22
“IT would appear that the declared objectives have little to do with the real ones and with the activities carried out in various forms and ways by people associated with the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]. … The activities according to our information are anti-national and often subversive and violent”.
This what prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to RSS boss M.S. Golwalkar in 1948 rejecting his plea to lift the ban on the RSS imposed after Gandhi’s assassination.
In the last quarter of a century, the RSS has demonstrated the truth of Nehru’s charge. But, on no other point is its duplicity more apparent and insidious than on the core issue of Hindu vs Indian nationalism. For, it affects the future of millions of minorities.
Hindutva is altogether different from Hinduism.
Since 1990 both the RSS and its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, have become bolder in enunciating the credo of Hindutva. When accused of communalism, the plea was that Hindutva only signified a way of life and Indian nationalism.
The term ‘Hindutva’ was coined only in 1923 to denote an ideology of hate and violence. It is altogether different from Hinduism; a faith that is ancient and noble. Since its votaries occupy high places, we are likely to hear more about it.
It was coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 in his essay Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Under L.K. Advani’s leadership, the BJP espoused the credo stridently deluding the unwary into believing that it is little more than a particular variant of Hinduism.
But Savarkar was not a bit interested in religion. He was a practising atheist and was at pains to distinguish his ideology from the religion.
Savarkar wrote: “Here it is enough to point out that Hindutva is not identical with what is vaguely indicated by the term Hinduism. By an ‘ism’, it is generally meant a theory or a code more or less based on spiritual or religious dogma or system. But when we attempt to investigate into the essential significance of Hindutva we do not primarily … concern ourselves with any particular theocratic or religious dogma or creed.”
Towards the end of the essay he referred to “the unfortunate misunderstanding that owes its origin to the confusing similarity between the two terms, ‘Hindutva’ and ‘Hinduism’.”
From this flows his concept of nationalism. “To the Hindus, the independence of Hindustan could only be worth having if it ensured ‘their Hindutva — their religious, racial and cultural identity’, swarajya to the Hindus must mean only that ‘rajya’ in which their ‘swatva’, their ‘Hindutva’ could assert itself without being overloaded by non-Hindu people….”
One of his faithful followers elaborated that Hindus “cannot take this country as jointly owned by those who either came running away from their countries and sought protection here or those descendants of ex-Hindus, who for the greed of power and money or out of fear renounced their glorious faith and became converts, or those who are the descendants of those barbarous invaders who spoiled our very sacred land, demolished our sacred temples … if they are to live here, they must live here taking it for granted that Hindustan is the land of the Hindus, of no one else.”
It is as grave as that. The very concept of Indian nationalism is rejected. It is branded ‘territorial nationalism’. Every one born in the territory of India does not acquire its citizenship. Only those who accept “our Hindu culture” (read: religion) can be citizens. This is called ‘cultural nationalism’ which the BJP asserts is synonymous with Hindutva. Both terms have occured in its election manifestoes in the last quarter century.
Referring specifically to “our Mohammedan or Christian countrymen who had originally been forcibly converted to a non-Hindu religion”, Savarkar asserted that “though Hindustan to them is Fatherland, as to any other Hindu, yet it is not to them a holy land too. Their holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine. … Consequently their names and their outlook smack of a foreign origin”.
On the same basis, in 1947 Savarkar supported the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Savarkar also propounded the two-nation theory; first in Hindutva (1923) and then in 1939, but with a vital difference which Dr B.R. Ambedkar pointed out. He would not concede a separate state to Muslims but insisted on a united India with the Hindus alone as its nationals.
RSS supremo M.S. Golwalkar espoused “cultural nationalism” in his book Bunch of thoughts (1968), L.K. Advani took over the credo in 1990 — and the BJP swears by it to this day with increasing fervour and the same subterfuges which Nehru censured in 1948.
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
Published in Dawn, October 25th, 2014
