Bharat Rakshak

The core flaw of Hindutva or the tradition of political Hinduism founded by Savarkar is that it incorporates an envy of Islam's ruthlesness and insularity, and Islamism's ability to mobilise communities.

Rather than building on Hinduism's strengths, it tries in its toned down and limited fashion to borrow Islam's strength - the party line, and the intrinsic reliance on physical intimidation by other believers to prevent the flock from straying from it.

While Hindus like *all* human beings are capable of such behaviour, it is not part of Hindu philosophical tradition, and political Hinduism's attempt to incorporate it is self-defeating.

Savarkar wanted to create a 'new' Hindu, one who imitated the fierce sense of communal religious defence against the outsider in-built in to Islam while incorporating Western scientific, corporate and political dynamism.

It all starts with a belief that you dont have what it takes to survive.

Islam and Islamism is NOT going to inherit the earth.

Evangelical Christianity's challenge to Hinduism is quite different from that of Islam, but they are not going to win over India, let alone the world.

While evangelical Christianity's desire to persuade people to convert is alien and irritating to Hindus, the real source of friction today is fear among many Hindus that Christianity's ways are some how more effective - that in the end they will steal the majority of Hindus and others away.

Very lucid and very interesting. Probably true as well. I can see why Savarkar thought the way he did. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint in a straightforward manner.

Hindutva at work
In this prolonged furious conflict our people became intensely conscious of ourselves as Hindus and were welded into a nation to an extent unknown in our history. It must not be forgotten that we have all along referred to the progress of the Hindu movement as a whole and not to that of any particular creed or religious section thereof—of Hindutva and not Hinduism only. Sanatanists, Satnamis, Sikhs, Aryas, Anaryas, Marathas and Madrasis, Brahmins and Panchamas—all suffered as Hindus and triumphed as Hindus. Both friends and foes contributed equally to enable the words Hindu and Hindusthan to supersede all other designations of our land and our people. Aryavarta and Daxinapatha, Jambudweep and Bharatvarsha none could give so eloquent an expression to the main political and cultural point at issue as the word, Hindusthan could do. All those on this side of the Indus who claimed the land from Sindhu to Sindhu, from the Indus to the seas, as the land of their birth, felt that they were directly mentioned by that one single expression, Hindusthan. The enemies hated us as Hindus and the whole family of peoples and races, of sects and creeds that flourished from Attock to Cuttack was suddenly individualised into a single Being. We cannot help dropping the remark that no one has up to this time taken the whole field of Hindu activities from A.D. 1300 to 1800 into survey from this point of view, mastering the details of the various now parallel, now correlated movements from Kashmir to Ceylon and from Sindh to Bengal and yet rising higher above them all to visualise the whole scene in its proportion as an integral whole. For it was the one great issue to defend the honour and independence of Hindusthan and maintain the cultural unity and civic life of Hindutva and not Hinduism alone, but Hindutva. -i. e. Hindudharma that was being fought out on the hundred fields of battle as well as on the floor of the chambers of diplomacy. This one word, Hindutva, ran like a vital spinal cord through our
whole body politic and made the Nayars of Malabar weep over the sufferings of the Brahmins of Kashmir. Our bards bewailed the fall of Hindus, our seers roused the feelings of Hindus, our heroes fought the battles of Hindus, our saints blessed the efforts of Hindus, our statesmen moulded the fate of Hindus, our mothers wept over the wounds and gloried over the triumphs of Hindus.
It would require a volume if we were to substantiate these remarks by quoting all the words and writings of our forefathers that bear on the point. But the argument in hand does not allow us to be drawn aside even by so alluring a task as that. Consequently we must content ourselves with quoting a few eloquent lines either from the lips or the pen of some of the foremost representatives of our Hindu race.

Having thus tried to trace the successive chapters of the history of the words Hindu and Hindusthan from the earliest Vedic period to the fall of the last of our Hindu empire in 1818 A. D., we are now in a position to address ourselves to the main task of determining the essentials of Hindutva. The first result of our enquiry is to explode the baseless suspicion which has crept into the minds of some of our well-meaning but hasty countrymen that the origin of the words Hindu and Hindusthan is to be traced to the malice of the Mohammedans! After all that has been said in the previous paragraphs about the history of these words, this suspicion seems so singularly stupid that to mention it is to refute it. Long before Mohammad was born, nay, long before the Arabians were heard of as a people, this ancient nation was known to ourselves as well as to the foreign world by the proud epithet Sindhu or Hindu and Arabians could not have invented this term, any more than they could have invented the Indus itself.

Essential implications of Hindutva
But throughout our inquiry we have been concerning ourselves more with what would have been or what should be. Not that to paint what should be is not a legitimate pursuit; nay, it is as necessary and at times more stimulating; but even that could be better done by first getting a firm hold of what actually is. We must try, therefore, to be on our guard so that in our attempt to determine the essentials of Hindutva we be guided entirely by the actual contents of the word as it stands at present. So although the root-meaning of the word Hindu like the sister epithet Hindi may mean only an Indian, yet as it is we would be straining the usage of words too much—we fear, to the point of breaking-if we call a Mohammedan a Hindu because of his being a resident of India. It may be that at some future time the word Hindu may come to indicate a citizen of Hindusthan and nothing else; that day can only rise when all cultural and religious bigotry has disbanded its forces pledged to aggressive egoism, and religions cease to be 'isms' and become merely the common fund of eternal principles that lie at the root of all that are a common foundation on which the Human State majestically and firmly rests. But as even the first streaks of this consummation, so devoutly to be wished for, are scarcely discernible on the horizon, it would be folly for us to ignore stern realities. As long as every other 'ism' has not disowned its special dogmas, whichever tend into dangerous war cries, so long no cultural or national unit can afford to loosen the bonds, especially those of a common name and a common banner, that are the mighty sources of organic cohesion and strength. An American may become a citizen of India. He would certainly be entitled, if bona fide, to be 'treated as our Bharatiya or Hindi, a countryman and a fellow citizen of ours. But as long as in addition to our country, he has not adopted our culture and our history, inherited our blood and has come to look upon our land not only as the land of his love but even of his worship, he cannot get himself incorporated into the Hindu fold. For although the first requisite of Hindutva is that he be a citizen of Hindusthan either by himself or through his forefathers, yet it is not the only requisite qualification of it, as the term Hindu has come to mean much more than its geographical significance.

Who is a Hindu ?
The words Hindutva and Hinduism both of them being derived from the word Hindu, must necessarily be understood to refer to the whole of the Hindu people. Any definition of Hinduism that leaves out any important section of our people and forces them either to play false to their convictions or to go outside the pale of Hindutva stands self-condemned. Hinduism means the system of religious beliefs found common amongst the Hindu people. And the only way to find out what those religious beliefs of the Hindus are, i. e., what constitutes Hinduism, you must first define a Hindu. But forgetting this chief implication of the word, Hinduism which clearly presupposes an independent conception of a Hindu many people go about to determine the essentials of Hinduism and finding none so satisfactory as to include, without overlapping all our Hindu communities, come to the desperate conclusion—which does not satisfy them either —that therefore those communities are not Hindus at all; not because the definition they had framed is open to the fault of exclusion but because those communities do not subject themselves to the required tenets which these gentlemen have thought it fit to lable as 'Hinduism'. This way of answering the question 'who is a Hindu' is really prepostereus and has given rise to so much of bitterness amongst some of our brethren of Avaidik school of thought, the Sikh, the Jain, the Devsamaji and even our patriotic and progressive Aryasamajis.
'Who is a Hindu ?' —he who is subject to the tenets of Hinduism. Very well. What is Hinduism ?— those tenets to which the Hindus are subjected. This is very nearly arguing in a circle and can never lead to a satisfactory solution. Many of our friends who have been on this wrong track have come back to tell us ' there are no such people as Hindus at all!'

Reading this thread, it seems to me that this is not a religion thread because
(a) it is only about Hinduism. Religion is a generic word for all religions.
(b) Hinduism is not a religion - some participants here say. Since English language doesnt have a word to describe "dharma", therefore the practice of Hinduism was named religion because this is what it corresponded with in "those" days.

I suggest that this thread be renamed to Hindu Dharma Discussions because effectively this is what it has turned into. If this was a religion thread we would have discussions of all religions. But we have no religion represented here.

Someone please tell them, if anyone thinks they are doing good and need to move out of a state of intellectual calcification.

Indra, Varuna, Aryama, Agni, Usha, Prajapati, Yama, Ashwini, Rudra, Vishnu, Medha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Devi and many others are there in the Rgveda. So, proliferation of the deities happened right at the first step IMHO.

India needs hindu systems for its very identity. For people objecting to Savarkar's Hindutva -- yes RSS cannot be Hindu India's intellecual basis, but it the working arm and should be appreciated for its action. So there is no point trying to misinterpret the role of it in the modern Hindu sphere.

Like any Sanghi I think this will be my first and probably last post on Sangh. Just my 2 paisa.

Shivji who is projecting Sangh in same category as LeT? .

[

As a person I am not one to take the attitude of "Giving up and letting the media (or anyone) get away with the wrong impression". I believe in fighting till the last breath is squeezed out of me.

Shiv frankly Hinduism is a such rich human heritage that I dont think as long as human race exist, its in danger of being lost or wiped out..

And while we are on this journey, if we discover that the knowledge given to us by thinkers in the past can be in some way useful to teach and assist children who are being born now and yet to be born, then it must be our unshakeable duty to ensure that those thoughts are preserved and propagated.
Preservation and propagation of those thoughts and that knowledge means doing what it takes to oppose or neutralize those forces that seek to destroy that knowledge.
There is no room for inaction.

Question was asked that how come Comrade Dange who do not believe in Hindu thotand did everything according to the vedic books he spat on?

My personal opinion is that the RSS nees to get out of that stupid enormous khaki chaddi image before they can think about the future.

Times have moved on - everybody knows it. What's in it for the RSS to stay put with its old image which includes plenty of bad and less good?

Somebody tell them please.

I believe that Hindus only talk about open minds and greatness. But those open minds and that greatness was closed some centuries ago and modern day Hindus go about life afraid to move or change anything - afraid that anything they do will shatter their faith forever. Modern Hindus, especially the fossilized mindsets that purport to "save" Hinduism may be the best gift to Evanjihadism and islam - who won their battle ages ago by killing new thought. Hinduism is nothing if it is not about new thought, questioning and moving ahead.

The current "protectors" of hinduism are like a millstone around one's neck

They firmly believe in doing grass route work and building its base there. I don't know about anyone else but have you realised that Sangh which once was labeled as Nagpur Brahmin's club now has one of the most robust programme in SC/ST and especially tribal communities in MP and UP.

The RSS is said is doing good work. But the RSS has a serious image problem and the harm it does to the image of Hindus is far greater than the non publicized good work it does - considering the amount of publicized good work that EJs do.

And while we are on this journey, if we discover that the knowledge given to us by thinkers in the past can be in some way useful to teach and assist children who are being born now and yet to be born, then it must be our unshakeable duty to ensure that those thoughts are preserved and propagated.
Preservation and propagation of those thoughts and that knowledge means doing what it takes to oppose or neutralize those forces that seek to destroy that knowledge.
There is no room for inaction.

Gurudev, Rg-Veda is loaded with deities (Devas). Just because vedics didn't have temples and statues, and had only fire-rituals, doesn't mean that they didn't have Gods/Goddesses.

Indra, Varuna, Aryama, Agni, Usha, Prajapati, Yama, Ashwini, Rudra, Vishnu, Medha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Devi and many others are there in the Rgveda. So, proliferation of the deities happened right at the first step IMHO.

A kshatriya people known as the "Mauryas" who had received the relics of the Buddha are also mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. Then the Moriyas of Pipphalivana came to know that at Kusinara the Blessed One had passed away. And they sent a message to the Mallas of Kusinara, saying: "The Blessed One was of the warrior caste, and we are too. We are worthy to receive a portion of the relics of the Blessed One. We will erect a stupa over the relics of the Blessed One and hold a festival in their honor."

Claims that the Mauryas were the Muras or rather Mors and were kshatriyas of Indo-Scythian origin have been proposed. Based on Plutarch's evidence, other historians state that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Ashvaka or Assakenoi clan of Swat/Kunar valley ( modern Mer-coh or Koh-I-Mor — the Meros of the classical writings). Ashvakas were a section of the Kambojas who were exclusively engaged in horse-culture and were noted for renting out their cavalry services

In fact you might as well say "This is a right wing paper. No need to read it. Read left wing and other literature and learn what they have to say about right wing and you can safely assume that we are all that and more, since we are a right wing paper"

Sorry Murugan. Did you have to score two psy-ops own goals in two posts? Don't intend to hurt you but stating that a "Right wing paper" should be started is like getting both testicles surgically removed on the day before one's wedding.

When you state the intent to start a "right wing paper" you are instantly putting off lots of fence sitters who might otherwise read the paper.