December 3, 2006)
The Hindu Rashtra and its exclusions
Rejecting secularism: Celebrating Golwalkar's birth centenary in Bhopal. Photo: A.M. Faruqui
MADHAV SADASHIV GOLWALKAR, the chief mentor and ideologue of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for 33 years, believed that freedom in 1947 had left two significant issues unresolved. The first was the question of the relations between various communities. The resolution of this problem, Golwalkar felt, was closely linked to a second question, namely, that of defining the idea of `pure' nationalism. For him, the idea of nationalism and nationhood had not even been born in this country.
Title of `ownership'
In sharp contrast to what Golwalkar and the RSS regarded as the prevailing misguided notions of the nation, the Sangh's founder, Dr. K.B. Hedgewar, had come to the conclusion that an ancient country like India with a unified past ought to be a nation. He realised, says Golwalkar, that from the very beginning this land was a Hindu nation, not the `patchwork quilt' that the Congress had envisioned. The nation had to be founded on the basis of reviving Hindu culture and forging unity on the basis of culture.
Having rejected the secular foundations of free India and ridiculed the substance of the freedom won in 1947, Golwalkar proceeds to establishing a clear title of `ownership' of the nation for the Hindus. He exhorted the Hindus to emphatically claim that they represented the very roots of this land, that they constituted its primary and only component. The very existence of this nation, he adds, is the responsibility of Hindu society.
Establishing the primacy of the Hindus was relatively simple. Golwalkar's story begins a thousand years ago, when, according to him, there was no one in this country other than Hindus. Of course, there were many sects, denominations, languages, castes and kingdoms, but all of these were Hindu. The Shakas, the Huns and the Greeks came, but they had to become Hindus. They failed to contaminate and corrupt Hindu society. Rather, Hindu society managed to absorb them completely. The situation was very different now. Hindus have had to share their land with other religions and communities.
Defining a `Hindu' was a far more complex task. A Hindu is one, Golwalkar explains, who believes in `our' historical tradition, who reveres `our' great men, and who has faith in `our' principles of life. Here, the possessive adjective `our' stands for Golwalkar's idea of a historically eternal, though momentarily fractured, Hindu society.
Acutely aware that confining the Hindu Rashtra to Hindus alone would invite charges of narrowness and communalism, Golwalkar rejects such charges as a sign of lack of clarity and residual slavishness. For him, there was one truth and this truth had to be announced to the world loudly and clearly: Hindus represent the idea of the national in this country. Whether other communities remained in the country or not was neither his concern nor that of the Sangh.
Clear exposition
In recent years, the Sangh and its affiliates have argued that the term `Hindu' indicates a civilisational sense rather than a religious one. This contradicts Golwalkar's clear exposition of Hindu Rashtra and its composition. He was emphatic that the word `Hindu' was not a generic term.
Savarkar had defined Hindutva in terms of fidelity to Pitrabhu (Fatherland), Matribhu (Motherland) and Punyabhu (Holy Land). Golwalkar incorporates the classification offered by Savarkar, and adds three more elements to it. For him, the Hindu Rashtra was punyabhoomi, matribhoomi, pitrubhoomi, dharmabhoomi or the land of one's pieties, karmabhoomi or the land of one's actions, and mokshabhoomi or the land of one's salvation. The Motherland was Bharatmata, and she was the mother of the Hindus. Anyone who forcibly enters her `house' cannot be a `son' of the Motherland. As such, Golwalkar insisted, it was important for Hindu society to understand that Muslims and Christians were enemies.
No friendship
Golwalkar's ire was usually directed towards the Muslims, but he often included Christians in his construction of a rogues' gallery. The question of treating them as friends did not arise. Only the Hindus, who were the progeny of this land, could be masters of this nation. Muslims and Christians could never be either children or masters of the nation because they were attackers. Those who have converted to Islam and Christianity, he asserts, have not merely altered their form of worship. They had also forsaken their religion, society and national life. The Muslims had even encroached on the territories of Hindustan and had cut the Motherland into pieces. For this reason alone, they could not even be considered `national'.
What if the Muslims and Christians were to reject Golwalkar's vision of the Hindu Rashtra and not call themselves Hindu? Golwalkar was categorical that all those Muslims and Christians, whose ancestors were Hindu, must abandon their newly acquired faiths and return to the Hindu fold. If they failed to comply, Hindus ought to follow the example of Vikramaditya. He avenged his father's murder by organising a formidable strength and drove the aliens out of this land. There were other inspirations to follow in the matter of dealing with desecration of the Motherland. Parashuram avenged his father's humiliation by offering him libations of blood of those who had insulted him. Likewise, the only way to worship the Motherland after she had been defiled, warns Golwalkar, would be to wash it with the blood of those who dared commit such an act.
JYOTIRMAYA SHARMA
