 |
|
[It is in response to Rahul Pandita's piece 'Gorakhpur and
the Ghost of Gangadhar Adhikari: Whether liberals like it or not, the story of
Hindu consolidation is not over yet' appeared in Open Magazine on March 24,
2017. My response is a lengthy one, as reproduction of many original documents
from the RSS/Hindutva archives is needed to evaluate many beliefs of Rahul
Pandita. This detailed response can be handy resource material to challenge the
justification of Hindutva rule in India by the Hindutva zealots and characters
who as fence-sitters were just waiting India to be stormed by the Hindutva gang
to join the latter. Rahul's glorification of the forthcoming Hindutva rule in
India reminds me of Max Weinreich's eye-opener book Hitler's Professors: The
Part of Scholarship in Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish People [Yale
University Press, New haven, 1999]. It is a narrative of the contemporary
documents showing how intellectuals in Germany worked overtime to legitimize
the Nazis under Hitler to capture power in Germany.
Link
for Rahul Pandita‘s write-up:
It was about 10 days after Modi
became PM of India in 2014, an old acquaintance of mine, a known RSS
sympathizer, phoned me up and in a tone which was not friendly, warned that
since a Hindu government had come to rule India after 1000 years I should be
careful while writing on RSS and Hindutva politics and organizations. Realizing
that he was not joking but serious about
his message, without challenging
his knowledge of history (that how despite 'Muslim' and 'Christian' rules of
1000 years Hindus remain 80% of the population and in control of the national
wealth), I shared the fact with him that Modi had won on development plank and
as PM he and his ministers had taken oath to uphold a democratic-secular
polity, so how their rule could be described as a Hindu rule. He did not want
any argument and ended the call by telling me that world would know it soon and
I would be doing on my peril if I failed to understand this phenomenon of the
rise of Hindu power.
He was not the only one who
announced the heralding of the Hindu rule in 2014. A senior RSS leader from UP,
Rajeshwar Singh believing in the same thesis declared that by 2021, all Muslims
and Christians would have to convert to Hinduism or leave India.[i] The perennial hater
of Muslims, renowned VHP leader, Ashok Singhal described crowning of Modi as PM
a "Hindu revolution" which would culminate in "Hindu world"
by 2030.[ii]
The mad frenzy around the
'ushering' of Hindu rule in India in 1914, forced one of the most decorated
police officers in Independent India, Julio Ribeiro to
lament (March 2015) that, "in my 86th year, I feel threatened, not wanted,
reduced to a stranger in my own country" and being condemned "for
practising a religion that is different from theirs. I am not an Indian
anymore, at least in the eyes of the proponents of the Hindu Rashtra".[iii]
Interestingly, India was
announced to be under Hindu rule in 2014, despite BJP securing only 31% of the
polled votes and NDA committing itself to be loyal to democratic-secular Indian
Constitution. Even if the votes polled by Shiv Sena (1.9%) which stood for a
Hindu rashtra were included, the tally would be 32.9% votes. So according to
RSS and flag-bearers of Hindutva politics 32.9% constituted majority out of
100% inventing a new Hindutva theory of calculating majority!
A similar Hindutva frenzy is brazenly on view after BJP and
its allies' clean sweep of 2017 UP assembly elections and subsequent installing
of Mahant Yogi Adityanath as CM of the State. The RSS always claimed to be a
cultural organization but Rakesh Sinha who goes around as an 'ideologue' of the
RSS commenting on the UP victory wrote, that "RSS dominates India‘s
politics".[iv] What
he wanted to emphasise that though RSS had not contested the elections but it
was Hindutva agenda of RSS which had won. Rahul Pandita's elation on
Adityanath's crowning is to be read and believed. Some of the laudatory
comments are worth noting:
"After Yogi Adityanath was declared Uttar Pradesh's
Chief Minister, his supporters and closet supporters have been arguing that he
deserves a chance. That, he is getting already, whether some people like it or
not. On social media, his supporters have mauled even right-wingers who have
expressed their disagreement with this decision; they see Adityanath's shift
from Gorakhpur to Lucknow as the new dawn of militant Hindutva."
Rahul Pandita is sure that despite Adityanath's statement in
"the Lok Sabha that his government will uphold law and order and that
there will be no discrimination against anyone" there will be "an
assertion on Hindutva lines even if he ensures that no communal riots break out
in the state". The Hindutva assertion means "strict action against
cow slaughter, while the sealing of some slaughterhouses is underway. The new
government is allocating 25 acres of land for setting up a Ramayana museum in
Ayodhya".
Rahul Pandita seems to have intimate knowledge of Hindutva
mind-set of UP chief minister when he tells, "unlike his predecessors,
Adityanath will have no use of the symbolism of skullcaps and chequered Arab
scarves". Without taking any stand on anti-Muslim and anti-women ideas of
UP CM Rahul Pandita goes to glorify him in the following words:
"Those who stand in opposition to Adityanath may put up
video clip after clip of his anti-Muslim and anti-women remarks on social
media. But those who are happy with his ascension to UP‘s throne see this as a
special attribute and not a handicap."
Modi‘s victory in 2014 which was declared to be the
beginning of Hindu rule is downgraded as Rahul Pandita writes that in 2014
"the vote was overwhelmingly for Modi, rather than the BJP. It is the same
this year in UP, except that a clear consolidation of Hindu votes has happened
this time, putting the BJP at an advantage which it is likely to be replicated
in other elections". The cat is out of the bag when Rahul Pandita adds
that
"2017 vote is not for bridges or hospitals, but for
Hindutva. This election has also exposed the implausibility of a Dalit-Muslim
alliance. Whereas a significant number of Dalits and other backwards castes
voted for Modi, it is also an election where the Muslim vote has become
irrelevant".
And the concluding prophetic lines of Rahul Pandita convey
in totality what he wants to convey finally. For him, "Adityanath is
indeed the new reality—a reality that will have more layers in the coming days.
This is New India. How it plays out is another matter".
Rahul Pandita is absolutely right in underlining the fact that
RSS/BJP fought and won UP elections openly on polarizing Hindutva agenda.
Leading the charge was PM Modi whose main plank was appeasement of Muslims in
UP by non-BJP governments. Building of Ram temple at the place of demolished
mosque at Ayodhya was promised both directly and indirectly. The UP election
was to be fought on Anti-Muslim agenda was made clear in the beginning itself
when RSS/BJP decided to field not a
single Muslim candidate. Rahul Pandita is right when he says
that UP vote for Aditya is vote for Hindutva, which even Modi could not secure,
as never in history of elections RSS/BJP used anti-Muslim/Islam rhetoric of
this magnitude. Shockingly the Election Commission of India remained silent
spectator to this polarizing game.
But Rahul Pandita who declares whole of the UP under the
hegemony of Hindutva as a result of "clear consolidation of Hindu
votes" misses one crucial fact that BJP with its allies secured only 42+
percent votes in this election, BJP securing only 39.7% of the polled votes
individually. If all votes polled in favour of BJP and its allies were for
Hindutva UP, how we should categorize 58% of the voters who voted against BJP
and its allies. Should these not be categorized as anti-Hindutva vote? But
according to Hindutva mathematics 31% votes for Modi in 2014 and 42+ percent
votes for BJP and allies in UP in 2017, become 100% votes for declaring India
under Hindutva!
Rahul Pandita in classical Hindutva mode churns out the
oft-repeated argument that
"consolidation of Hindu votes" was a reaction to
"the turning of a blind eye to Muslim fundamentalism, as practised by the
Congress party and followed zealously by the Left and by Lohiaites, and their
utter disregard of the Hindu identity have led to a large chasm that the
Modi-led BJP has effectively filled. As more and more Hindus think their
interests are being threatened, they are gravitating towards a more assertive
form of Hindutva".
Later in his masterpiece he adds, more names to the list
like mainstream Left, extreme Left, Kobad Ghandy, Syed Ali Shah Geelani and
Amnesty International for facilitating the birth and growth of "Muslim
sub-nationalism and fundamentalism" (I feel
instead of Muslim it should be Islamic) and CPI leader,
Gangadhar Adhikari.
This can be described only as total disregard of history and
facts as those were unveiled. The names listed by Rahul Pandita as enemies of
Hinduism and Hindus may have many-many more 'crimes' to explain and defend but
to claim that Hindus coming under the umbrella of Hindutva was due to these
enemies is a blatant lie.
We need to refresh our memory to know few significant facts
about growth of Hindu nationalism and Hindutva. The latter came into existence
when none of the individuals/organizations listed as inimical to Hindus were
even born.
TWO-NATION
THEORY PRPOUNDED BY HINDU NATIONALISTS
Hindus and Muslims were not one nation, this thesis
developed at the end of 19th
century in Bengal. Raj Narain Basu (1826–1899), the maternal grandfather of
Aurobindo Ghosh, and his close associate Naba Gopal Mitra (1840-94) can be
called the co-fathers of two-nation theory and Hindu nationalism in India. Basu
organized meetings proclaiming that Hinduism despite its Casteism presented a
much higher social idealism than ever reached by the Christian or Islamic
civilization. Basu not only believed in the superiority of Hinduism over other
religions but also was a fervent believer in Casteism. He was the first person
to conceive the idea of a Maha Hindu Samiti (All India Hindu Association) and
helped in the formation of Bharat Dharma Mahamandal, a precursor of Hindu
Mahasabha. He believed that through this organization Hindus would be able to
establish an Aryan nation in India.[v] He visualized a
powerful Hindu nation not only overtaking India but the whole world. He also
saw, "the noble and puissant Hindu nation rousing herself after sleep and
rushing headlong towards progress with divine prowess. I see this
rejuvenated nation again illumining the world by her
knowledge, spirituality and culture, and the glory of Hindu nation again
spreading over the whole world."[vi]
Nabha Gopal Mitra started organizing an annual Hindu Mela.
It used to be a gathering on the last day of every Bengali year and highlighted
the Hindu nature of all aspects of Hindu Bengali life and continued
uninterrupted between 1867 and 1880. Mitra also started a National Society and
a National Paper for promoting unity and feelings of nationalism among Hindus.
Mitra argued in his paper that the Hindus positively formed a nation by
themselves. According to him, "the basis of national unity in India is the
Hindu religion. Hindu nationality embraces all the Hindus of India irrespective
of their locality or language."[vii]
C. Majumdar, a keen observer of the rise of Hindu
nationalism in Bengal who is described as a Hindu historian by Hindutva camp,
had no difficulty in arriving at the truth that "Nabha Gopal forestalled
Jinnah‘s theory of two nations by more than half a century."[viii] The
Arya Samaj in northern India aggressively preached that Hindu and Muslim
communities in India were, in fact, two different nations. Bhai Parmanand
(1874–1948), a leading light of the Arya Samaj in northern India, also a leader
of both Congress and Hindu Mahasabha, produced an enormous anti-Muslim
literature, highlighting the differences between the two in the past. One of
the pamphlets thus described the irreconcilability of Hindus and Muslims:
"In history, the Hindus revere the memory of Prithvi
Raj, Pratap, Shivaji and Beragi Bir, who fought for the honour and freedom of
this land (against the Muslims), while the Mahomedans look upon the invaders of
India like Muhammad Bin Qasim and rulers like Aurangzeb as their national
heroes."[ix]
Long before V. D. Savarkar (1883-1966) and M. S. Golwalkar
(1906-73), who laid down elaborate theories of Hindu Rashtra allowing no
place for minorities, it was Bhai Parmanand [1876-1947] who declared in the
beginning of the twentieth century that
followers of Hinduism and Islam in India were two different
peoples because Muslims followed a religion which originated in Arab lands.
Parmanand specialized in writing popular literature in Urdu in which the main
emphasis would be on Hindus being true sons of India and Muslims as outsiders.[x] As early as 1908–9,
Parmanand called for the total exchange of Hindu and Muslim populations in two
specific areas. According to his plan, elaborated in his autobiography,
"The territory beyond Sind should be united with
Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province into a great Musalman [sic]
kingdom. The Hindus of the region should come away, while at the same time
Mussalman in the rest of India should go and settle in this territory."[xi]
Lajpat Rai (1865-1928), a renowned leader simultaneously of
Congress, Hindu Mahasabha and Arya Samaj, long before Mohammad Ali Jinnah
pronounced his poisonous two-nation theory in 1939 and demanded a ruinous
partition of India in 1940, the Mahasabha leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and
Savarkar had openly advocated this theory…"[xii] In
1989, Lajpat Rai published an article for the Indian National Congress in the Hindustan
Review in which he declared that Hindus are a nation in themselves because
they represent all their own."[xiii]
In fact, it was Lala who
proposed partition of India on communal lines. His plan of partitioning India
of 1924 went like this:
"Under my scheme the Muslims will have four Muslim
States: (1) The Pathan Province of the North-Western Frontier (2) Western
Punjab (3) Sindh and (4) Eastern Bengal. If there are compact Muslim
communities in any other part of India, sufficiently large to form a
Province, they should be similarly constituted. But it should be distinctly
understood that this is not a united India. It means a clear
Another Hindutva icon, B. S. Moonje was another prominent
Congress leader (who equally dabbled in organizing the Hindu Mahasabha and
later helped the RSSin its formation) who carried forward the flag of Hindu
Separatism long before Muslim League‘s Pakistan resolution of March 1940. While
addressing the third session of the Oudh Hindu Mahasabha in 1923, he declared:
"Just as England belongs to the English, France to the
French, and Germany to the Germans, India belongs to the Hindus. If Hindus get
organized, they can humble the English and their stooges, the Muslims … The
Hindus henceforth create their own world which will prosper through shuddhi
[literally meaning purification, the term was used for conversion of Muslims
and Christians to Hinduism]and sangathan [organization].”[xv]
All such ideas of declaring India as a Hindu nation and
excluding Muslims and Christians from it were further crystalized by Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar in his controversial book Hindutva as early as 1923.
According to his definition of the Hindu nation Muslims and Christians remained
out of this nationhood because they did not assimilate into Hindu cultural
heritage or adopt Hindu religion. Savarkar decreed:
"Christians and Mohamedan [sic] communities, who
were but very recently Hindus and in majority of cases had been at least in
their first generation most willing denizens of their new fold, claim though
they might a common fatherland, and an almost pure Hindu blood and parentage
with us cannot be recognized as Hindus; as since their adoption of the new cult
they had ceased to own Hindu Sanskriti [culture] as a whole. They
belong, or feel that they belong, to a cultural unit
altogether different from the Hindu one. Their heroes and
their hero-worship, their fairs and their festivals, their ideals and their
outlook on-life, have now ceased to be common with ours."[xvi]
Savarkar, the originator of the politics of Hindutva, later
developed the most elaborate two-nation theory. While delivering the
presidential address to the 19th session Hindu Mahasabha at Ahmedabad in 1937,
Savarkar unequivocally declared:
"As it is, there are two antagonistic nations living
side by side in India, several infantile politicians commit the serious mistake
in supposing that India is already welded into a harmonious nation, or that it
could be welded thus for the mere wish to do so. These were well meaning but
unthinking friends who take their dreams for realities…Let us bravely face
unpleasant facts as they are. India cannot be assumed today to be a Unitarian
and homogenous nation, but on the contrary, there are two nations in the main:
the Hindus and the Moslems, in India."[xvii]
Reacting
to Savarkar‘s propagation of two-nation theory, BR Ambedkar as a contemporary
of both Savarkar and Jinnah wrote:
"Strange as it may appear, Mr Savarkar and Mr Jinnah,
instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations
issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both not only agree but insist that
there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu
nation."[xviii]
This politics of two-nation propagated by the Hindutva camp
got further impetus with the appearance of the most prominent ideologue of RSS,
M. S. Golwalkar‘s We or Our Nationhood Defined in 1939. Total
assimilation or ethnic cleansing was the
mantra prescribed by Golwalkar to deal
with the problem of minorities in India. According to him, older nations
solved their minorities' problem by not recognising any separate elements in
their polity. Muslims and Christians, who were 'emigrants', must get themselves
naturally assimilated into the principal mass of population, the 'national
race'. Golwalkar while declaring the determination to cleanse minorities from
India on the models of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy where Jews had been
almost annihilated warned:
"If they do not do so, they live merely as outsiders,
bound by all the codes and conventions of the nation, at the sufferance [sic]
of the nation and deserving of no special protection, far less any privilege or
rights. There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to
merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at its
mercy so long as the national race may allow them to do so and to quit the
country at the sweet will of the national race. That is the only sound view on
the minorities' problem. That is the only logical and correct solution. That
alone keeps the national life healthy and undisturbed. That alone keeps the
nation safe from the danger of a cancer developing into its body politic of the
creation of a state within the state. From this standpoint, sanctioned by the
experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindusthan must either
adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence
Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the
Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate
existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly
subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges,
far less any preferential treatment not even citizen‘s rights. There is, at
least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation; let
us deal, as
old
nations ought to and do deal, with the foreign races, which have chosen to live
in our country." [xix]
The RSS English organ, Organizer, on the very eve of
Independence when India had decided to begin its historic journey as a
democratic-secular polity, rejected the whole concept of a composite nation (14
August, 1947, editorial title 'Whither'):
"Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by
false notions of nationhood. Much of the mental confusion and the present and
future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of the simple fact that
in Hindusthan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must
be built on that safe and sound foundation […] the nation itself must be built
up of Hindus, on Hindu traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations".
There is no doubt that Muslim nationalists flying the banner
of Muslim separatism led by MA Jinnah succeeded in destroying an all-inclusive
India but there was no dearth of Hindu nationalists who set the ball rolling
for it, former borrowing it from the latter.
RSS IS NOT JUST ANTITHETICAL TO MUSLIMS, BUT TO A
DEMOCRATIC-SECULAR INDIA AS WELL
For
RSS Casteism, Hindu Nation and Hindu Nationalism are Synonymous 'Hindusthan'
for Hindus only did not mean that it was for all Hindus. The Hindu nation would
be governed by Manusmriti which decrees sub-human status to Sudras and
women. Hinduism and regime of Casteism were declared to be synonymous.
According to the most prominent ideologue of RSS, MS Golwalkar, the Hindu
People is,
"the Virat Purusha, the Almighty manifesting
Himself…it is clear from the following description of the Almighty in Purusha
Sukta wherein it is stated that sun and moon are his
eyes, the stars and the skies are created from His nabhi
(navel) and Brahmin is the head, Kshatriya the hands, Vaishya the
thighs and Shudra the feet. This means that the people who have this
fourfold arrangement, i.e., the Hindu People, is our God. This supreme vision
of Godhead is the very core of our concept of 'nation' and has permeated our
thinking and given rise to various unique concepts of our cultural
heritage."[xx] [Italics
as in the original]
Golwalkar continued to preach for the regime of Casteism
which is synonymous with Untouchability even after Independence. In a speech in
1961 he declared:
"Today we try to run down the Varna system through
ignorance. But it was through this system that a great effort to control
possessiveness could be made…In society some people are intellectuals, some are
expert in production and earning of wealth and some have the capacity to
labour. Our ancestors saw these four broad divisions in the society. The Varna
system means nothing else but a proper co-ordination of these divisions and an
enabling of the individual to serve the society to the best of his ability
through a hereditary development of the functions for which he is best suited.
If this system continues a means of livelihood is already reserved for every
individual from his birth."[xxi]
How Untouchability as an offshoot of Casteism continues to
be practised in the RSS fraternity, the 2017 UP elections present a shocking
example. BJP candidate from Iglas Reserved constituency (with 80% Jat votes),
Diler, a Dalit while campaigning used to sit on floor at upper Caste houses and
carry his own tumbler for drinking water/tea. He is MLA now. Rahul Pandita
needs to read the story to know about the nature of Hindu
consolidation in UP via link:
http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/02/15/return-of-untouchability/
GOLWALKAR‘S
RACISM: DENIGRATING KERALA HINDUS SPECIALLY WOMEN
Golwalkar who was also supreme boss of the RSS during
1940-1973, was invited to address the faculty and students of the School of
Social Science of Gujarat University on December 17, 1960. In this address,
while underlying his firm belief in the Race Theory, he touched upon the issue
of cross-breeding of human beings in the Indian society in history. He said:
"Today experiments in cross-breeding are made only on
animals. But the courage to make such experiments on human beings is not shown
even by the so-called modern scientist of today. If some human cross-breeding
is seen today it is the result not of scientific experiments but of carnal
lust. Now let us see the experiments our ancestors made in this sphere. In an
effort to better the human species through cross-breeding the Namboodri
Brahamanas of the North were settled in Kerala and a rule was laid down that
the eldest son of a Namboodri family could marry only the daughter of Vaishya,
Kashtriya or Shudra communities of Kerala. Another still more courageous rule
was that the first off-spring of a married woman of any class must be fathered
by a Namboodri Brahman and then she could beget children by her husband. Today
this experiment will be called adultery but it was not so, as it was limited to
the first child."[xxii]
The above statement of Golwalkar was highly worrying in many
respects. Firstly, it proved that Golwalkar believed that India had a superior
Race or breed and also an inferior Race which needed to be improved through
cross-breeding. Secondly, a more worrying
aspect was his belief that Brahmans of the North (India) and
specially Namboodri Brahmins, belonged to a superior Race. Due to this quality,
Namboodri Brahmins were sent from the North India to Kerala to improve the
breed of inferior Hindus there. Interestingly, this was being argued by a
person who claimed to uphold the unity of Hindus world over. Thirdly, Golwalkar
as a male chauvinist believed that a Namboodri Brahman male belonging to a
superior Race from the North only could improve the inferior human Race from
South. For him wombs of Kerala‘s Hindu women enjoyed no sanctity and were
simply objects of improving breed through intercourse with Namboodri Brahmins.
Astonishingly, Golwalkar expressed these Racist, anti-women
and anti-egalitarian views not in the presence of some uneducated or lumpens
crowd but before a noble gathering of gentry consisting of the faculty and
students of a prime university in Gujarat.
What is going to be the status of Sudras and women in
Hindutva rule of the dreams of RSS can be understood by a glance of some of the
decrees of Manu about them. One can only shiver after going through the
following Manu Codes.
LAWS
OF MANU CONCERNING DALITS/UNTOUCHABLES [xxiii]
1.
For the sake of the prosperity of
the worlds (the divine one) caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and
the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arm, his thighs and his feet. (I/31)
2.
One occupation only the lord
prescribed to the Sudras, to serve meekly even these (other) three castes.
(I/91)
3. Once-born
man (a Sudra), who insults a twice-born man with gross invective, shall have
his tongue cut out; for he is of low origin. (VIII/270)
4.
If he arrogantly teaches Brahmanas their
duty, the king shall cause hot oil to be poured into his mouth and into his
ears. (VIII/272)
5.
With whatever limb, a man of a low
caste does hurt to (a man of the three) highest (castes), even that limb shall
be cut off; that is the teaching of Manu. (VIII/279)
6.
He who raises his hand or a stick,
shall have his hand cut off; he who in anger kicks with his foot, shall have
his foot cut off. (VIII/280)
7.
A low-caste man who tries to place
himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his
hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed.
(VIII/281)
As per the Manu Code if Sudras are to be given most
stringent punishments for even petty violations/actions, the same Code of Manu
is very lenient towards Brahmins. Shloka 380 in Chapter VIII bestowing profound
love on Brahmins, decrees:
"Let him never slay a
Brahmana, though he have committed all (possible) crimes; let him banish such
an (offender), leaving all his property (to him) and (his body) unhurt."
LAWS OF MANU CONCERNING WOMEN
1.
Day and night woman must be kept in
dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves
to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one‘s control.
(IX/2)
2.
Her father protects (her) in
childhood, her husband protects (her) in youth, and her sons protect (her) in
old age; a woman is never fit for independence. (IX/3)
3.
Women must particularly be guarded
against evil inclinations, however trifling (they may appear); for, if they are
not guarded, they will bring sorrow on two families. (IX/5)
4.
Considering that the highest duty of
all castes, even weak husbands (must) strive to guard their wives. (IX/6)
5.
No man can completely guard women by
force; but they can be guarded by the employment of the (following) expedients:
6.
Let the (husband) employ his (wife)
in the collection and expenditure of his wealth, in keeping (everything) clean,
in (the fulfillment of) religious duties, in the preparation of his food, and
in looking after the household utensils.
7.
Women do not care for beauty, nor is
their attention fixed on age; (thinking), '(It is enough that) he is a man,‘
they give themselves to the handsome and to the ugly. (IX/14)
8.
Through their passion for men,
through their mutable temper, through their natural heartlessness, they become
disloyal towards their husbands, however carefully they may be guarded in this
(world). (IX/15)
9.
(When creating them) Manu allotted
to women (a love of their) bed, (of their) seat and (of) ornament, impure
desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. (IX/17)
10.
For women, no (sacramental) rite (is
performed) with sacred texts, thus the law is settled; women (who are)
destitute of strength and destitute of (the knowledge of) Vedic texts, (are as
impure as) falsehood (itself), that is a fixed rule. (IX/18)
DENIGRATING THE NATIONAL FLAG
RSS and its offshoots keep on organizing 'Tiranga yatras' or
march for National Flag and demand that all Muslim madrasa must unfurl
Tricolour on its buildings. Let us compare these with RSS denigration of our
national Flag. The RSS English organ Organizer in its editorial (titled
'The Nation's Flag'), dated July 17, 1947, while reacting to the news that the
committee of the Constituent Assembly of India on national Flag had decided in
favour of Tricolour as the National Flag since it was acceptable to all parties
and communities, wrote:
"We do not at all agree that the Flag 'should be
acceptable to all parties and communities in India'. This is sheer nonsense.
The Flag represents the nation and there is only one nation in Hindusthan, the
Hindu Nation, with an unbroken history extending over 5,000 years. That is the
nation and the flag must symbolize that nation and that nation alone. We cannot
possibly choose a flag with a view to satisfy the desires and wishes of all the
communities. That is to complicate matters and is unwarranted and entirely
unnecessary…We cannot order the choice of a flag as we order a tailor to make a
shirt or coat for us…"
Shockingly, RSS organ Organizer on the eve of
Independence of India carried a long piece, 'Mystery behind the Bhagwa
Dhawaj', which while demanding hoisting of saffron flag at the ramparts of
Red Fort in Delhi openly denigrated the choice of the Tricolour as the National
Flag in the following words:
"The people who have come to power by the kick of fate
may give in our hands the Tricolour but it never [sic] be respected and
owned by Hindus. The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three
colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious
to a country."[xxiv]
It was in July 1947 that the Constituent Assembly of
Independent India deliberated on the issue of the National Flag of the country
and adopted the Tricolour as the national Flag. However, RSS under the
leadership of M. S. Golwalkar refused to accept as one. While addressing a Gurupurnima
gathering in Nagpur on July 14, 1946, stated that it was the saffron flag which
in totality represented their great culture. It was the embodiment of God:
"We firmly believe that in the end the whole nation will bow before this
saffron flag."[xxv]
Even after independence when the Tricolour became the
National Flag, it was the RSS which refused to accept it as the National
Flag. Golwalkar opposed this choice of the national Flag in
an essay entitled 'Drifting and Drifting' (reproduced from in the book Bunch
of Thoughts, a collection of Golwalkar‘s writings in English published
by the RSS in 1966). Citing examples of 'Drifting' from the Hindutva goals by
the Founding Fathers, Golwalkar wrote:
"Our leaders have set up a new flag for our country.
Why did they do so? It is just a case of drifting and imitating…It was just a
politician‘s patchwork, just political expediency. It was not inspired by any
national vision or truth based on our national history and heritage…Had we no
national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly, we had. Then, why
this void, this utter vacuum in our minds?"[xxvi]
MUSLIMS,
CHRISTIANS & COMMUNISTS AS INTERNAL THREATS
The 'Holy‘ book for the RSS cadres Bunch of Thoughts,
has a long chapter titled as 'Internal Threats‘ in which Muslims and Christians
are described as threat number 1 and 2 respectively. Communists are played at
number 3. This chapter opens with the following statement:
"It has been the tragic lesson of the history of many a
country in the world that the hostile elements within the country pose a far
greater menace to national security then aggressors from outside."[xxvii]
While
treating Muslims as hostile element number 1 he goes on to elaborate,
"Even to this day there are so many who say, 'now there
is no Muslim problem at all. All those riotous elements who supported Pakistan
have gone away once for all. The remaining Muslims are devoted to our country.
After all, they have no other place to go and they are bound to remain
loyal‘…It would be suicidal to delude ourselves into
believing that they have turned patriots overnight after the
creation of Pakistan. On the contrary, the Muslim menace has increased a
hundredfold by the creation of Pakistan which has become a springboard for all
their future aggressive designs on our country."[xxviii]
He
goes on to spit venom against common Muslims in the following words:
"…within
the country there are so many Muslim pockets, i.e., so many 'miniature
Pakistans'… The conclusion is that, in practically every place, there are
Muslims who are in constant touch with Pakistan over the transmitter…"[xxix]
While
deliberating on the 'Internal Threat' number 2, the Christians, he says,
"such is the role of Christian gentlemen residing in
our land today, outto demolish not only the religious and social fabric of our
life but alsoto establish political domination in various pockets and if
possible all over the land."[xxx]
Golwalkar's hatred for Muslims was inexhaustible and
never-ending. So far as his hatred for Muslims was concerned there was no
difference in his views contained in We or Our Nationhood Defined in
1939, or his hatred for Muslims in 1960. In fact, this hatred got
wilder. While addressing the leading RSS cadres of south India in Bangalore on
November 30, 1960, he declared:"Right from Delhi to Rampur, Muslims are
busy hatching a dangerous plot, piling up arms and mobilizing their men, and
probably biding their time to strike from within."[xxxi]
Shockingly, no proofs were given and law and order machinery
was not informed about such a critical situation but this Guru of Hate
continued spitting venom against patriotic Indian Muslims. His only purposed
seemed to be to create mob-hysteria against
Muslims. More shocking was that Indian State took no action
against Golwalkar for creating enmity between 2 major religious communities of
India.
For Golwalkar and RSS, Communists are described as 'Internal
Threat' number 3 as the latter rise in defence of a democratic-secular Indian
polity and challenge the Hindutva forces which are working overtime to undo an
all-inclusive India.[xxxii]
RSS
DECRIED THE DEMOCRATIC-SECULAR CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The second sarsanghchalak of the RSS, MS Golwalkar led the
organization during 1940-1973. What RSS thought about the Indian Constitution
would be clear from the following words of his reproduced from Bunch of
Thoughts:
"Our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and
heterogeneous piecing together of various articles from various Constitutions
of Western countries. It has absolutely nothing, which can be called our own.
Is there a single word of reference in its guiding principles as to what our
national mission is and what our keynote in life is? No! Some lame principles
form the United Nations Charter or from the Charter of the now defunct League
of Nations and some features form the American and British Constitutions have
been just brought together in a mere hotchpotch."
In fact, RSS wanted this Constitution to be replaced by Manusmriti
or Codes of Manu. When the Constituent Assembly of India had finalized the
Constitution of India RSS was not happy. Organizer in an editorial ('The
Constitution') on November 30, 1949, complained:
"The worst about the new constitution of Bharat is that
there is nothing Bhartiya about it. The drafters of the Constitution have
incorporated in it elements of British, American,
Canadian, Swiss and sundry other constitutions. But there is
no trace of ancient Bhartiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature
and phraseology in it…But in our constitution, there is no mention of the
unique constitutional development in ancient Bharat. Manu‘s Laws were written
long before Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of Persia. To this day his laws as
enunciated in the Manusmriti excite the admiration of the world and elicit
spontaneous obedience and conformity. But to our constitutional pundits that
means nothing."[xxxiii]
RSS IS COMMITTED FOR CONVERTING DEMOCRATIC-SECULAR INDIAN
INTO A HINDU RASHTRA
Against Secularism
The RSS is committed to establish a Hindu Rashtra in
opposition to a Secular India will be clear by the perusal of the oath (pratigya)
which every member must take before admission into the RSS and prayer (pararthana)
which is recited in its meetings.
Oath:
"Before the all-powerful God and my ancestors, I most
solemnly take this oath, that I become a member of the RSS in order to achieve
all round greatness of Bharatvarsha by fostering the growth of my sacred Hindu
religion, Hindu society, and Hindu culture. I shall perform the work of the
Sangh honestly, selflessly with my heart and soul, and I shall adhere to this
goal all my life. Bharat Mata Ki Jai."[xxxiv]
Thus they are not faithful to the Indian Nation as it exists
as a legal entity but want to subvert it into a theocratic state like Muslim
League which created Pakistan in the name of Islam.
Affectionate Motherland, I eternally bow to you/O Land of
Hindus, you have reared me in comfort/O Sacred Land, the Great Creator of Good,
may this body of mine be dedicated to you/I again and again bow before You/O
God almighty, we the integral part of the Hindu Rashtra salute you in
reverence/For Your cause have we girded up our loins/Give us Your Blessings for
its accomplishment…"[xxxv]
RSS and its fraternal organization, Hindu Mahasabha were
very angry when Indian Constituent Assembly adopted a democratic-Secular
Constitution under the supervision of Dr. BR Ambedkar. VD Savarkar as leader of
Hindutva declared:
"Manusmriti is that scripture which is most
worship-able after Vedas for our Hindu Nation and which from ancient times has
become the basis of our culture-customs, thought and practice. This book for
centuries has codified the spiritual and divine march of our nation. Even today
the rules which are followed by crores of Hindus in their lives and practice
are based on Manusmriti. Today Manusmriti is Hindu Law".[xxxvi]
AGAINST DEMOCRACY
What kind of political system the RSS wants to usher in and
run will be clear from the following words of MS Golwalkar‘s speech which he
delivered before the 1350 top level cadres of the RSS at Resham Bagh, the RSS
headquarters at Nagpur in 1940:
"RSS inspired by one flag, one leader and one ideology
is lighting the flame of Hindutva in each and every corner of this great
land."[xxxvii]
Interestingly, this ruling
mantra was lifted from the programmes of Nazi and Fascists parties of Europe.
The above original documents from the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha archives go to prove
one fact that with Hindutva politics taking over the Indian constitutional
polity, no foreign enemy is required to undo India.
HINDUTVA AND COW
Rahul
Pandita seems to be enjoying Adityanath‘s guidelines to the police for
"Strict action against cow slaughter, while the sealing
of some slaughterhouses is under way". He does share the fact that
slaughterhouses sealed were not slaughtering cows thus facilitating the spread
of a stereotype against Muslims that they slaughter cows. This is the kind of
rumour mongering which has resulted in lynching of innumerable Muslims who were
seen transporting cows. Muslims found with cow are legitimate target for
Hindutva zealots as witnessed recently in Alwar, Rajasthan. Rahul Pandita wants
to remain oblivious, knowingly or unknowingly that Hindutva gang‘s agenda of
holiness of cow is a modern construct. Swami Vivekananda, regarded as a
philosopher of Hindutva by the RSS, said:
"You will be astonished if I tell you that, according
to old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain
occasions, he must sacrifice a bull and eat it."[xxxviii]
Imagine what these 'gau rakshaks' will do to Swami if he reappears
today! Rahul Pandita does not dare to question DOGHLAPAN (hypocrisy) of RSS/BJP
on cow slaughter; their governments in Goa and many north-eastern States of
India openly allow slaughter of cows making beef available openly.
"The assertive form of
Hindutva" is required only for teaching a lesson to Muslims who have been
appeased by all except Hindutva brigade. Why should Rahul Pandita bother about
the fact that 800 years of 'Muslim‘ rule and decades of pampering of Muslims of
India by 'secular‘ leaders, the community socially, economically and
politically remains static at the lowest pedestal of 'New India'.
Lastly, I would like Rahul Pandita not to trivialize the
issue of persecution, repression and forced ouster of minorities, secular and
liberal elements to plight and brutalization of Kashmiri Pandits only. The
Islam-o-fascists in league with intelligence agencies from across the borders,
went after non-Pandit Hindus, Sikhs and secular Muslims also in order to
convert Kashmir problem into a fight between Hinduism and Islam. It is to be
noted that never in the history of communal/Casteist violence in India, the
victims who were forced to migrate like Kashmiri Pandits were provided with
jobs/allowances/residences/reservation in admissions. It is to be appreciated
and fair-paly demands that all those who were/are forced to migrate due to
communal and Caste violence must be provided with the same kind of support and
should not be confined to one kind of victim.
http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/04/21/rahul-panditas-new-india-a-hindutva-india-on-the-ashes-of-democratic-secular-india/
Shamsul Islam
Link
for some of S. Islam's writings in English, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Malayalam,
Kannada, Bengali, Punjabi, Gujarati and video interviews/debates: http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam
Facebook:
shamsul
Twitter:
@shamsforjustice
http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/
Email:
notoinjustice@gmail.com
[ii]
http://hinduexistence.org/2015/07/18/india-will-be-hindu-rashtra-by-2020-and-a-hindu-world-by-2030-ashok-singhal/
[iv]http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/rss-rashtriya-swayamsevak-sangh-need-to-be-indianised-4590377/
[v]
Singh, Nagendra K., Encyclopaedia
of the Indian Biography, APH Publications, Delhi, 2000, pp. 588–590.
[vi]
Cited in Majumdar, R. C., History
of the Freedom Movement in India, vol. I, Firma KL Mukhpadhyay,
Calcutta, 1971, pp. 295– 296.
[vii] Ibid, 8.
[viii]
Ibid.
[ix]
Parmanand, Bhai in pamphlet titled, 'The Hindu National
Movement‘, cited in
B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan or the Partition of India,
Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990, pp. 35–36, (first Published December
1940, Thackers Publishers, Bombay).
[x]
Parmanand, Hamare Qaumi Hero,
Hindu Bookshop, Lahore, nd.
[xi]
Parmanand, Bhai, The Story of My
Life, S. Chand, Delhi, 1982, p. 36.
[xii]
Noorani, A. G., 'Parivar &
Partition‘, Frontline, Chennai, August 22, 2014, p. 52.
[xiii]
Ibid, p. 53.
[xiv]
Rai, Lala Lajpat, 'Hindu-Muslim
Problem XI‘, The Tribune, Lahore, December 14, 1924.
[xv]
Cited in Dhanki, J. S., Lala
Lajpat Rai and Indian Nationalism, S Publications, Jullundur, 1990,
p. 378.
[xvi]
A Maratha [V. D. Savarkar], Hindutva,
VV Kelkar, Nagpur, 1923, p. 88.
[xvii]
Savarkar, V. D., Samagra Savarkar
Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, [Collected works of Savarkar in
English] vol. 6, Maharashtra Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 296.
[xviii]
Ambedkar, BR, Pakistan or the
Partition of India, Govt. of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1990, p. 142.
[xix]
Golwalkar, M. S., We or Our
Nationhood Defined, Bharat Publications, Nagpur, 1939, pp. 47-48.
[xx]
M. S. Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts, (Bangalore:
Sahitya
Sindhu, 1996 edition), 36-
37.
[xxi]
M. S. Golwalkar cited in Organizer, January 2, 1961,
pp. 5 &
16.
[xxii]
M. S. Golwalkar cited in Organizer, January 2, 1961,
p. 5.
[xxiii]
This selection of Manu‘s Codes is from F. Max Muller,
Laws of Manu (Delhi: LP
Publications, 1996; first published in 1886). The bracket after each
code incorporates number of chapter/number of code according to the above
edition.
[xxv]
MS Golwalkar, Shri Guruji Samagar
Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna,
Nagpur, nd., volume I, p. 98.
[xxvi]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996 [first edition 1966], pp. 237-238.
[xxvii]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 177.
[xxviii]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, pp. 177-78.
[xxix]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 185.
[xxx]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 193.
[xxxi]
M. S. Golwalkar, 'From Delhi to Rampur Muslims are
Conspiring‘Organizer,
December 12, 1960.
[xxxii]
MS Golwalkar, Bunch of Thoughts,
Sahitya Sindhu, Bangalore, 1996, p. 195. [xxxiii]Organizer,
November 30, 1947.
[Xxxiv] Shakha Darshikha, Gyan Ganga, Jaipur, 1997, p. 66. [Xxxv] Shakha Darshikha, Gyan Ganga, Jaipur, 1997, p. 2
[xxxvi]
[VD Savarkar, 'Women in Manusmriti'
in Savarkar Samagar (collection of
Savarkar‘s writings in Hindi), vol.
4, Prabhat, Delhi, p. 416.]
[xxxvii]
MS Golwalkar, Shri Guruji Samagar
Darshan (collected works of Golwalkar in Hindi), Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna,
Nagpur, nd., Volume I, p. 11.
[xxxviii]
[Vivekananda speaking at the
Shakespeare Club, Pasadena, California, USA (2
No comments:
Post a Comment