03-17-2005, 10:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Who does Hindutva appeal? </b>
MN Buch
I noted sometime back the advice given by the Sangh to Mr LK Advani to return to Hindutva and to reiterate its philosophy aggressively. On his behalf there are a few questions which I would like to pose for the consideration of RSS Sarsanghachalak K Sudarshan. I<b> know that Hindutva has been defined not in religious terms but as a concept of cultural nationalism. Perhaps there can be no quarrel with this because in the ultimate analysis every nation has to have a cultural identity and a cultural footprint.</b>
Even in a country as diverse as Indonesia, whose state motto is "Bhinneka Tungal Eka", which means unity in diversity, the cultural identity of the nation is defined by Vishnu riding Garud at Merdeka Square (Independence Square), the Ramayan as enacted at Jogjakarta and the ancient form of Hinduism as practiced in Bali. This does not affect the status of the country as one which is overwhelmingly Islamic - 92 per cent of the population of Indonesia professes the Islamic faith. Indonesia has been able to retain its cultural identity as a nation that was formerly Hindu without in any way compromising with its basically Muslim religious character.
However, there is one major difference between us and Indonesia is which <b>the latter can adopt any cultural identity it wants because there is no really sizeable minority whose identity feels threatened</b>. Bali is a separate island from Java and Sumatra and its Hindu society exists in an isolated hot house environment which is physically separated from the rest of Indonesia. In India different religions are interwoven within the fabric of society throughout the country, in every village and every town.
Therefore, each group struggles to preserve its own identity lest it be submerged in a larger whole. The caste marks on the forehead of the Tamil Iyer Brahmin are different from those on the forehead of the Tamil Iyengar Brahmin. Even within the Brahmin fold of the same linguistic and racial group each sub caste tries to preserve a separate identity. The Khalsa maintains his own identity through the five Ks and the turban that he wears. It is but natural that in India our largest religious minority, the Muslims, tries and maintains its separate identity through dress, customs, food habits and religious practices.
Perhaps Partition has made the Indian Muslims, who constitute the largest Islamic community in the world after Indonesia, even more conscious of their Islamic identity, which is why there is so much resistance to the acceptance of a common civil code or even a reform of the Sharia strictly in accordance with the tenets of Islam and the revelations of the Quran. For us to consider this as the expression of anti national sentiments is not fair.
I do not accept the validity of the Muslim Personal Law Board, I do not accept the resistance to secular laws while enjoying the protection of a secular state, I do not accept the maintenance of separate identity which, rather than preserving cultural homogeneity, tries to drive a wedge between different communities, I do not accept the weak kneed approach of the State whenever faced by the unreasonable demands of a minority community. This does not apply to Muslims alone.
Article 25 is still a part of our Constitution and Explanation II of this Article specifically states that reference to Hindus shall be construed to including a reference to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. Personally I think Article 25, Sub Clause 2 <b>should be deleted from the Constitution because it is a standing insult to Hindus that their religious institutions have been singled out for reform through legislation</b>. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not considered religions which require any reform, which means that all perversions are necessarily Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. Despite Article 25 (2) being extant governments, including the Government of MP, have declared Jains and Sikhs to be minority communities. I do not question the separate identity of these religions professed by these communities, but so long as Article 25 (2) is on the statute book they cannot be deemed to be minorities.
The above arguments notwithstanding, we still need to define Hindutva in terms which would be acceptable to all communities in India, including Muslims and Christians. At present the definition is too fuzzy to go down well with these communities. In the ultimate analysis people seem to associate Hindutva only with the proposed temple at Ayodhya. That is a prospect which frightens many people, including Hindus, because the issue is one where there is always a threat of underlying violence. However, that is a separate subject and I only mention it in passing.
Coming back to the definition of Hindutva, even if one narrows down its scope to a Hindu context, to <b>whom are we appealing? As the politics of this country has developed it is caste which has come to play a major role. Manu Smriti has been completely misinterpreted and twisted to the disadvantage of the so called upper castes.</b> You, as Sar Sanchalak of the Sangh which firmly rejects caste discrimination, will perhaps appreciate my argument that the politics of caste poses the greatest danger of all to Hinduism.
Hindu society has been totally fragmented by the caste factor in politics, in government employment, in affirmative action by government and by sectarian appeals to particular group and communities. Unless one is able to reverse this fragmentation of Hindu society it would be futile to talk of Hindutva because there are no Hindus to whom we can appeal. There are only upper castes, Shudras, intermediate castes, OBCs, etc. What does the Sangh intend to do about restoring harmony to society at large, but in particular Hindu society?
Unless the Hindu begins to think like a Hindu rather than like a Yadav, or a Gurjar, or a Gadaria, or a Jat, or a Maratha, or a Vaish, we can bid farewell to Hinduism. A religion which has survived in pristine form for thousands of years, where the Meenakshi Temple at Madurai can have seventy generations of priests from the same family, whose Gods have survived unchanged in a world in which the Gods of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome have been confined to the dustbin, can ill afford to be broken by a totally temporal factor, caste, which has no spiritual foundation. It is this factor which should cause Mr Sudarshan deep anxiety because it certainly worries me. It worries me because I am a Hindu.
One last point. The RSS has always claimed to be an organisation meant for the service to mankind. It is not a political organisation. This means that every political pronouncement of RSS is tantamount to the exercise of authority but without any accountability. Political parties are accountable to their members through their constitution and to the people at large at the time of election.
Should the RSS make political pronouncements while it is not prepared to accept political accountability? <b>Certainly, RSS must be a moral force which promotes truth, moral values, transparency in public dealings and the need for good governance so that the welfare of the nation can be advanced</b>. But should it dictate to a political party what its administrative policies should be? Mr Sudarshan is known as a thinker, an ideologue and a philosopher with unimpeachable credentials of integrity and solid worth. I would like him to pose these questions to the Sangh because through the answers to these questions the Sangh will emerge stronger and the nation will be well served by a dedicated organisation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
MN Buch
I noted sometime back the advice given by the Sangh to Mr LK Advani to return to Hindutva and to reiterate its philosophy aggressively. On his behalf there are a few questions which I would like to pose for the consideration of RSS Sarsanghachalak K Sudarshan. I<b> know that Hindutva has been defined not in religious terms but as a concept of cultural nationalism. Perhaps there can be no quarrel with this because in the ultimate analysis every nation has to have a cultural identity and a cultural footprint.</b>
Even in a country as diverse as Indonesia, whose state motto is "Bhinneka Tungal Eka", which means unity in diversity, the cultural identity of the nation is defined by Vishnu riding Garud at Merdeka Square (Independence Square), the Ramayan as enacted at Jogjakarta and the ancient form of Hinduism as practiced in Bali. This does not affect the status of the country as one which is overwhelmingly Islamic - 92 per cent of the population of Indonesia professes the Islamic faith. Indonesia has been able to retain its cultural identity as a nation that was formerly Hindu without in any way compromising with its basically Muslim religious character.
However, there is one major difference between us and Indonesia is which <b>the latter can adopt any cultural identity it wants because there is no really sizeable minority whose identity feels threatened</b>. Bali is a separate island from Java and Sumatra and its Hindu society exists in an isolated hot house environment which is physically separated from the rest of Indonesia. In India different religions are interwoven within the fabric of society throughout the country, in every village and every town.
Therefore, each group struggles to preserve its own identity lest it be submerged in a larger whole. The caste marks on the forehead of the Tamil Iyer Brahmin are different from those on the forehead of the Tamil Iyengar Brahmin. Even within the Brahmin fold of the same linguistic and racial group each sub caste tries to preserve a separate identity. The Khalsa maintains his own identity through the five Ks and the turban that he wears. It is but natural that in India our largest religious minority, the Muslims, tries and maintains its separate identity through dress, customs, food habits and religious practices.
Perhaps Partition has made the Indian Muslims, who constitute the largest Islamic community in the world after Indonesia, even more conscious of their Islamic identity, which is why there is so much resistance to the acceptance of a common civil code or even a reform of the Sharia strictly in accordance with the tenets of Islam and the revelations of the Quran. For us to consider this as the expression of anti national sentiments is not fair.
I do not accept the validity of the Muslim Personal Law Board, I do not accept the resistance to secular laws while enjoying the protection of a secular state, I do not accept the maintenance of separate identity which, rather than preserving cultural homogeneity, tries to drive a wedge between different communities, I do not accept the weak kneed approach of the State whenever faced by the unreasonable demands of a minority community. This does not apply to Muslims alone.
Article 25 is still a part of our Constitution and Explanation II of this Article specifically states that reference to Hindus shall be construed to including a reference to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists. Personally I think Article 25, Sub Clause 2 <b>should be deleted from the Constitution because it is a standing insult to Hindus that their religious institutions have been singled out for reform through legislation</b>. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not considered religions which require any reform, which means that all perversions are necessarily Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh. Despite Article 25 (2) being extant governments, including the Government of MP, have declared Jains and Sikhs to be minority communities. I do not question the separate identity of these religions professed by these communities, but so long as Article 25 (2) is on the statute book they cannot be deemed to be minorities.
The above arguments notwithstanding, we still need to define Hindutva in terms which would be acceptable to all communities in India, including Muslims and Christians. At present the definition is too fuzzy to go down well with these communities. In the ultimate analysis people seem to associate Hindutva only with the proposed temple at Ayodhya. That is a prospect which frightens many people, including Hindus, because the issue is one where there is always a threat of underlying violence. However, that is a separate subject and I only mention it in passing.
Coming back to the definition of Hindutva, even if one narrows down its scope to a Hindu context, to <b>whom are we appealing? As the politics of this country has developed it is caste which has come to play a major role. Manu Smriti has been completely misinterpreted and twisted to the disadvantage of the so called upper castes.</b> You, as Sar Sanchalak of the Sangh which firmly rejects caste discrimination, will perhaps appreciate my argument that the politics of caste poses the greatest danger of all to Hinduism.
Hindu society has been totally fragmented by the caste factor in politics, in government employment, in affirmative action by government and by sectarian appeals to particular group and communities. Unless one is able to reverse this fragmentation of Hindu society it would be futile to talk of Hindutva because there are no Hindus to whom we can appeal. There are only upper castes, Shudras, intermediate castes, OBCs, etc. What does the Sangh intend to do about restoring harmony to society at large, but in particular Hindu society?
Unless the Hindu begins to think like a Hindu rather than like a Yadav, or a Gurjar, or a Gadaria, or a Jat, or a Maratha, or a Vaish, we can bid farewell to Hinduism. A religion which has survived in pristine form for thousands of years, where the Meenakshi Temple at Madurai can have seventy generations of priests from the same family, whose Gods have survived unchanged in a world in which the Gods of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome have been confined to the dustbin, can ill afford to be broken by a totally temporal factor, caste, which has no spiritual foundation. It is this factor which should cause Mr Sudarshan deep anxiety because it certainly worries me. It worries me because I am a Hindu.
One last point. The RSS has always claimed to be an organisation meant for the service to mankind. It is not a political organisation. This means that every political pronouncement of RSS is tantamount to the exercise of authority but without any accountability. Political parties are accountable to their members through their constitution and to the people at large at the time of election.
Should the RSS make political pronouncements while it is not prepared to accept political accountability? <b>Certainly, RSS must be a moral force which promotes truth, moral values, transparency in public dealings and the need for good governance so that the welfare of the nation can be advanced</b>. But should it dictate to a political party what its administrative policies should be? Mr Sudarshan is known as a thinker, an ideologue and a philosopher with unimpeachable credentials of integrity and solid worth. I would like him to pose these questions to the Sangh because through the answers to these questions the Sangh will emerge stronger and the nation will be well served by a dedicated organisation.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->