Why Hindu Rashtra: K. S.

Sudarshan
When the Shahi Imam of Jama of Delhi went to Mecca on a pilgrimage, a local
resident asked him, "Are you a Hindu?" The Imam was startled by this question
and replied, "No, I am a Muslim." When Imam Saheb asked him the reason for
calling him a Hindu, he replied that all Hindustanis were called Hindu there.
(Saptahik Hindustan, May 1,1977)

What does "Hindu" Connote ?

Replying to the felicitation at the Indian Association Lahore, on February 3, 1884,

Sir Syed Ahmed the founder of Aligarh University said, "We normally associate
the word Nation with Hindus and Mussalmans. In my opinion, the concept of
nation is not to be linked with one's religious beliefs because all of us, whether
Hindus or Mussalmans, have grown in this soil, enjoy common points of
sustenance and prosperity and share common rights. This verily, is the basis for
both these our sections in Hindustan to come together under the common name
Hindu Nation... The term Hindu should not be identified with the Hindu
community. All sections--whether they be Mussalman or Christian -- are Hindu."
(Hamari Ekta Delhi April 15,1979)

A Frenchman asked an Indian, "What is your religion?" The reply was, "Hindu."
The Frenchman countered: "That is your nationality; but what is your religion?"

In fact, neither Arabs, nor Frenchmen nor the people of any other country have any
doubt that "Hindu" connotes the nationality of this land. Arnold Toynbee in his
monumental work A Study of History uses invariably the word Hindu to denote the
race, the society and the civilisation born and grown here over the past millennia
and extending right up to the present day.

Hindu : National of Bharat

Anyone who is the national of this country, irrespective of being a Shaiva, Shakta,
Vaishnava, Sikh, Jain, Muslim, Christian, Parsi, Buddist or Jew by way of his
creed or mode of worship, is a Hindu. As Justice M.C. Chagla has forcefully put it,
"The French, with their sense of logic and precision, call Indians irrespective of
their caste or community L Hindus. I think that is a correct description of all those
who live in this country and consider it their home. In true sense, we are all Hindus
although we may practise different religions. I am a Hindu because I trace my
ancestry to my Aryan forefathers and I cherish the philosophy and the culture
which they handed down to successive generations.

"If only we accept this proposition and call ourselves Hindus by race, it would be
the greatest triumph for secularism."
The Archbishop of Ernakulam, Dr. Joseph Cardinal parecattil, has stated that the
"Church had to draw its cultural nourishment from the local soil - the rich
resources of Hinduism." Himself an ardent advocate of Indianisation of Church,
the Archbishop affirms that all Indians including Christian and Muslims should
imbibe this national culture of the soil.

Misunderstanding Persists

However, there is no lack of political leaders who consider the idea of Hindu
Rashtra as rank communalism and a biggest threat to secularism. It is obvious that
such assertions are motivated by some political consideration or other.

On the one hand, lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan says, "I believe that including
Bangladesh and Pakistan we are one nation. Our states may be different, but all of
us belong to the same Bharatiya nationality." On the other hand, the Deputy
Speaker of the West Bengal Assembly, Sri Kalimuddin Shams has stated:
"Muslims form a separate nation in this country."

It is not surprising, therefore, that all these various pronouncements should lead to
serious misunderstandings and confusion regarding concepts like nation, state,
Hindu, secular, etc., in the people's mind. And the socaded big leaders are only
busy making the confusion worse confounded with a view to catching votes and
safeguarding their seats of power. They are also causing, thereby, serious damage
to our national unity, mutual goodwill and the national will to work together. But
politicians neck-deep in the game of power-politics seem to have little concern for
such things.

However, people devoted to the nation and its all-sided progress cannot help
delving deep into the question. For if there is no clarity of ideas, or the goal is
confused and the hearts do not beat in unison, the nation's onward march will
falter, will get slowed down and may even go astray.

What is a Nation?

The foremost basic question is:What is Rashtra or Nation? Scholars on the subject
are agreed that a mass of humanity assuming the nomenclature of Nation should be
inspired by the feeling of "we-ness" or a common identity and identification. This
means that such people experience a feeling of oneness with one another and
consider themselves distinct from others. When Edward de Cruz asked a Japanese
University student whether the Japanese people considered themselves nearer to
the East or the West in their life-style, habits and beliefs, his reply was: "We are
like neither the East nor the West. We are simply Japanese. In this fast changing
world any dividing line between the East and West has become irrelevant. We take
in whatever we feel is beneficial to us without bothering as to wherefrom it has
come. But we do care that we remain Japanese all the same. We stick to certain
beliefs and traditions and they keep us Japanese. WE have lived through many ups
and downs, days of glory as well as adversity, but remained Japanese allright. And
we are not in the least apprehensive that our Japanese character will suffer if we
adopt one or the other thing necessary to maintain our existence in this world of
competition."

The young man's assertion that even while mixing with the world in a hundred
ways they remained basically Japanese, is in fact an indication of their true
nationhood. It also becomes necessary for every one of them to work with its
intense awareness in order that Japan may play its effective role in the world. Like
the Japanese-ness of the Japanese, the Egyptians have their Egyptian-ness the
Germans their German-ness and the English their English-ness. The question arises
how is this Japanese-ness, German-ness, Egyptian-ness or English-ness, which
imparts to these particular masses of humanity a sense if we-ness and a separate
identity created? Or, putting the same thing differently, how is the feeling of
nationhood evolved"?

How Nation Evolves

Man cannot lead his life in isolation. He needs a co-operative group, a community,
to fulfil his needs. In his early evolutionary stage, man needed the cooperation of
only a very small group for his protection and livelihood. lien he could carry on
with a small tribe which he considered as his enlarged or greater family. But later
on he gave up the nomadic life and started leading a settled existence by taking to
agriculture. It was then that he developed emotional tics with the life sustaining
earth; and that was the dawning of the infancy of nationalism. With the evolution
of civilization, man's needs also grew and in order to fulfil them he felt the need for
bigger human communities. For that purpose a number of tribes came together and
their mutual cooperation led to bigger communities. With the growth of civilisation
men catering to intellectual, mental and spiritual needs also became intergral parts
of such we groups. It was thus that Shakespeare and Shaw in Britain, Goethe and
Schopenhauer in Germany, Rousseau and Voltaire in France, Tolstoy and Gorky in
Russia and Valmiki and Kalidasa in Bharat became as much necessary for their
civilized lives as food, clothing and shelter.

The stretch of land which a community, imbued with a sense of we-ness, needs for
its comprehensive development, forms the natural boundaries of that country. And
that community is not merely emotionally attached to it, it also derives from the
mother soil a special characteristic for its life, civilisation and culture. Thus the
country imparts a distinct identity to that human mass. As Sydney Herbert says: "A
historical consideration of diverse nationalities will disclose the fact that there is no
nationality of which the basis was not formed by the homeland in which nationality
lived a continuous communal life for some period or other. The sentiment of
nationality is given greatest expression by the enduring passion of the members of
a nationality for their national homeland. Nationality would seem to require a
distinct and defined territory on which to establish itself and continue its existence.
On such territory, i.e. the national homeland, grow up the traditions, historical
associations and other elements language, literature, culture and religion - of which
the nationality is compounded and which give it a distinct individuality."

What Constitutes "Nationalism"

In this way, a society having mental and emotional bonds with a particular, well-
defined territory and imbued with a sense of we-ness acquires the nomenclature of
Nation in that particular piece of land. The great men who contribute to its
protection, progress and prosperity evoke deep feelings of reverence and gratitude
in that society. And the attachment to values of life and traditions born out of a
long existance in that land also become a major link for binding the people of that
nation to one another. Apart from that, there are many factors like language,
history, festivals, feeling of having common enemies and friends, common
economic and political interests, common aspirations, etc., which strengthen this
feeling; but none of them is indispensable for the formation of every nation.

While this story of transition from tribal loyalties to nationalism is being written
even today in African countries like Congo, Nigeria, Uganda, Ghana and
Zimbabwe, Europe passed through that phase just three or four centuries ago. But
it is hard to tell when the Asian countries like Bharat, China and Iran completed
this journey. In fact, we find the various features of a vast and organised society
present in them as far as recorded history goes, and a highly evolved feeling of we-
ness pervading those vast communities. This feeling was based more on religious
and and cultural, rather than political and economic, factors. While leading a
common existence on a well-marked territory for long period, these societies
shared common experiences of sacrifice and heroism, joy and suffering. They
made many original contributions in material, intellectual, moral and religious
spheres; and created durable societies and civilizations on the basis of their distinct
cultural values. The inspiration that lay behind such achievements was the feeling
like We Chinese, We Iranians, We Bharatiyas. Such sentiments had been evolved
centuries before the modern concept of nationalism took birth. The only thing
lacking in them was the political aspect which has acquired a special force in the
modem view of nationalism.

Force of National Sentiment

How powerful this national sentiment is can be gauged from the fact that the
Bailed international ideologies like Islam, Christianity and Communism which
aimed at bringing the entire world under one flag by discarding national
boundaries, have not been able to wipe out the appeal of nationalism. On the other
hand, they themselves have got split and cast into various national moulds. Today
the face of Islam is not the same in Turkey, Egypt, Iran or Indonesia. To sustain
their separate identities, they have even taken to distinct Islamic creeds. Iran found
out a new way of marking itself off from the Arabs by adopting Shia sect. It also
gave a new face to Islam in the form of Sufi sect by a synthesis of the old Parsi
beliefs with Islam. While Turkey gave a new shape to Islam by attuning it with
Western civilization, Indonesian Islam assumed a new content through the
influence of Bharatiya culture. The English people created the Protestant form of
Christianity by defying the authority of the Pope who symbolised the will to
establish the Holy Empire the world over. Similarly. German and Syrian
nationalism paved the way for Lutheran and Syrian Churches. Me Dutch, French
and Russian nationalisms also displayed their own versions of Christianity.

Those who dreamed of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat on the

strength of their slogan "workers of the world unite," are now finding their
proletariats rigidly confined to their respective national boundaries. Not merely
that. The proletariats of Communist countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Albania
are now at daggers drawn with each other. Each considers its own national brand
of Communism as authentic and derides all others as revisionist, reactionary,
expansionist and so on. The Italian and French communists have even declared the
dictatorship of the proletariat as unnecessary and created their own brand, Euro-
Communism. Why, Russia itself has only last year changed its constitution giving
up its basic postulate of a proletariat state and opting for a state belonging to all
people. The communist tide today stands broken up into a hundred fragments by
dashing against the rock of nationalism. It is clear that the spirit of nationalism has
proved more powerful of its being a more natural expression of man's evolutionary
cycle, and as such more basic and deep rooted. The spirit of oneness generated by
it is much more intense than that of religion, language, etc. Even Stalin, who had
derided God and religion as opium of the masses, felt the impact of its spirit and
declared :

"Apart from the foregoing (community of language, territory and economic life),
one must take into consideration the specific spiritual complexion of the people
constituting a nation. Nations differ not only in their conditions of life, but also in
spiritual complexion, which manifests itself in peculiarities of national culture."

See how identical is this view of so rank an atheist as Stalin and that of a great
spiritual luminary as Swami Vivekananda who emphasised: "National union in
India must be a gathering of its scattered spiritual forces, a union of those whose
hearts beat to the same spiritual tune."
The Concept Of Hindu Rashtra: K. Surya Narayan Rao
I am proud to be a worker Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for whom Hindu
Rashtra is the cardinal principle. It is a matter of conviction and faith for us. It is
our life breath. This concept of Hindu Rashtra is not a creation of R.S.S. Great
savants like Swami Vivekananda, Arvinda Ghosh, Lokamanya Tilak, Swatantrya
Veer Savarkar, Mahakavi Subramanya Bharati and others have all proclaimed our
nation as Hindu Rashtra. Dr. Annie Besant and Sister Nivedita, both accomplished
intellectuals from the West, who were attracted by the culture and people of this
country, and adopted this country as their motherland, have also acknowledged our
nation as Hindu Rashtra.

But now political leaders and a section of the media are trying to create some
confusion about this Hindu Rashtra belief. Each is interpreting according to his
own understanding and background, neither there realising the truth nor keeping an
open mind to know what the protagonists of Hindu Rashtra wish to convey through
these two words. It seems such persons look at it with some prejudice, perhaps
political and religious.

"HINDU" means....

What is Hindu Rashtra? The word Hindu does not mean only a religious faith just
like Islam or Christianity. Hindu denotes the national way of life here. It is a
national connotation. Before the advent of the British, this country was known as
Hindusthan and all the nationals as Hindus. Only the British gave the new name
INDIA to this country and the word Indian came to be used in placed HINDU.
Even today the word Hindusthan and Hindu are often used with a national
connotation only. For example, the first nationalist daily from Madras, started in
the last century, was named "The Hindu". Many public sector industrial units are
named, Hindusthan Aeronautics, Hindusthan Photo films, Hindusthan Machine
Tools, etc. The sea to the south of our country is called Hindu Maha Sagar.

Many travellers from our country who went abroad have the experience of being
addressed as Hindus irrespective of the religion they belong to. Why, even Syed
Abdullah Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi mosque was greeted as a Hindu at Mecca.
Late Sri Mohammed Carrim Chagla, the former Chief Justice of Bombay High
Court and Education Minister in the Central cabinet wrote that he is a Muslims
only by religion but by culture and race he is a Hindu and all Muslims of this
country are Hindus.
The recent All India Muslims Conference led by all fundamentalist Muslims was
called Muslims Hindusthani Sammelan. Mohammed Iqbal, the famous Urdu poet
has sung Sare Jahan Se Achha, Hindostan Hamara -- Note Hamara Hindusthan,
i.e., Our Hindusthan.

For R.S.S. men, the word Hindu thus connotes, not a particular sect, a religion or a
faith but the culture, the tradition, the way of life of the people inhabiting this part
of the world from times immemorial.

This is a ancient country which has been described in our great books as Bharat,
lying to the north of the seas and to the south of Himalayas. A galaxy of savants
and sages, great in various fields of human activity were born here and have
contributed to the welfare of humanity and its development. A unique value system
blossomed here. The entire people living between Himalayas and Kanyakumari
progressed, basing themselves on these values and built up their own traditions,
beliefs, faiths and culture. Every great person, born in any part of this land has
endeavoured to strengthen this cultural unity and integrity of this country and its
people.

Not a Political Concept

Thus we the children of Bharat are living on this common motherland for
thousands of years. We have common forefathers, common sages, saints and
heroes, common values of life, common traditions and culture, common history,
common way of life, which is called Dharma and common aspiration etc. Those
who identify with these common factors form the Rashtra or the Nation here and
that is exactly Hindu Rashtra. We are all part of this Hindu Rashtra.

Whether some people accept and recognise it or not due to their ignorance, Hindu
Rashtra exists, it has been existing for ages and it shall continue to exist for ever.
Thus Hindu Rashtra is not a political concept but a cultural and emotional one,
eternally asserting itself.

National Sentiments, Values

This is the case as regards every nation. All nationals of a particular country have
an emotional attachment to its history, forefathers, heroes and traditions. This
makes them work hard, suffer and sacrifice for the progress and protection of their
country. The national sentiment is supreme and above all other sentiments, whether
religious or sectional. Take for example, the youngest nation America formed four
hundred years ago by all kinds of people of various countries. For the past four
hundred years they have developed an American identity, their own traditions and
they have their National heroes like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
Every American holds this national tradition and the heroes with highest regard
respect. No Jew or Muslim of America can say that because Washington and
Lincoln were not Jews or Muslims he cannot revere them. The religious sentiments
are subservient to national sentiments and values. Similarly, in this country Bharat,
in Hindu Rashtra, every national should hold its national heroes like Shri Rama
and Sri Krishna in high esteem. They are the age old symbols of all the great
values which the country stands for. Religion should not come into the picture at
all.

English Education Twists Hindu

In this country from ancient days the Hindu, i.e., the nationals, held religious
beliefs. Nobody objected to other man's way of worship here. Everyone was free to
practise and propagate his own faith. There was full freedom. People say, Hindus
are very tolerant. This word tolerance does not correctly represent our way of life.
The word is very inadequate. You can hate a man but still tolerate him. But here
there is no hatred. You recognise the right of every person to have his own belief.
He is recognised and respected -- Religion is no barrier for mutual love and
understanding. This is the Hindu attitude.

The grand principle of Unity in Diversity was developed and practised this land.
That is why in addition to so many religions born in this country, when a few more
religions came from outside the borders of our country, those religions and their
adherents did not face opposition but received warm welcome here. Religion is
considered as a personal matter, the relation of the individual with his Maker,
People belonging to various religions in this country are all Hindus by culture and
Nationals of this Hindu Rashtra. As there are Shaivas, Vaishnavas, Jains, Bauddhas
and Sikhs amongst Hindus, there can be Christians and Muslims also. This is to be
clearly understood. Of course, it may be difficult to understand this in the vitiated
political atmosphere and also with the background of English education. That is
why Gurudev Ravindranath Tagore exhorted :"If you want to understand Bharat
study Vivekananda".

We have to know ourselves through the eyes of our own Rishis, Sanyasis and
Scholars and their books and not through the Western scholars and their writings.

Not A Theocratic State

As Hindu Rashtra is not a religious concept, it is also not a political concept. It is

generally misrepresented as a theocratic state or a religious Hindu State. Nation
(Rashtra) and State (Rajya) are entirely different and should never be mixed up.
State is purely a political concept. It is political authority with sanction concerned
with the governance of the people, laying down and directing the policies of the
government. The State changes as the political authority shifts from person to
person or party to party. But the people and the Nation remain the same.
Since ancient days various dynasties ruled in different parts of this country at
different times. But the basic and fundamental cultural unity if the people of this
country was not disturbed. For the past one thousand years various invading
foreign hordes following Islam also ruled over different parts of the country at
different times and later the British ruled over almost the entire country. The
people did not change. After Independence, the Congress party ruled the entire
country for some time and then various political parties captured political power in
different states. But still, the common emotional factors of the people of this
country have remained the same and the people too uphold those values and
sentiments in one voice rising above regional, linguistic and religious difference as
was witnessed on several occasions. This is the uniform experience.

That clearly explains the difference between a Rashtra and a Rajya i.e., Nation and
State. Rashtra is eternal and State is transitory. It is like the body and the Soul
(Atma). According to Hindu conviction the Atma is eternal and only the bodies
and their forms are changed.

Our Ethos In a Natural Way

What are the factors that have kept this nation as one in spite of foreign domination
for over thousand years. It is its faith in its age old culture, Dharma, tradition and
its forefathers like Rishis, Acharya, Sir Rama and Sri Krishna. All this can be
condensed into one word and that is the HINDUNESS, HINDUTVA. The Hindu
ethos is asserting in a most natural way in a social, political life and activities of
the people. For example, the English legacy of cutting a tape at the time of opening
ceremonies is being replaced by lighting a lamp. Launching a ship or a plane is
done with coconut breaking. When the India Festival at Paris was to be
inaugurated, Sixteen Sumangalis dressed in the traditional Hindu style carried
Kalasams and Kumbhas filled with Ganga Jal. A number of monograms of
Government department are lines taken either from Vedas or from the Bhagavad
Gita "Sham no varunah" for the Indian Navy, "Yogaskshemam vahamyaham" for
the Life Insurance Corporation etc. Examples can be multiplied.

Hindu Rashtra is very much alive and it asserts too in various forms. The R.S.S.
wants to make everyone understand, realise and feel proud of the same. This is the
strongest and the only integrating factor for binding people from North to South
and East to West rising above all other considerations of region, language, religion,
caste or class. It betrays one's ignorance to say that Hindu Rashtra's idea will
disintegrate the country into various Rashtras. In spite of the havoc done by the
political parties and leaders for the last forty three years of independence the
country remains one only because of its essential Hindu character. The Hinduness
only can integrate the entire country. Several fissiparous tendencies have cropped
up only because this Hinduness is being suppressed by politically vested interests.
R.S.S. is convinced that only when every person in this country realises that he is
after all part and parcel of this Hindu Rashtra, this nation can progress, standing up
as one man. We are working hard against odds to see this goal realised.

Modern Concept

Another criticism about Hindu Rashtra is that the modern concept of secularism
and democracy will have no place in Hindu Rashtra. This is again because those
who make this charge have never studied and understood the basic Hindu
principles and traditions. Since the dawn of civilization, the first ever intellectual
composition of the human being on earth was produced here in this land of Bharat
-- and that is called the Rig veda.

In this we find passages "Ekam sadviprah bahuha vadanti"; "Ano bhadrah kratvo
yantu vishwatah", etc.,etc. (Truth is one and the intelligent speak about it in many
ways." "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions of the world.) That is the
catholicity of the Hindu thought. Everything is based on such universal approach.
It is by far very different from the concept of Christianity or Islam, with which
alone our English educated people are familiar.

Because certain things happened in European countries, their calculation is that the
same things will happen in this country also. But one should remember that this
country and its Hindu ethos are entirely different. That is why even in the annals of
Hindu polity you cannot find a heocratic State comparable to Islamic or Christian
States.

Islamic States Today

In the Islamic states of Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. and most of the Gulf countries, no
person not following Islam can practise the religion of his conviction and no place
of worship can be constructed. It is compulsory there for everyone to fast during
Ramzan month. A few years ago an Arya Samaji from Bharat was jailed for
reading Satyarthaprakasha sitting in his house.

If the ruling Muslims group is Shia, it will not tolerate the Sunni Muslims and vice
versa. This is the type of Islamic theocratic State. Why, in our own country the
Muslims throw stones at religious processions of others passing through a locality
where Muslims are in good number. The Muslim is not prepared to give any right
to people other than his own Muslim sect.

Christians & Pseudo Secularists

The Christian theocracy is equally intolerant. It is very difficult to celebrate any

Hindu function in Nagaland. In Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu, in the coast
line, were in the Christian fishermen dominate, the Hindu women pilgrims of
Bhagavati Temple at Mandaikadu were insulted, molested and every year it is a
problem. It is very difficult to conduct a religious, social or cultural function of the
Hindus in such villages where there is good percentage of Christians.

Even the pseudo secularists are more fanatic and intolerant about any other idea
became of the sematic background of their idea of so called secularism.

History Proves

Whereas in the long history of Bharat no Hindu king has ever tried to impose his
brand of religion on the subjects in his territory; no Vaishnava king has insisted
and forced that everyone should fast on Ekadasi; similarly no Shaiva has forced
Shivaratri on all the people. The only instance is of Ashoka the great who after
embracing Buddhism worked as a Buddhist missionary and used his state authority
and resources for the spread of Buddhism. But still he was not intolerant of other
religions. It is a paradox that Ashoka seems to have impressed Pandit Nehru and
Ashoka and his insignia been adopted as the symbols of our secular state; for
example the Chakra in our flag and the three lions atop the Ashoka pillar.

No Hindu objects to a muslim or Christian procession in a Hindu locality. In

general every Hindu respects and recognises every other religions and does not
prevent anybody following his own religion. This attitude of the Hindu is reflected
in the social, cultural and political activities of the Hindus.

A Hindu State has always functioned as a secular and democratic State. There was
never an autocratic or a fascist Hindu king. History bears witness to this. When
Jews and Parses were persecuted by the Christian and Muslims respectively in
their own countries, many of them ran for shelter to this country and since
centuries they have been living here peacefully. Neither they had any problem
from the Hindus nor the Hindus had any problem from them. The parses
particularly have totally identified with the culture and national life of this country,
still maintaining their religious identity. There are no conflicts or complaints on
either side. Most of the Jews have returned to Israel after they got back their
motherland. And what the Israeli government has got to say about their centuries
of stay in this country? I would like to quote from the booklet Indian Jews in Israel
published by the Israel Consulate general in India.

"While most of the Jews came to Israel (from countries other than India) driven by
persecution, discrimination, murder and attempts at total genocide, the Jews of
India came (to Israel) because of their desire to participate in the building of their
Jewish Common wealth, because of their unshakable belief in the redemption of
Israel. Throughout their long sojourn in India, nowhere and at no time were they
(Jews) subjected to intolerance, discrimination or persecution."

The Parsees as a group refused to accept any special treatment or a separate

electorate at the time of the British rule itself and said that they are happy with the
Hindu society. Now the followers of this religion live happily only in this country
while there is no trace of Parsees at their place of origin i.e. Iran. One leading
Parsee gentleman exclaimed, Hindus are tolerant to a fault. then came the
Christians and Muslims. They built their churches and mosques. All are safe now.
This is the history of Hindu people, their kings and Hindu government long before
even the secular and democratic concepts were born.

Traditionally the Hindu respects and recognises the feelings of other. His ideas are
all broad based and universal, always all inclusive and never exclusive. There will
be equal justice for all in a Hindu State irrespective of one's faith or belief or
religion or sect.

Only a state with such universal Hindu ideas can uphold all the modern secular and
democratic values. Mahatma Gandhi had realised the greatness of the Hindu ethos
and he had proclaimed that our independent country would be a Rama Rajya -
which was a Dharma Rajya, an ideal Hindu State. He had not hesitated to speak
about this openly. Rather he advocated it with conviction, very vigorously.

British Mischief

Many times some dub this Hindu Rashtra as communal and fundamentalist. Hindu
can never be a communalist nor a fundamentalist. The British started this mischief
of calling everything Hindu as communal. In Hindusthan, Hindu is national and
not communal. But even after Independence, our political leaders, themselves
Hindus, also have fallen a prey to this mischief and they speak about Hindu
organisations as communal. To call the Hindu communal will be an insult of all
our forefathers, all the Rishis and Sanyasis and their noble ideals, our culture, our
tradition etc. It is a total self condemnation. Hindus have never been communal
and they can never be.

It is only the Hindu majority of legislators of our country who easily agreed to call
our State as secular as against what happened in Pakistan and Bangladesh, because
the very nature of Hindu is secular.

Fundamentalists, Communalist ?

Fundamentalist is one who believes in one prophet and book and holds them as
infallible. This idea itself is totally repugnant to the Hindu tradition. Hindus have
several books and several prophets and nothing is considered infallible. For
example in Bhagavad Gita, a great book explaining the highest Hindu values, Sri
Krishna tells Arjuna, practically at the end of his teaching that Arjuna need not
accept everything as told by him, but only after pondering and discriminating. He
leaves, Arjuna to do as he pleases. (Vimrishyait adasheshena yathechhasi tatha
kuru). What an amount of freedom ! Similarly all Upanishads and many religious
texts are in the form of questions and answers. Free questioning is encouraged in
our tradition. Because of this, most of our texts are highly rational. To charge such
persons who sincerely wish to uphold this tradition, as communal and
fundamentalist is nothing short of blasphemy, and an indication of excessive
ignorance on the part of critics.

The tragedy is that it is only these bitter critics of Hindu Rashtra, who boast
themselves as secularists and are encouraging communalism and fundamentalism
to grow in our country.

When the fundamentalist Muslims objected to the Supreme court decision on the
Shah Bano case, the so called secular government yielded and brought a new
enactment upholding the Muslim personal law, thus nullifying and rejecting the
Supreme Court verdict. Recently this was reminded to Syed Abdullah Bukhari by a
Central Minister while requesting Bukhari to see that Muslims vote to the
Congress. During the elections to the legislative assembly of Mizoram, the
Congress election manifesto promised that if they are elected to power the State
will be governed according to Christian beliefs laid down in the Bible. It is during
Communist regime in Kerala that a separate Muslim majority Mallapuram district
was carved out just to appease the Muslims. These are only a few samples of
communalism practised by the so called secular parties.

By always harping upon the interest of minorities and appeasing them, these
political leaders have encourage minorityism and have never allowed the Muslims
and the Christian to identify themselves with the national main stream. The truly
nationalistic & integrating factors such as common forefathers and common
cultural traditions, etc. are not being home to the people, and as a result every day
new separatist groups mushroom and create problems. The basic values of
democracy and secularism, such as the rule or law and equality before law
irrespective of caste or creed have been thrown to the winds.

For All Round Development

The Hindu tradition of freedom of thought and recognition of an alternate path or

dissent are highly democratic in character. The all inclusive Hindutva (Hinduness)
alone can provide the strongest sense of nationalism, integrating this vast country
rich in variety. This faith and convliction in the all inclusive Hindutva has become
an inevitable factor to save the country from the present turmoil.

Every son and daughter of this country should be made to feel proud of his or her
forefathers, traditions and culture and realise his or her Hinduness. Then and then
alone he or she can rise above corruption and all the parochial feelings of caste,
religion or region. The realisation of Hindu Rashtra alone can maintain not only
the secular and democratic values, but also the unity and integrity of this great
country and inspire the entire people to suffer and sacrifice to bring about the all
round development of our dear Motherland. Let us all work hard to make everyone
realise this truth about Hindu Rashtra. I hope I have tried to make everything clear
to the best of my ability.

We are Hindus. I do not use the word Hindu in any bad sense at all, nor do I agree
with those that think there is any bad meaning in it. In old times, it simply meant
people who lived on the other side of the Indus. Today a good many among those
who hate us many have put a bad interpretation upon it, but names are nothing.
Upon us depends whether the name Hindu will stand for everything that is
glorious, everything that is spiritual, or whether it will remain a name of
opprobrium, one designating the downtrodden, the worthless, the heathen. If at
present the word Hindu means anything bad, never that any language can invent.

--- Swami Vivekananda

Each nation has a destiny to fulfill, each nation has a massage to deliver, each
nation has mission to accomplish. Therefore, from the very start, we must have to
understand the mission of our own race, the destiny it has to fulfill, the place it has
to occupy in the march of nations, the note which it has to contribute to the
harmony of races.

--- Swami Vivekananda.

For All Round Development

The Hindu tradition of freedom of thought and recognition of an alternate path or

dissent are highly democratic in character. The all inclusive Hindutva (Hinduness)
alone can provide the strongest sense of nationalism, integrating this vast country
rich in variety. This faith and convliction in the all inclusive Hindutva has become
an inevitable factor to save the country from the present turmoil.

Every son and daughter of this country should be made to feel proud of his or her
forefathers, traditions and culture and realise his or her Hinduness. Then and then
alone he or she can rise above corruption and all the parochial feelings of caste,
religion or region. The realisation of Hindu Rashtra alone can maintain not only
the secular and democratic values, but also the unity and integrity of this great
country and inspire the entire people to suffer and sacrifice to bring about the all
round development of our dear Motherland. Let us all work hard to make everyone
realise this truth about Hindu Rashtra. I hope I have tried to make everything clear
to the best of my ability.

We are Hindus. I do not use the word Hindu in any bad sense at all, nor do I agree
with those that think there is any bad meaning in it. In old times, it simply meant
people who lived on the other side of the Indus. Today a good many among those
who hate us many have put a bad interpretation upon it, but names are nothing.
Upon us depends whether the name Hindu will stand for everything that is
glorious, everything that is spiritual, or whether it will remain a name of
opprobrium, one designating the downtrodden, the worthless, the heathen. If at
present the word Hindu means anything bad, never that any language can invent.

--- Swami Vivekananda

Each nation has a destiny to fulfill, each nation has a massage to deliver, each
nation has mission to accomplish. Therefore, from the very start, we must have to
understand the mission of our own race, the destiny it has to fulfill, the place it has
to occupy in the march of nations, the note which it has to contribute to the
harmony of races.

--- Swami Vivekananda.

Welcome Debate On Hindutva Rashtra: H. V. Seshadri

For the first time in the history of our General Elections to the Lok Sabha, a new
ideological dimension was added to the election battle. And that is, the attack
launched by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on "Hindu Rashtra" and by
others who had picked up that line. S. G. Sardesai of the Communist Party, for
example, had even called upon Rajiv Gandhi and V. P. Singh not to waste their
energies in minor charges and counter charges against each other but to jointly face
the looming threat of Hindu Rashtra.

From the point of view of the protagonists of Hindu Rashtra, the debate on Hindu
Rashtra becomes an ideological discussion which it welcomes heartily. For,
making it an issue of public debate implies the acceptance of the fact that the
appeal of Hindu Rashtra among the common people is so widespread that it can no
longer be ignored. It also amounts to recognising the fact that Hindu Rashtra as an
ideology has begun to powerfully impinge upon politics also.

Now, coming to the so called charges against the Hindu Rashtra: Rajiv Gandhi for
example, said the cry of Hindu Rashtra will give rise to similar other cries like the
Christian Rashtra in the northeast, Muslim Rashtra in Kashmir, Sikh Rashtra in
Punjab. The CPI too way, it charge coming from the Congress and Communists
only buttress the case for Hindu Rashtra and boomerang upon the decriers. The
public memory is not so short as to forget that it was the Congress that had issued
an entirely Christian election manifesto during the last Assembly Election to
Mizoram. It had openly declared that if elected to the power, the Government's
policies would be based on the principle of Bible which, in fine, meant establishing
a theocratic Christian state or in the words of Rajiv Gandhi, a Christian Rashtra.
And again, it is the Congress which had been instrumental in introducing and
perpetuating Art 370 and thus enabling Kashmir to virtually convert itself into a
Muslim Rashtra. As for the cry of Khalistan, the propping up of Bhindranwale, the
Sikh holocaust in the wake of Indira Gandhi's murder and unscrupulous political
trickery provoking Sikh - non - Sikh divide in Punjab - all these are the handiwork
of the Congress leaders, past and present, which have continuously fed the fires of
Khalistani separatism.

As for the communists, less said the better. It is they who sought to furnish an
ideological foundation for Pakistan, i.e., separate Muslim Rashtra, prior to
Partition. Even to this day, they argue that Bharat is not one, but 18 Rashtras based
on as many distinct linguo cultural identities.

When such avowed disruptors of national unity try to denounce Hindu Rashtra, it
would only carry the opposite message, i.e., Hindu Rashtra stands for a single
homogeneous national identity of the country and, therefore, they are dead opposed
to it.

Apart from its patently political motivation, the charge also betrays stark ignorance
about the Hindu Rashtra concept. Hindu is not the name of a religious faith like the
Muslim or the Christian. It denotes the national way of life here. All those who feel
firmly committed to the unity and sanctity of our country and our people, and look
upon our great forebears as their national heroes and the sublime values of our
cultural life as their points of veneration and emulation, are all Hindus. Here, the
question of one's personal faith does not come into play at all.

There are some other opposers who go even so far as say that it was because of the
cry of Hindu Rashtra that Muslim League also raised the counter cry of Muslim
Rashtra, which ultimately let to the Partition. The sheer perversity of this argument
is so transparent that even a casual perusal of the developments of that period tells
us that the very opposite is true. It was the protagonists of Hindu Rashtra like
Savarkar and RSS who bitterly opposed the Partition till the very last. On the other
hand, it was the Congress, the communists who continuously fed the fires of
Muslim separatism which finally resulted in partition.

There is yet one another important fact. No protagonist of Hindu Rashtra ever said
that Hindu would receive preferential treatment and Muslims would be reduced to
second grade citizen in free Bharat. They all clearly affirmed that Bharat would be
ruled under the democratic system of One man, one vote irrespective of one's faith.
So, there was no question of any discrimination involved in the concept of Hindu
Rashtra against Muslims that warranted separate protection for them as against the
Hindus.

At this juncture, a question may naturally crop up : If the modern secular concept
of nation and Hindu Rashtra both accord equal rights to all its citizens, where does
any difference lie at all between the two? Why insist on the word Hindu Rashtra?
The difference is profound indeed as profound as between a living and a non living
body. In short, Hindu Rashtra is essentially cultural and content, whereas the so
called secular concept pertains to state and is limited to the territorial and political
aspects of the Nation. State is just one of the instruments though a very vital one
created by the nation to serve its material needs. The nation denotes the whole,
while the state only a part. State represents functions of the body part, while the
culture represents those of the mind and the intellect.

It is to denote this whole of our national entity that the word Hindu is used.

In fact, all those who pioneered, including those in Congress too, the national
renaissance in general and the freedom movement in particular, had unreservedly
used the word Hindu wherever they referred to our nation. They also never made
any distinction between Hindu nation and Indian nation. Right from Swami
Vivekananda and Aurobindo upto the famous Lal-Bal-Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal) and Annie Besant, all of them had invoked
the highest cultural and spiritual Hindu values as the points of inspiration for the
freedom struggle.

It was only later on, when the Congress started parleys with the Muslim League on
sharing of power that this national cum cultural content was given a go by and the
territorial concept began ruling the roost. Thus was started by the Congress the
wild goose chase of winning over the fanatical Muslim leadership to its finally
ending in Partition.

Further, the mere political cum territorial concept divorced from its cultural
essence can never be expected to impart any sanctity to the country's unity. The
emotional binding of the people can be furnished only by culture and once that is
snapped then there remains no logical argument against the demand by any part to
separate itself from the rest of the country.

And again, once we accept politics as the basis, then also there is no argument
against the will of the people expressed democratically for their separation from
the main body of the country. That is why when Jinnah argued that areas having a
Muslim majority wanted to separate themselves, Congress had no reply on the
basis of principle. In fact, Congress has even earlier adopted a resolution upholding
the dictum of self determination for any part of the country. So, ideologically
Congress was left with neither any emotional appeal nor any logic or argument to
counter the demand for Pakistan.

During the 1945-46 General Elections also, even while assuring the Hindu voter of
its resolve to maintain nation's unity at all costs, Congress had declared in the same
resolution its commitment to the principle of self determination. It was the same
mentality that made Pt. Nehru accept the mischievous for plebiscite to decide the
future of Kashmir.

If the principle of one single common motherland and one common culture binding
all the people of Bharat into one single unbreakable nationhood which is what
Hindu Rashtra means - had been shared by Congress as a matter of conviction,
then the Congress would never have accepted to partitioning the country.

Then remains the question of the so called fears of Muslims and Christians in the
event of Hindu Rashtra coming into its own. Would not the minorities be
suppressed by the majority Hindus? As such, should not the minorities be afforded
special rights by way of protection against the majority domination? This argument
should stand automatically demolished when we remember that it was precisely
this argument that led to the partition of the country. It was the British who planted
the vicious seed of majority and minority complex in the body politic of our
country and also went ahead with affording special rights and privileges to the
Muslims with the specious argument of protecting their interests from the
domination of majority. The Congress fell into the trap and started competing with
the British in according greater and still greater rights to the Muslims finally
acceding to Partition as well.

It is this Congress legacy that has perverted our political system during the last
four decades and more of our freedom. The present day aggravation of Muslim fed
by Congress and similar other groups including the Communists is entirely due to
their distortion of our genuine national concept.

As regards the so called fears of the minorities, it is just a phantom propped up by

interested politicians and religious fanatics to maintain their separatist grip upon
their faithfuls. History tells us that even when Hindu kingdoms like Vijayanagar,
the Hindu pad pad shahi under the Marathas and the Sikh rule under Ranjit Singh
came up fighting out the Muslim oppression, the Muslims were never
discriminated against. They had even risen to high position of power and prestige
in administration.

On the contrary, the history of recent and present times tells us that it is opponents
of Hindu Rashtra who have been aggravating and appeasing the minority complex.
That is how, the various north eastern states like Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya
were sliced off from Assam to from separate states. It was because the pernicious
theory of distinct tribal identities as being separate from the main Hindu body, set
afloat by the British imperialists and nurtured by foreign christian missionaries,
was blindly gulped down by our post independence rulers that the separatist
elements were puffed up and various north eastern states created.

In fact, the granting of special provision of Art 370 to Kashmir has paved the way
fir similar other demands like the cry for Khalistan. What answer does Congress
have to the query if Kashmir can have special status, why not Punjab? So, we find
that these are all the creations of Congress itself and not of Hindu Rashtrawalas. In
fact, none of these separatist elements have ever spoken of Hindu Rashtra as a
threat to their identity and that they were demanding separate status because of
that.

On the positive side also, it can be safely stated that the most potent factor still
binding the people in all insurrection infested parts with the rest of the country is
the Hindu ethos. The experience of Hindu workers engaged in various social and
cultural activities in all such areas also bears out the fact that Hindu appeal alone
can successfully dissolve the separatist pulls and strengthen the spirit of their
oneness and harmony with the rest of the country. Even in Punjab, we find the RSS
and other Hindu oriented organisations standing as an impregnable bulwark against
separatist propaganda. It is they who have by their profession and practice, come to
command implicit confidence in the eyes of both Sikhs and non Sikh Hindus alike
as a firm guarantee of our national unity and integrity.

Besides this emotive principle of national unity and integrity Hindu Rashtra
furnishes the most practical mode for the country's development in all the various
diverse fields as the economic, educational, social, labour, agriculture, etc. Indeed
the raison d'etre for the acceptance of Hindu Rashtra lies precisely in this; no
aspect of human life is excluded from its encompass. It is a total philosophy of life.
Already, the RSS men working in various fields of national life have come up with
unique applications of Hindu though in fields such as labour, agriculture,
education, social reforms, etc. Any impartial critic would readily concede that
these indeed offer a highly positive, constructive and holistic approach for these
fields. The wholesome impact of this approach is already in ample evidence in all
areas where such organisations are forging ahead. The people too have come to
recognise their activities and achievements as islands of hope and confidence in the
otherwise enveloping gloom of failures and frustrations.

Finally, a word regarding the emerging trends vis a vis the Hindu Rashtra. If we
have to assess it correctly, we have to first realise that Hindu Rashtra is neither a
mere political ideology or much less an ism. It is the supreme fact of this soil and
what the advocates of Hindu Rashtra are trying to do is just to make our people
realize this inmost reality of our national life and live in tune with it. After all a
nation, just as an individual, can evolve itself only when it attunes itself to its
inborn genius. It will also strive its utmost to throw off any obstacles imposed upon
it that might thwart its natural evolution.

It will reject such imposed theory or plan or project than is foreign to its native
genius and ethos. That is how we find that several theories and plans imported
from either the democratic west or the Communist bloc have miserable failed to
click here. Since independence, socialism, socialistic pattern of society, democratic
socialism and all such slogans had a field day at one time or another. They shone
like meteors for a moment and then vanished from the horizon of Indian politics.
Communism, which at one time fascinated the youth as the panacea for all the
human ills has already found its graveyard in its fatherland and holylands. Country
after country, projected till yesterday as Communist heavens, are unceremoniously
throwing their prophets and pioneers overboard decrying their heaven as hell.

Even the non political movements like Sarvodaya, Bhoodan, Gramadan and total
Revolution have also almost faded out of the public memory. On the other hand, it
is only the philosophy of Hindu Rashtra which is steadily gaining ground all the
time and has been expanding its philosophical horizon and its organisational
network among the people continuously and consistently. No wonder, in days to
come, the Hindu Rashtra philosophy certainly promises to fill the ideological
vacuum in the nation's mind in a most effective and inspiring manner.

Minorities Problem And Its Solution: Prof. Balraj

Madhok
Minorities problem is linked with the building up of nation-states. In a nation-state
exists a national society, whose constituents have feelings of ownness with the land
and the culture of that nation based on emotional attachment and common beliefs,
and they are always prepared to sacrifice everything for protecting the nation-state.
The national community rules over the nation-state, and the country as well as
nation are known by the name of that society. In such states there are some
elements or sections of people, who are less in number and different from the
national community in respect of language, race or religion, and they are called
minorities of that nation-state. Thus the question of minorities arises only in that
nation-state, where the majority community is regarded the nation of the state.
Where no specific community enjoys recognition in the form of the nation, the
question of recognising any other community as minorities does not arise at all.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1950 had defined minorities
as below:

`Only those communities other than the ruling national community can be termed
as minorities, who want to have a language, religion or race different from the
language, religion and race of the national community. It is essential for being
recognised as minorities that they should be sufficient in number and their
constituents should be faithful to the nation in which they live.'

All nation-states are expected to grant equal legal and human rights to such
minorities, and not to practise any sort of discrimination against them. The U.N.O.
lays stress on it. But in actual practice, the attitude and approach of several nation-
state towards the minorities is not alike.
Linguistic Minorities

Among three types of minorities, the problem of linguistic minorities is not

complicated. In various states they have to adopt the national language, but
arrangements for the study and teaching of their separate languages are also made.
Where the script is common, it is very easy for the minorities to study their
language and the national language together.

As the Roman script has been adopted for all languages of Europe, there is no
problem, as such, of linguistic minorities in those states. The national language is
used for official purpose. But where the community having a separate language has
a specific and big area, their language can be used in the local administration.
Racial Minorities

The problem of racial minorities is more complicated than the problem of

linguistic minorities. Racial characteristics are manifested on face, features and
colour. It is impossible to remove them.

But the racial minorities can be brought nearer to the national community on the
basis of inter-caste and inter-race marriages, common language and religion.
U.S.A. represents a good example of this type.

Religious Minorities

The problem of religious minorities, particularly muslim religious minorities, is the

most complicated. Religion being the foremost centre of their faith and the
contentions of Islam being "Millat and Kufr", "Dar-ul- Harb", their peaceful co-
existance based on equality with non-muslims has not been possible anywhere in
the world.

Where muslims are in majority, or where governmental power is in their hands,

their attitude towards the non-muslims is oppressive. Where they are in minority,
their attitude is disruptive. This thing applies to some extent in the case of
followers of other semetic-religions - Christianity and Jewism also. But the jews
have since concentrated themselves in Israel alone, and a large part of Christians
have since modernised and humanised their religion to some extent.

There has been some difference in the approach of democratic countries and
communist countries in regard to minorities. Democratic countries like U.S.A. and
U.K. have adopted the Hindu principle of Equality of treatment for all religions.
They allow equal concessions to the followers of all ways of worship and provide
common law and equality before law to all citizens in their countries. As such,
those states are in practice secular or unconcerned with religion, although they are
declared or undeclared Christian states. But such states also are specially alert in
respect of muslim minorities, because the Christian population and rulers of those
states better understand the true nature of Islam. There are historical reasons
behind it. World wide conflicts continued for centuries between Christian and
Islam. After the First World War, when Islam had become a very weak political
power, and communism had emerged as a new challenge to Christianity and
democracy, the conflict between Islam and Christianity had slightly come to a
stand still. Communism had taken the place of Islam. Communism and communist
countries had become the first target of Christianity and Christian states.

That situation is now changing. Ideological base and behaviour of communism and
communist countries are undergoing a sea change. Democracy and humanism are
again emerging there and Christianity is again gaining ground there. For that
reason, atmosphere of co-operation is prevailing instead of conflicts raging
between them. On the other hand, increasing power of muslims and Islamic
countries due to Petro-Dollar factor and Islamic fundamentalism prevailing in
muslim countries like Pakistan and Iran, and spread of fanaticism, old conflict
between Islam & Islamic countries on one hand, and Christianity & Christian
countries on the other hand, had again started. Rushdie episode has made a special
contribution to the re-start of this conflict. Christian majority nation-states in
Europe are realising that the first centre of faith of muslims is only Islam and
Islamic countries. Therefore, their loyalty is being doubted. I had this experience in
U.S.A. I went to see a black muslim leader in Chicago. I had my guide Roosewelt
junior with me. That black muslim leader talked in the same fashion as Maulana
Bukhari or Shahabuddin talk in India. He described a separate nation of black
muslims and claimed that a separate countries should be carved out of U.S.A. and
declared as a muslim state. On return after seeing him, I told Roosewelt that "when
muslim population in U.S.A. goes up to about 10%, you will be able to appreciate
the gravity of our muslim problem." His reaction was very emphatic and startling
that "We are not like Hindus. We shall crush these muslims before they reach that
stage." No nation wants that the disruptive or disintegrating forces should flourish
in their countries.

Communists are more alert and conscious about their minorities than the
democratic Christian countries. They endeavour to completely assimilate muslims
and other linguistic, racial and religious minorities and integrate them in the main
stream of the nation, and such a situation is created that they are not in a position to
indulge in any kind of disruptive activity. Soviet Russia had in a planned manner
Russianised their minorities and also settled white Russians in a large number in
predominently muslim areas and states, so that it may serve as an effective control
over the secessionist and disruptive tendencies of muslims there. Russia has about
20% as muslim minorities in the country.
Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and China have also adopted similar policy towards their
18%, 12% and 5% muslim minorities respectively. The main thrust behind this
policy has been that their population should not be allowed to increase. With that
end in view, all these countries have adopted special preventive methods.
It is being experienced in the communist countries that is not possible to bring
those muslims in the main stream of the nation and their loyalty cannot be relied
upon. Russian muslim militarymen posted in Afghanistan have startled Russia by
their behaviour. She had to withdraw her muslim militarymen from Afghanistan.
The secessionist movement erupted in Muslim majority state like Azerbaijan has
also startled communists. Now they are realising that muslims minorities are a
danger to the unity of Soviet Russia, Yugoslavia etc, communists countries.

Communities of Indian origin have a feeling to tolerance for various ways of

worship and persons following those ways. That is way they cannot adjust properly
with semetic religions, especially Islam being religiously dogmatic. But, on
account of their old Vaidik Hindu traditions they treated the semetic people with
the same feeling with which they used to see other religious of Indian origion and
their followers. That is why they were deceived and are still being deceived. But
after the partition of India in 1947, due to the ill-behaviour of muslims with non-
muslims in Cyprus, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Thailand, Philipines and re-
emergence of muslim problem in divided India, many nationalist and awakened
Indians are also compelled to re-consider their approach about the Islam and
followers of Islam in India. The problem of minorities in India can correctly be
assessed and gauged and its solution found out only in the context of the above
mentioned facts and the happening in India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh etc.

Minorities problem in India

Bharat or Hindusthan is a big and old country. It has several diversities of

languages, caste and religion. But inspite of these diversities, its origional
geographical and cultural unity is undisputed. Despite the fact that it was divided
politically in several states during different periods and remained under the control
of foreign rulers for a long time, its original unity remained intact.

From the point of view of race, language and culture, muslims in India are
inseparable constituents of the Hindu national society of India. The progeny of
foreigners - Arab and Turk muslims in India is not more than two percent in any
case. But, on account of the mentality of separatism created among muslims by
Islam and Quran, which was encouraged by British rulers for their imperialistic
designs and interests, they had raised demand for partition of the country.
Accounting to the census of 1941, muslims in British India were about 23%, and
the princely states whose total population was only one - third of the total
population of the country, percentage of muslims was less than 10%. Hence in the
total population of the country, muslim population was about 20% in 1947. But, as
a result of partition of the country, they got 30% of land of India. The demand of
separatism and secession was supported by almost the entire muslim community.
During the elections held in 1946, the main purpose of which was Unity versus
Partition, 93% muslim voters has voted in favour of partition and Pakistan. The 7%
muslims who voted against Pakistan, belonged to Sindh, Frontier province and
West Punjab. The Congressmen supporting their decision to accept partition of the
country used to say that it would provide a permanent solution of the problem of
muslim minorities in India. Gandhiji had then stated that Muslims are not prepared
to live in India along with Hindus. And for that reason they had divided the land of
the country, so that muslims may remain happy in Pakistan and Hindus in
Hindustan. But the expectation was not fulfilled.

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar had prepared a detailed scheme for the migration of population
of Hindus and Muslims from Pakistan and India on the analogy of such migration
of Muslim and Christian population held between Turkey and Greece, which is
written in his famous book "Thoughts on Pakistan". According to him, it was a
natural corollary of partition of India on the basis of two nation theory to have
Hindus and Muslims settled in separate countries. But the then leadership of India,
particularly Gandhiji and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru were not prepared to implement the
same. At that time that was not a difficult task, because the number of Hindus left
in Pakistan and Muslims in divided India was almost equal. Two and half crore
Hindus were left in Pakistan, while the same number of muslims was left in the
partitioned India.

In such circumstances and conditions it was appropriate and essential for both the
nation-states to mutually decide to provide similar treatment to the Hindu and
muslim minorities left in Pakistan and India. But such a reasonable and practical
step was not taken. Had the rulers of Pakistan been told clearly that the muslim
minorities in India would be mated out with the same treatment which would be
mated out with Hindus in Pakistan, most probably their behaviour and attitude
would have been different from what it was. Thus the minorities in both the
countries would have received equal relief. But unfortunately that was not done.

During the last 43 years, Pakistan sought of the Hindus minorities problem in that
country by resorting to forcible conversion their exodus from Pakistan. In 1947,
Hindu population in Pakistan was 23%. Now Hindu population in Pakistan is not
even 1%. The same position prevailed in the East Pakistan, now called Bangla
Desh. Her Hindu population consisting of Vaishnavas, Buddhists etc, was about
33%, which has since been reduced to less than 10%, and the remaining Hindus are
also counting their days of stay in that country. How unfortunate has been the
plight of Hindus in Pakistan & Bangla Desh!

On the other hand, the Muslim minority problem in the divided India again
assumed the same proportion which existed before 1947. Their population had
increased to four times. In the census of 1981, their population reached the mark of
8 crores. In fact, the situation had become more grave than what is was in 1947,
because some political parties are also now supporting the cause of this minority
community for catching their votes, apart from the support they received from
Pakistan, Bangla Desh and other Islamic countries on the basis of religion. In
Kashmir valley, where they are in majority, they are emitting poison and hatred
against India, and they are working upon a conspiracy to create another Islamic
state by increasing their population. They are again indulging in creating riots in
several places as they did before 1947, and they are increasing their secessionist
demands in progression. The secessionist tendencies of muslims have cast their
adverse effect also on some Christians and haired Sikhs. The minorities problem
has thus again raised its ugly head and the country is moving towards a new
disintegration and division.

The divided India can be proud of the fact that it has behaved very well with the
minorities according to her Hindu traditions and culture.

Four time increase in the population of muslims in divided India is a concrete and
unrebuttable proof of this fact. But, still the muslim leaders are indulging in
making false propaganda in the entire world that they are being meted out with ill
and inhuman treatment in India. In this manner India is being beaten on both ends.
The national community of India - Hindus are feeling insecure within their own
country, and on the other hand Hindus are being defamed in the whole world by
the muslim minorities. This is a dangerous situation in which we have been placed
by following unrealistic policies.

It has now become Imperative and essential to improve the situation and to find out
a solution of this grave problem, consistent with reason and national interests and
based on the experiences of other countries in regard to their problem of minorities.
For that purpose, following suggestions need serious consideration :-

1. For stopping false propaganda being carried on against India in the world, it
is necessary that correct information be supplied to the world. As such, it
will be appropriate for the Government of India to issue white paper in
regard to the minorities in India at the earliest possible, in which the
statistics in regard to the position of the minorities in undivided India that
existed before 1947, and other relevant information be made available.
The population of the minorities in divided India and Pakistan during post
1947 period and other related information should also be given. Similarly
the detailed position of Hindu minorities in Bangla Desh including their
population etc, should be mentioned. Such a white paper will not only
check effectively the wrong propaganda being made against India, but will
also prove helpful in reaching an objective understanding of the minorities
problem in India as well in finding out a realistic and practical solution of
this grave problem.
2. In addition, it will have to be emphatically, made clear as to which is the
national community in India. Muslims have already got a separate country
by declaring themselves as a separate nation. Hence the muslims left in
India should have no hesitation to accept that India is a Hindu nation and
Hindus are its national community. 
 3. Muslims who did not got Pakistan at the time of the partition of India,
should remain loyal to India and they should live like other loyal citizens in
India, abandoning their demand of separation. In this matter by
government of India, statesmen and political parties are duty bound and
responsible to stop encouraging muslim separatist tendencies for their
petty party interests, and also stop talking of special rights to muslims and
other minorities, and thus stop appeasement of muslim minority for ever.
For this purpose, the following things are necessary to be done :-

 (A) Articles 21,30 and 370, which are discriminatory being in favour of
minorities should be abrogated from the constitution of India. Such
provisions be made in the constitution that no discrimination between the
citizens of India will be made by the Government on the basis of religions
or methods of worship.
  
 (B) There should be common law for all citizens in India. Article 44 of the
constitution should at once be implemented for the purpose. Such
provisions contained in the Muslim personal law which go against the
constitution of India and humanity, be declared illegal, unlawful and
unconstitutional.
  
 (C) All citizens should be equal before law. Muslim women should also be
given the same rights as are given to Hindu women.
  
 (D) Granting full freedom of the ways of worship to muslims and other
minorities, they should be inspired and expected to have their first faith in
the land of India and culture of our nation.
  
 (E) Such muslims and other minorities who are not prepared to abjure their
separatist tendencies should be declared foreigners, and they should be
divested of the right of franchise.

When the muslims of Iran feel proud of linking themselves with the Pre-Islam
entities of Iran like Rustam, Sohrab, Shahnama and other Iranian things, there is no
reason why the muslims in India, 98% of whom are progenies of their Hindu
ancestors, should not link themselves with Ram, the greatest son of Hindustan.
Muslims who want to link themselves with a brute foreigner-invader Babar, their
loyalty to the country and nation should be treated doubtful.

It is the duty of the rulers of the country to clearly tell the muslims that the
discriminatory and inhuman policy adopted by Pakistan and Bangla Desh against
minorities in those countries was not adopted by India against her minorities, nor
will it be adopted in future. But at least this much expectation shall be had from the
muslims that they do not ride on two boats and that they live in India, Bharat,
Hindustan like Hindus having full faith in the Indian Hindu nation and culture by
thought, deed and speech, and not live here like Pakistanis, Bangladeshies or
Arabs.

While granting freedom of conviction of religion and method of worship, the

muslims and other religious minorities should be told clearly that religion or ways
of worship shall remain confined to their personal lives. There is not relevance of
minorities commission and minorities institution in the field of education. The
Minorities Commission should be wound up. In its place a commission on Human
Rights should be set up and minorities' educational institutions should function
under common rules. Laws and rules should be common for all central universities
including Aligarh Muslim University, and no discrimination should be allowed in
favour of minorities.

So far as the question of linguistic minorities is concerned, there is no specific

problem about it in India. Most of the Indian languages are the off-shoots of
Sanskrit language, and other language contain abundant words Sanskrit. If
Devanagari script is adopted as an alternative script for all these languages, and
special stress laid on the study and teachings if Sanskrit language, there shall be no
problem of linguistic minorities in India.

Fortunately no special problem of racial minorities exists in India. The people

living in eastern states have some effect of Mangol race, but the Buddhist stream of
Hindu community has assimilitated them with India to a great extent. Foreign
Christian Missions are trying to disrupt that oneness. Effective control and check
on their activities in this regard is essential.

The above given picture is based on facts and the suggestions made are reasonable
and practicable. Secularism or equal treatment for all religions have certain well
established norms throughout the world as also in the constitution of India. There
are as given below

1. The state shall not discriminate against its citizens on the basis of religion
or ways of worship.

2. Common Laws shall be enforced for all citizens.

3. All citizens shall be equal before law.

It is a matter of great concern that during the last 43 years the policies are actions
of the Government of India have been to openly flout and violate these principles.
As a result, India did not remain secular in practice, but has become a state inclined
towards one particular minority religions by special rights to minorities, especially
muslims, at the cost of the interests of the national community. It cannot, therefore
rightly be termed as a secular state.

For making India truly secular, laws and constitution of India should be based on
Hindu ideals. Hindus recognise relevance of ethos and ways of worship adopted by
its followers. That is why Hindu state never became a theocratic state in its entire
history of thousands of centuries. In the Hindu state, minorities were meted out
with treatment of equality and it will continue that same in future also. Entire
history of Hindus is its proof. As such, there is no reason or cause for the
minorities to oppose or come in conflict with Hindu nation and Hindu nation-state
of Bharat, i.e. Hindusthan.

Therefore, it is the need of the hour that thinkers, intellectuals, philosophers,

statesmen and politicians in India appreciate and assess the minorities problem in
India in the light of the world history and the experience of other countries as also
the past and present happenings of undivided and divided India, Pakistan & Bangla
Desh. They should recognised India as a nation-state and Hindu community as the
national community of India, and openly adopted and declare Hindus as Hindu
Nation. Only then they will be able to follow a correct policy towards minorities
and protect the unity and integrity of India and India's national community of
Hindus, otherwise the unity and integrity of India are in great peril. (Translation by
Shyam Lal Kohil)

Israel's (Jews) experience of India

While most of the jews came to Israel (from countries other than India) driven by
persecution, discrimination, murder and attempts at total genocide, the jews of
India came (to Israel) because of their desire to participate in the building of the
third Jewish Common-wealth, because of their unshakable belief in the redemption
of Israel. Throughout their long sojourn in India, no where and at no time were
they subjected to intolerance, discrimination or persecution. "Indian Jews in Israel"
(Published by the  Israel Consulate General) Hindu mind is broad, not
fundamentalist Hindus cannot be fundamentalist, because it has never been their
mode of thinking to have faith only in one way of worship or only one book or
only one prophet or priest, and hatred against all others.

Shri Bala Saheb Deoras

"The theory of Hindu nation meets the requirements of all criteria. It is supported
and confirmed from all angles- reason, history and experience. This principle is the
basic thought of India, it is her soul. This all- embracing, all-assimilating principle
is India's special characteristic - it is her force. Just as the act of treating a saint's
dead body as a saint, or treating a king's cropse as a king, is a foolish act, similarly
to call Bharat divested of this element as Bharat will be an indicator of ignorance.
Shri Bala Saheb Deoras Replies

Qun. Is it not more difficult to make the people understand the concept of Hindu
nation than that of the Bharat-iya nation?

Ans. Yes, it may be difficult in the case of those people who have taken it for
granted that the national life of India started only after the arrival of Britishers in
India. But once they come to accept that ours is an old nation and our national life-
stream has been flowing since the past thousands of years, they will have to admit
that is the Hindu Nation.

Qun 2. Will the resurgence of the Hindu nation not amount to new birth of several
blind traditions of the past and tantamount to obscurantism?

Ans. In fact this is a very delicate and difficult issue for the supporters of
consolidation of Hindus. We have great pride of our Dharma and culture. Many of
our things are worthy of feeling proud. The thinkers and philosophers of the world
have given highest respect to the philosophy and values of life as propounded in
India, and called them capable of providing a very valuable contribution to the
world peace and welfare humanity. These values have proved to be true and
worthwhile on the occasions of hard trials amidst attacks on our country and
historical and political upheavels which continued for a long time. Naturally we
feel that these ever- lasting life-principles and values should be protected at all
cost.

But it is quite clear in our mind that while defending and keeping in tact this glory
and self-respect, this type of thinking that all that is old is good and useful will not
work. Not only this, our ancestors also had a clear vision about it, as it
emphatically stated --

"One who drinks saline water simply because that well was constructed by his
force-fathers, is coward and fool hardy."

This type of blind faith will not benefit any one. Hence there is no reason, no
justification for sticking to the worn-out, obsolete, anti-social and time-discarded
blind faiths, which will have to be abandoned.
No uninhabited part of land can be called nation. The land on which people of a
particular race, specific religion and traditions and specific history live is called a
nation. And that nation is known by the name of those people.

England is the country of the Englishmen, France of the French people and
Germany of the German people. The people of these countries gladly declare this
fact. But the Hindus - owners of this unfortunate Hindustan - do not dare to call
themselves as Hindus and owners of this country. This country was named
Hindusthan after the name of our great Hindu community.