Conversation

mashoodkk: it is surprising to see an IITian in the sangh outfit. partly may be because i have been brought up in an anti RSS environment. But even if I shed all what has been imprinted on my mind by society, environment and upbringing and look into the matter with an objective eye, I find it hard to fathom how one could be part of an organisation which is evidently communal and preaches violence. I am perfectly aware that it wont care a shit to you how others feel....(i had a few friends during by bachelors ;) ]..but definitely would like to hear from you if you wont mind speaking ........

vikas: brother..i'd love to speak out and discuss the way you'd like it to.. but ..i'd like you to be precise with terms and defintions you quote..well i've and had a lot many frineds in IITs/IIMs and even at my work who share the same ideology of Cultural nationalism with me,,..i joined RSS around 8-9 years back..and I joined RSS not 'cause of anything but it has a feelling of patriotism and discipline..

"what has been imprinted on my mind by society, environment and upbringing"

if i may say you can wrap this whole "society, environment and upbringing" thing up in one word i.e. "MEDIA",..well RSS is the only thing which has ALWAYS been demonized by MEDIA....no act of RSS was/is never apprecialble..i directly dsicard this kind of totaly one sided and biased projection of anything..despite of anything.. i mean come on media talk about reconsidering their point of view towards Jinnah and Stalin..but RSS is still The untouchables...

whatever..

and
you are wrong..whatever you think and say is definately important to me..'cause i see myself as a PRACHARAK so what you got against my ideology is important for me for sure...as long as you are logical and reasonble..ok..so start this discussion now i'd like you to make these definition clear..
what is communal.
what is violence..
what is Hindutva.
what is culturaL nationalism.

i hope this whole discussion would be completely disassociated with the fact that we come from different communities..i'd rather like this to be associated with bein' an Indian..a responsible INDIAN..nationalism..

ciao tc:)

Mashoodkk: I consider an organisation communal and violent...........

If the organisation is responsible, directly or indirectly, in killing innocent peoples, just because they do not by birth follow the same ideology of sangh .............The organisation may give excuses and reasons which i consider lame....
If the organisation is involved in organised propaganda to incite hatred between people following different faiths, beliefs or ideas..

On a philosophical plane I also question the sacrosanctity that you people attach to nationalism. I am not against patriotism, but i am against stretching it too much. I consider humanism a more profound stand. The concept of a nation is arbitrary, it is a convention......but we humans when considered as a species, the unity has a more profound basis. Consider people living in the boundary of two nations. I think that there is no reason to consider one group as closer to us than the other just because of their nationality. Both the people share similar characteristics, cultural and biological sparing minor differences.

vikas: "On a philosophical plane I also question the sacrosanctity that you people attach to nationalism. I am not against patriotism, but i am against stretching it too much. I consider humanism a more profound stand. The concept of a nation is arbitrary, it is a convention......but we humans when considered as a species, the unity has a more profound basis.Consider people living in the boundary of two nations. I think that there is no reason to consider one group as closer to us than the other just because of their nationality. Both the people share similar characteristics, cultural and biological sparing minor differences. "

that is fine
AND

On a philosophical plane I QUESTION the SACROSANCTITY that you people attach to MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT,

this mathematics is beyond my reach that how talkin' NATIONALISM is opposing a son of soil or anyone. We got nothing against nobody irrespective of anything,
whatsoever it is. religion, nationality or anything AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTEND TO HARM ME. Now the thing is I am very sure that "State of Pakistan" has bad intentions for me, infiltration from Bnagla desh is hiking up everyday. India is sinophobic. Now if I teach my brothers that we should ne united and trained and committed enough to fight these invasions what's wrong in that. How am I harming anyone. If I say we should be prepared enough to fight terrorism,
naxalism or any other kind of separatism then what's wrong in that. How am I preaching killing innocent people.
you are saying HUMANISM, i don;t know what point of Nationalist agenda is anti-humanism.

We say

1. We should stop politics of disintegration on the name of language, religion, or regionalism or caste.

2. We should stop atrocities on muslim women on the name of religion.

3. We say constitution of India should treat us as merely indians ..native of India not as SANATAN DHARMI or MUSLIM or MARATHI or BHAIYA or SOUTH INDIAN or CHINKI or SC or ST.

4. We must preserve our spiritual heritage to guide nation and this world .

5. We say every single brother and sister of ours should be competent enough to both physically and intellectually to stand up for himself/herself and for the India when she needs 'em.

शांति

जिसमें युद्ध का सामर्थ्य नहीं, वो शान्ति का अधिकारी नहीं | शान्ति कोई ब्रहामण को भिक्षा में मिलने वाला अन्न नहीं, क्षत्रिय को युद्घ में प्राप्त होने वाला पारितोषिक है | यही इतिहास है , यही नीति और यही धर्मं भी |

BJP and Hindutva 07-07-2009

*This article is taken from Sharrayu Aroskar's blog on INDIAN EXPRESS*
*Mr. Saudagar is some stranger, I don't know his real name*
*I am Vikash Singh*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sharrayu Aroskar

I have been following the BJP quiet regularly in the media. There was a sizeable population who wanted BJP to be in power for intellect and integrity reasons. However, the rule was not destined to be in hand for next five years. Never the less BJP has emerged as a largest Opposition party and has a myriad contribution to make to influence the government policy decisions positively. BJP supporters in India and living abroad have been waiting since the results for the BJP top brass meeting and lessons thus learnt from introspection.

The media had BJP "atma-chintan" meeting on beat. Some did the job genuinely others either wanted to paint it black or gather news of street side gossip quality. Of the statements that came first from the print media, I was surprised to read one that stated "BJP would re-cast "Hindutva” Knowing the quality of journalism in this country in recent election times, I was waiting for the prints of speeches given by L.K. Advani and Rajnath Singh. It was good to see how BJP supported cultural nationalism.

Ever since I opened my mind and head to politics the word Hindutva was always talked of as a brand that is pro Hindu and anti Muslim. The word to ears also sounds like Hindu extremism these days. I have heard young college girls talk of voting for Congress because BJP is all good except for too much of Hindutva in them. Even educated urban population both settled in India and abroad abhors this word or translates it into Hindu communalism and hates the party or organization that uses it. Naturally its the BJP and RSS that bear the popular brunt.

It is surprising to see how cultural nationalism was tainted by handful of politicians. More surprising is how the people in general have accepted it and even more surprising is the irresponsible print and visual media that leaves the cultural pride of this country on back tracks to make sure they are running on fast TRP tracks.

In my opinion the term Hindutva coined by Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar is an exemplary concept that unites India with its various colors. It is one that makes the blue complement the orange and orange complement the green. It is one that is so essential within this country that it makes the intrusion of foreign rotten brain difficult to penetrate. This concept of Akhanda Bharat houses and encompasses every religion sect and cast. What is refers to is not those who pray like "Hindus" but those that call this motherland their "aai" "ma" "ammi" "mother" etc. When you analyze this a little more, you start observing examples around that support this concept.

I have relished the sheer kurama at friends place on Id. I was born on Pateti and hence Parsi New Year is celebrated in my home in India every year. Having studied in a convent school and alternatively living outside India for a while I and many of my friends who follow other religions except Christianity celebrate Christmas. All Hindu festivals are always celebrated. We look at the office holidays and regardless of the reason of Diwali, Id or Independence Day, it is always welcomed with all zest. In school what binds you in a group is not your caste or religion or language but it’s the culture that you share with your classmates and like experiences. A random someone following Islam doesn't backfire on Miyan Musharraf because he is a Muslim. He does that because he stands for a culture and knows that the rest, regardless of their religion will stand by his statement in praise and prove him right. It is not out of coincidence that you see Md. Azzaruddin of the Slumdog Millionaire fame touch feet on the podium in spite of being a Muslim. It is not random that a Muslim stands against imposed “Ghunghat” and a Hindu woman stands against forced “Burkha”.

What this states is that something that binds us all in this Indian subcontinent is not our religion or language it’s the culture that we grow in and experience till our death. This beautiful concept of "Akhanda Bharat" or United India was termed as "Hindutva" and every person who calls India his motherland was called a Hindu.

In light of this discussion, the word Hindutva essentially belongs to neither the Congress nor the BJP. It was coined by Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar who was an ardent freedom fighter and an iron man of Sardar Patel cadre. Thus it is the sub standard quality of the Congress thought and other pseudo secular parties to malign a concept that holds Indian culture together for petty votes. It is the arrogance and lack of understanding of common and historical India within the so called "High Command" that has further perpetuated this. It is shameful that the media endorses such actions and maligns parties like BJP and organizations like RSS. The aftermath of which is anti BJP undercurrent because of the use of the word Hindutva.

In my opinion, no party in this country has a right to recast Hindutva as they anyways weren't the creators of it. Only thing possible is to champion the concept to build a stronger India or build a secular concept better defined than “Hindutva” itself.


Comments

Saudaagar:

What is the difference between Indian values and Hindu values? RSS and BJP should replace the word Hindutva with \\\'Bhaartiyataa\\\' or Indianness.

I have struggled to understand the difference between 'Indian culture or Indian values' and 'Hindu culture or Hindutva'. If these two terms are used synonymously, then why not drop the word 'Hindutva' and use instead 'Indianness' and similarly replace the words 'Hindu' by 'Indian' or even 'Bhartiya' in all of the RSS and BJP philosophies and literature? This should eliminate ALL objection to their very existence from anybody.


Vikas Singh:

@ Mr. Saudagar!
I understand your confusion about the word HINDUTVA..but fyi..hindutva and hinduism are two different words.. this has been repeatedly made clear by early RSS leader like Guru Ji and as well as contemporary leaders like Sudarshan Ji, Atal Ji in lok sabha and more then that Hon'ble Supreme court in 1995.

Read this *In 1995, in a landmark judgment the Supreme Court of India observed that "Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, strange gods and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well-being of the world and mankind*

In fact the man who coined this concept of Hindutva Veer Savarkar was an athiest.

and one more thing if you must know the word Hindu was coined by middle eastern Muslims for native of HIND not by some RSS leader. In fact, Bharat is rather a religious word and was used to address descenders of "Kuru King Bharat " (Great grandfather of Dhratrashtra). Shri Krishn address' Arjun as Bhaarat in MAHABHARAT...since Bharat was the king of the whole nation and we are son of this nation we are BHAARAT.

Obviously nothing would be more stupid then an english word like INDIANESS. I mean seriously..tell me..8 million RSS cadres left their material life on the name of Maa Bharati and our culture and they don't even have a name for their culture in their own native languages.

Sweet home

I graith walls,
Walls that art bulwark,
Walls that hark,
Walls that art soothfast,
Walls that conceal,
Who I am or how I feel.

I graith walls:
Walls to imbosk,
to cover what’s withinforth,

Walls that art strait,
Walls that even avert our eyen
From the tears those might incline.
I graith walls:
Walls that nowise let me, truly touch
Walls that I love so very much.
Walls that need to fall!
Walls that meant to be bulwark
art prisons after all.

I graith walls,
Walls that throttle aught but shack,
Walls that left us alack,
Walls that cumber us in relation,
Walls that don’t fie,
Certes, that art our creation.

Politics and philosophy

Few lines from a conversation between

two great patriots
two great pundit of politics
two great philosophers

of Nanda's era

महामात्य कात्तायण: आज मैंने देख लिया आर्य! सच की परिभाषा व्यक्ति के साथ बदल जाती है | जिनकी भुजाओं में शक्ति होती है , उनकी मुट्ठी में सच होता है |
महामन्त्री षत्ताअर: जब यह जानते हो तो फिर क्यों व्यथित हो रहे हो अमात्य | यही दर्शन है और यही राजनीति भी |

Why this and why not that

Many people in our country hold the view that any venture that we undertake should be based on a grand world-thought capable of rendering good to the whole of humanity eschewing all narrow limitations of the country, community or religion. In support of this view, some proclaim that in this age of missiles and rockets distance has vanished, boundaries of countries have become meaningless and the whole world has shrunk. They, therefore, feel that the very concept of country, nation, etc., has become outdated, that the spirit of world unity alone should inspire all our activities. They conclude that the modern ‘isms’ which have taken up ‘internationalism’ as their watchword can alone lead us to that cherished goal.

Now, the question that naturally poses itself before us is how far is the task of reorganising the national life of Hindus taken by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, in conformity with the spirit of world unity and human good?

At the very outset, let it be made clear that it is not the modern thinkers who are the first in the field to think in terms of world unity and universal welfare. Long long ago, in fact, long before the so-called modern age had set in, the seers and savants of this land had delved deep into this vital question. The ideal of human unity, of a world free from all traces of conflict and misery, has stirred our hearts since times immemorial. Our one constant prayer all through the ages has been Let everyone be happy, let everyone be free from all ills While the present-day West has not been able to go beyond the motto of ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’, we have never tolerated the idea of a single human being – why, of even a single living organism – being miserable. ‘Total good of all beings’ has always been our glorious ideal.

But coming to the plane of the present-day world, we are faced with the hard reality of the all-round discord and disruption ravaging human society. Today, humanity is divided and subdivided into so many small exclusive groups called nations or states, each one of them devoted to its own narrow self-interest. And it is a matter of common experience that wherever there are groups inspired only by self-interest, there is bound to be mutual conflict. Obviously, human unity and welfare is impossible so long as this type of conflict continues. The present state of strifes and wars resulting in human destruction and misery has led many thinkers to conclude that the sentiment of nationalism which nourishes exclusive self-interest is the major obstacle in the way of world unity and human welfare. They, therefore, declare that nationalism should be rooted out from the minds of men all over the world. The Communist ideology which claims internationalism as its sheet-anchor often talks in this strain.

On the other hand, there is another school of thought, which holds that the roots of nationalism are so deep and long-standing that it is impossible to destroy them. Soviet Russia, which sought to discard nationalism in a bid to take to international communism soon learnt by experience that destruction of this sentiment deprives the people of the incentive for dedicated effort. In the first flush of revolution, material progress was no doubt achieved in Russia in a certain measure. Their first few Seven Year Plans were to an extent successful. But, by and by, the enthusiasm of the people began to wane, their incentive for work began to die away. Eventually, labour in big factories had to be forced to work at the point of bayonet. And again during the Second World War, when Hitler’s tanks were relentlessly pressing forward on the Russian soil, the slogan of ‘Internationalism’ and ‘Communism’ failed to enthuse the Russian people. This served as an eye-opener to the Russian leaders who found it absolutely essential to rouse the dormant patriotic sentiments of the Russian people by invoking their age-old loyalty to motherland and their heroic ancestors. It is evident, therefore, that it is devotion to one’s motherland, society and tradition experienced under the concept of nation that inspires the spirit of real service and sacrifice in the individual.

We can thus conclude that nationalism cannot and should not be destroyed. Then the problem boils down to one of achieving a synthesis of national aspirations and world welfare. Synthesis of various kinds have been, in fact, attempted from time to time in the past. Imperialism has sometimes been claimed to be one such large-scale effort to eliminate conflicts between smaller nations by making them limbs of a single empire. But as it was basically motivated by self-aggrandizement, leading to revolts by the subject nations against their oppression and exploitation, imperialism failed to eliminate international conflicts.

The League of Nations, formed after the First World War, was also an experiment in avoiding wars and achieving world unity. But within just two decades of its birth, the League of Nations was shattered to pieces on the rock of unbridled national ambitions and consequent conflicts. A more terrible war than all the previous ones besmirched the face of the earth with death and destruction. The UNO too, formed after the Second World War, is faring no better. Our own experience in the case of Kashmir issue tells us that it is incapable of meting out justice, of pulling up the erring members and bringing about an honourable amity among nations. It has been converted into an arena for international conflicts, the powerful nations trying to dominate its forum to further their expansionistic ends. The world is overcast with the dark clouds of a third world war which may, at any time, mean the sudden and total end of the present civilisation itself.

We thus see that nations are not prepared to come together in a spirit of amity for the welfare of mankind. On the contrary, the national entities are getting more and more exclusive and their ambitions whetted day by day. Newer nations are also coming up on the world stage. The entire face of the world is covered with conflicts between nations.

In short, nationalism cannot be destroyed; all attempts to harmonise the national ambitions so far have also utterly failed; and the world is on the brink of a nuclear holocaust. Then, which way lies the salvation for humanity? No answer to this challenge seems to be forthcoming. Thinkers, the world over, are on the horns of a dilemma.