British, perhaps we should just stick to Hinduism. Or does it in reality apply to us here also, at least in spirit as a united Hindu, especially in the light of the threatened conversions of our vulnerable young?"