03-11-2006, 12:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Guruji's predictions coming true </b>
Pioneer.com
Rakesh Sinha, Academician and writer
Cultural nationalism has been a central theme in our socio-political discourse since the late 19th Century. A galaxy of thinkers, spiritual personalities and philosophers contributed to the evolution of this idea. Though they differed with each other in defining the contours of Indian nationalism, they concurred that it was our cultural foundation that gave it a definitive shape.
Besides, they perceived patriotism as a spiritual and cultural concept. But the hostility of Muslims to this concept is remarkable in the trajectory of Indian nationalism. The Muslim discourse has not only been predominantly based on the idea of pan-Islamism, but also hostility towards indigenous culture.
<b>One finds the resolution of such Muslim antagonism in Guruji's philosophy. His spiritual self and tireless social activism made his thought original and pragmatic. He dealt with the fundamental issue of the detachment of Muslims from Hindu culture and nationalism.</b> Unlike Jawaharlal Nehru, who hardly implemented his penned thoughts, Guruji stuck forever to his beliefs.
<b>Guruji's thoughts were original vis-a-vis Muslims because he discussed issues and events in civilisational and cultural perspective, unmindful of dominant political ideology on the one hand and populist approach to the Muslim problem on the other. He applies practical wisdom to look into problems and their solutions, rather than being a sheer conservative idealist or dogmatic.</b>
In spite of his liberal perspective on the question of nationalism and secularism, Guruji has been treated unfavourably by Islamic scholars and secularist social scientists. They mostly quote We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939) - a book that was influenced by elusive domestic and international politics of the time. This book represented neither Guruji's views, nor that of the RSS. He did accede to this when he revealed that the book carried not his own views, but was "an abridged version of GD Savarkar's work, Rashtra Mimansa". Yet, secularist social scientists find great solace in quoting from this book, while passing their judgement on Guruji.
The journey of Guruji's thoughts began with his succession as the RSS Sarsanghachalak in 1940 and continued till 1973 when he died. Ironically, his 33-year long journey has been ignored by the secularists. Guruji himself pointed out the malicious campaign against the RSS: "(The) aim of the Sangh is the same re-establishing the integrated feeling of oneness of the nation which has been flowing down since time immemorial. Some suspicions have been roused with regard to this because the government and certain important members of the ruling party (Congress) and some other political parties have maliciously described it as subversive." There is, therefore, the lack of objective assessment of Guruji, who encapsulated his ideological mission as "Worship the Nation", "Worship the Ideal". Calling him a communal is like calling a cow a fox.
Guruji represents Hindutva, which provides immense space and opportunities to sub-identities, sub-cultures, languages, personal laws, cults and philosophies to endure and flourish. He never formulated any separate ideological stream, which could be dubbed as "Golwalkarism".
Guruji's thoughts on secularism and nationalism are not only inseparable from the ideology of the RSS, but also tradition of cultural nationalism. Jalalul Haq writes in Nation-Worship in India: "Nearly all the thinkers beginning from Bankim Chandra to Bipin Chandra Pal (and Aurobindo Ghosh) to Annie Besant conceived the cult of nationalism as the purest form of religion and 'nation' as the supreme deity." In fact, Guruji is integrally associated with the Hindu thought process.
Guruji raised a fundamental question regarding the post-Partition Muslim mindset, when he asked, "Is it true that all pro-Pakistani elements have gone away to Pakistan? It was the Muslims in Hindu majority provinces led by UP that provided the spearhead for the movement for Pakistan right from the beginning. And they have remained solidly here even after Partition. In fact, Muslims of Punjab, Bengal, Sind and NWFP, which went over to Pakistan, had rejected the Muslim League in 1937 elections."
Sardar Patel, too, had warned Muslims in the Constituent Assembly, thus: <b>"If the process that was adopted, which resulted in the separation of the country, is to be repeated then I say: Those who want that kind of thing have a place in Pakistan not here. Here we are building a nation and we are laying the foundations of one nation, and those who choose to divide again and sow the seeds of disruption will have no place, no quarter, here."</b>
<b>Guruji advised Indian Muslims to identify themselves with the culture and people of India.</b> He said, <b>"It is obvious that Indian history does not begin with Mahmud Ghazni." Patel endorsed the view as he advised Muslims to "change" their "attitude" and "adapt" themselves "to the changed conditions". </b>
Guruji's faith in cultural nationalism remained unshaken even during Partition. He did not regard it as a solution and believed that the cultural foundation of the country would one day overpower religious separatism.
(The above is excerpted from Shri Guruji and Indian Muslims, Suruchi Prashan, New Delhi, 2006, with the permission of the writer)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Rakesh Sinha, Academician and writer
Cultural nationalism has been a central theme in our socio-political discourse since the late 19th Century. A galaxy of thinkers, spiritual personalities and philosophers contributed to the evolution of this idea. Though they differed with each other in defining the contours of Indian nationalism, they concurred that it was our cultural foundation that gave it a definitive shape.
Besides, they perceived patriotism as a spiritual and cultural concept. But the hostility of Muslims to this concept is remarkable in the trajectory of Indian nationalism. The Muslim discourse has not only been predominantly based on the idea of pan-Islamism, but also hostility towards indigenous culture.
<b>One finds the resolution of such Muslim antagonism in Guruji's philosophy. His spiritual self and tireless social activism made his thought original and pragmatic. He dealt with the fundamental issue of the detachment of Muslims from Hindu culture and nationalism.</b> Unlike Jawaharlal Nehru, who hardly implemented his penned thoughts, Guruji stuck forever to his beliefs.
<b>Guruji's thoughts were original vis-a-vis Muslims because he discussed issues and events in civilisational and cultural perspective, unmindful of dominant political ideology on the one hand and populist approach to the Muslim problem on the other. He applies practical wisdom to look into problems and their solutions, rather than being a sheer conservative idealist or dogmatic.</b>
In spite of his liberal perspective on the question of nationalism and secularism, Guruji has been treated unfavourably by Islamic scholars and secularist social scientists. They mostly quote We or Our Nationhood Defined (1939) - a book that was influenced by elusive domestic and international politics of the time. This book represented neither Guruji's views, nor that of the RSS. He did accede to this when he revealed that the book carried not his own views, but was "an abridged version of GD Savarkar's work, Rashtra Mimansa". Yet, secularist social scientists find great solace in quoting from this book, while passing their judgement on Guruji.
The journey of Guruji's thoughts began with his succession as the RSS Sarsanghachalak in 1940 and continued till 1973 when he died. Ironically, his 33-year long journey has been ignored by the secularists. Guruji himself pointed out the malicious campaign against the RSS: "(The) aim of the Sangh is the same re-establishing the integrated feeling of oneness of the nation which has been flowing down since time immemorial. Some suspicions have been roused with regard to this because the government and certain important members of the ruling party (Congress) and some other political parties have maliciously described it as subversive." There is, therefore, the lack of objective assessment of Guruji, who encapsulated his ideological mission as "Worship the Nation", "Worship the Ideal". Calling him a communal is like calling a cow a fox.
Guruji represents Hindutva, which provides immense space and opportunities to sub-identities, sub-cultures, languages, personal laws, cults and philosophies to endure and flourish. He never formulated any separate ideological stream, which could be dubbed as "Golwalkarism".
Guruji's thoughts on secularism and nationalism are not only inseparable from the ideology of the RSS, but also tradition of cultural nationalism. Jalalul Haq writes in Nation-Worship in India: "Nearly all the thinkers beginning from Bankim Chandra to Bipin Chandra Pal (and Aurobindo Ghosh) to Annie Besant conceived the cult of nationalism as the purest form of religion and 'nation' as the supreme deity." In fact, Guruji is integrally associated with the Hindu thought process.
Guruji raised a fundamental question regarding the post-Partition Muslim mindset, when he asked, "Is it true that all pro-Pakistani elements have gone away to Pakistan? It was the Muslims in Hindu majority provinces led by UP that provided the spearhead for the movement for Pakistan right from the beginning. And they have remained solidly here even after Partition. In fact, Muslims of Punjab, Bengal, Sind and NWFP, which went over to Pakistan, had rejected the Muslim League in 1937 elections."
Sardar Patel, too, had warned Muslims in the Constituent Assembly, thus: <b>"If the process that was adopted, which resulted in the separation of the country, is to be repeated then I say: Those who want that kind of thing have a place in Pakistan not here. Here we are building a nation and we are laying the foundations of one nation, and those who choose to divide again and sow the seeds of disruption will have no place, no quarter, here."</b>
<b>Guruji advised Indian Muslims to identify themselves with the culture and people of India.</b> He said, <b>"It is obvious that Indian history does not begin with Mahmud Ghazni." Patel endorsed the view as he advised Muslims to "change" their "attitude" and "adapt" themselves "to the changed conditions". </b>
Guruji's faith in cultural nationalism remained unshaken even during Partition. He did not regard it as a solution and believed that the cultural foundation of the country would one day overpower religious separatism.
(The above is excerpted from Shri Guruji and Indian Muslims, Suruchi Prashan, New Delhi, 2006, with the permission of the writer)
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->