Why is "Hindu Nationalism" spoken of in a pejorative sense?

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 14 Dec 2014 21:47

we did not have science, nor logic (still they called it nyaya), nor knowledge of medicines (except ayurveda), not even iota of knowledge about surgery (except that of sushruta), nor psychology (except patanjali's work) and only one grammarian Panini... Lagging behind in all other sciences like alchemy, astronomy, mathematics etc.

Also naiyayiks unnecessarily indulged themselves in finding out deeper meanings of various subjects, e.g., definition of definition. And some few more illogical things, as apparent from one of the sacred books of Hindus...

https://ia801406.us.archive.org/35/item ... s_1913.pdf

And all these books/works are called sciences of Hindus which Hindus could not define, and now we have to define with the borrowed sense from extraordinary goras. And these dirty hindus tried to indulge in art of sex called Kamasutra.

***

GHQ says that only those who are jealous of hindus or suffering from inferiority complex will call Hindu Nationalism pejoratively .

***

what is hindutva?

Gods of hindus viz, Rama, Krishna, Narsimha, Parshuram etc could not perform many miracles. Rama's only miracle was to bring alive 'stoned' ahilya, krihna's was to provide 'saree', narsimha to come out of a pillar other than that they had to do all things that a lay person has to do.

Hanuman-ji committed more miracles and then vishnu's avatar Rama.

that is not enough, Hindus can even say that gods came after creation and still can survive and live life fearlessly...as one recites in Nasadiya Sukta of Rigved

कॊ आद्धा वॆद क‌।इह प्रवॊचत् कुत आअजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टि: ।
अर्वाग्दॆवा आस्य विसर्जनॆनाथाकॊ वॆद यत आबभूव ॥६॥

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

***

ॐ ! सृष्टि निर्माता, स्वर्ग रचयिता पूर्वज रक्षा कर
सत्य धर्म पालक अतुल जल नियामक रक्षा कर
फैली हैं दिशायें बाहु जैसी उसकी सब में सब पर
ऐसे ही देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर
ऐसे ही देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 14 Dec 2014 22:08

Rama Told Vibhishana

"An enmity not to last beyond death. Our purpose has been served. Now, He is as much my brother as yours. Hence, perform his last rites and cremate him.

Dharma demands that you perform his last rites with proper ceremony at the earliest. This will earn you good name"

Such decency even with dead enemies is also part of Hindutva

***

After Afzal khan was killed, some soldiers of Shivaji Mahara brough head of Afzal khan on a spike to Shivaji. Shivaji told his soldiers that once an enemy is dead he is dead. Do all his last rite carefully and bury him properly. Lord Rama's real anugami...

(Today, more muslims go to pratapgad to offer their 'obeisance' to dead Afzal Khan, Hindus still argue over Hindutva ...)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 14 Dec 2014 22:37

Murugan ji,

how to treat the dead of the enemy really depends on what the beliefs of the enemy cult are. Sometimes it is far more important to the enemy what happens to his dead body than how he lives!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Dec 2014 00:22

There is one aspect that many identify with RW Hindutva baseness that has not been mentioned here. That of propensity towards the early to mid 20th century Fascist movements. There is both fact and fallacy in this judgement ironically. While movements like RSS were impressed with the 'discipline' and possibly many were happy that the Germans were fighting the British, they did copy paste some superficial attributes (Atleast) of the then fascists and transcribe it to their practice till date. The famous Khaki shorts are one visible aspect. Immediately if one looks at that aspect one can glean that the RSS too are not that decolonized if not Macaulized as they claim. The claim has a ring of truth to it when one hears RSS stalwarts rambling about Hitler. THe MSM just latches onto that and a barrage of coverage does nothing but reinforce the view that RSS = Fascist. Hindutva organizations did little to dispel the notion. ANd till they do so they will suffer pernicious and fallacious linkages to some of the worst aspects of the 20th century.

The idiocy is that the RW have really done little to no Karma to actually get equated to the Fascists, yet have drawn publicity to themselves through misplaced Goebbelization (not Macaulyzation) that they have some great affinity to the Fascists aims etc. Absolutely no endeavour has ever been undertaken to dispel that notion even though no act of the RW has really ever resembled what the SS and Nazis did. So why stick to an image that is regressed and not what you are. Even Subhas Bose who actually hobnobbed with the SS, Nazis, Jap imperialists did the Nazi salute, wore military fatigues etc got away in the eyes of the secularatii intellectuals (probably because he shunned Hindutva types), but he did.

So on one hand the Hindutvaadi borrows heavily the superficial aspect from the European Fascists and on the other it blames Nehru for being colonized. This is an apparent contradiction that any right thinking person will realize. Couple that with some wild statements emanating from some top Hindutvaadis about Hitler etc, the general public turns away and assumes the lies about RW = Fascism are sort of true. Then some Ram Sena types smash a few restaurants and harass couples in the name of culture, you have millions turning away from Dharmic roots and not willing to listen to what you have to say. The equations of RSS = LeT = IS start being put out without much questions asked.

Image building doesn't come by outmaneouvering someone asking you about which epistemological approach by saying please tell me by which Metaphysocotheologicocosminological approach are you taking etc. Anyone who starts using academic gobbledygook in an argument has actually lost it in a similar way Godwins is evoked. So no the image of RW is not not going to be made up if some stalwarts start counter doling academic gobbledygook! Is the RW really affected by Early- Mid 20th century Fascist ideology? IS it? If it is, then it is guilty of being as influenced by foreign imports/ ideologies as the Macaulyzed seculars, or the Maoist Naxals, or the Marxist Commies. Not rising/getting above that is the real reason why Hindu Nationalism is spoken in the Pejorative sense. Think about it. One will realize this is bang on.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Dec 2014 00:49

harbans ji,

what would RSS have to believe in and how would it have to act to be considered fascist? Let's go beyond the labels and try to get at the core of fascism in the Indian context.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Dec 2014 01:10

Rajesh Ji, i am saying RSS isn't anything like the scummy Fascist organizations of the early 20th Century! They cannot be, its not in the DNA! And if they are not, then they shouldn't be keeping the superficial attributes about themselves. If they were like the Fascists they'd go to a village, line up 20 Muslim boys and shoot them dead, every week or 10 days or so. It would have happened quite regularly all round the country. This hasn't though happened in 70 years or more. The RW either has acted in bravado some sole incident here or there like the Pune Techie killed or as a reaction to extreme provocation as in Godhra (where it wasn't RSS as such at all!Congis on either side during riots with many convicted.)

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Dec 2014 01:29

shiv wrote:If you ask my opinion, I am an RSS supporter although I oppose khaki shorts. I think the RSS does have loftier goals than a simple opposition to Christianity and Islam. Of course the RSS has a history, but they also have thinkers, goals and a stated intent to hold on to principles. They do believe in a degree of regimentation and discipline. I see no problem with that. If RSS is Hindutva, its goals to me appear more than blind opposition to Abrahamic religions. There is a genuine intent to work on and uplift Hindu society - at least in my view.

BJP is a political party that likes to call itself "Hindutva". But its goals are hardly restricted to opposing Muslims and Christians.

Fringe and splinter groups like Ranveer sena and Sri Ram sene must be the real Hindutva vadis because they are the ones who are dedicated to the narrow goals of opposing Christians and Muslims, which is what Hindutva is meant to be.

So what is Hindutva?

I am returning to this thread after a long break, and find that it has moved quite a lot, and it is not possible to catch up on all that has been said. So, my apologies if this post ignores things that have already been discussed.

One reason I can think of this contradiction between current "Hindutva" expression (utterances of Sadhvi etc.) and the grander vision of Modi is that slavery is inherently a degrading experience; it makes the enslaved or oppressed nation / tribe / culture / community more stupid, more tamasic than it would have been as a free people. When said group emerges from slavery, it struggles to rise out of the mire and into the ranks of dynamic, civilized humanity, and in the early stages of that struggle, there will be some period marked by absurd, outlandish, or counterproductive expressions.

This insight comes from having paid some attention to the African-American experience in America. Black Author Richard Wright rebelled against his American Communist patrons in writing "Native Son" which is an honest portrayal of the brutalizing effects that oppression has on Blacks; the Communists wanted him to present Blacks as noble victims for propaganda purposes. The later experience of Blacks in the 1950s and beyond, with Elijah Mohammed inventing outlandish mythologies to explain Black-white relationships and the whole Black Muslim movement etc., bears out this struggle to emerge from the darkness of oppression and the misfiring attempts at self-expression.

Indians don't like to think they have anything in common with Blacks, as a rule. Yet I think we share the experience of oppression, and its consequences, with some differences: We started with a deeper culture, and were never physically uprooted from our land; on the other hand, our oppression lasted far longer.

We (Indian upper middle classes in India and abroad) have, in general, better abilities to write computer programs and do integral calculus, and have fatter bank accounts. I think we have allowed these factors to deceive us into believing that we are not actually dalits, which we are in the literal sense.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 15 Dec 2014 02:34

Agnimitra wrote:
JE Menon wrote:Having said that, I personally think the usage of words like "haraamzade" etc to describe just about everyone who is not a Hindu is not a good thing to do.
I don't think that's what the sadhvi did at all. She was talking about corrupt politicians -- most of them "Hindu" -- and then said that the people have to choose between corrupt people who have no interest in promoting dharma, versus those who do -- and so said Ramzade versus Haramzade, since Rama is maryada purshottam and all that.

"Haram" means those who transgress the limits set by Allah. Hindus and Sikhs have always maintained that they see oneness between Allah and Ram or any other holy Name. To quote the Guru Granth:

'Koi bole raam raam, koi khuda hai
Koi seve gossaiyan, koi allah hai
Kaaran karan kareem, kirpa dhaar raheem'

Another verse:

Aval Allah Noor Upaya, Kudrat ke sab bande
Ek noor keh sab jag
upjeya, kaun bhale kaun mande'

Thus, the sadhvi was not using these terms in any sectarian sense, as far as I could make out. In fact the whole point of Hindutva is to have our Muslims agree that Ram=Allah rather than that Ram=Haraam.

That was my reaction too, on reading Jyoti's words. The correct response to the protest would have been to point out that it had nothing to do with non-Hindus, only those misbegotten betrayers of the people.

Looks to me like the BJP is good at first-strike zingers, but is routinely unprepared for the second-strike when the riposte comes from the enemy. I hope Modi understood enough to be able to know that "haramzade" doesn't necessarily refer to non-Hindus; he may have apologized and moved on, as otherwise he would get dragged into the mud by the opposition.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 15 Dec 2014 02:39

OT:
"Native Son" is highly recommended. Infact a must read for anyone who has been on the receiving side of oppression. A little bit of American history around the late 1890s is needed to absorb it completely but its certainly not a necessary condition.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 15 Dec 2014 02:50

One thing India has failed is in producing more people like Balu. There are so many people like Balu (essentially true post-colonialists) in the Black American community and the African post colonial movement.

It is truly surprising to me that a culture having such a depth of thinkers in its past failed to produce more post colonial thinkers after the colonialist mass murderers were long gone. Instead our macaulayized elites went on to colonize the rest of our population while trying to ape the opressors in every possible way, as much of what is being described here attests to.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 15 Dec 2014 02:53

Here are some post colonial authors if someone is interested:
1) Frantz Fanon : Wretched of the Earth, Black Skin, White Masks (must read)
2) Albert Memi : The colonizer and the Colonized (must read, it is a quick read but very deep and seminal).
3) Edward Said

There are many many others.

We have a Balu as far as I know, and RM to some extent.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Dec 2014 03:01

harbans wrote:Rajesh Ji, i am saying RSS isn't anything like the scummy Fascist organizations of the early 20th Century! They cannot be, its not in the DNA! And if they are not, then they shouldn't be keeping the superficial attributes about themselves. If they were like the Fascists they'd go to a village, line up 20 Muslim boys and shoot them dead, every week or 10 days or so. It would have happened quite regularly all round the country. This hasn't though happened in 70 years or more. The RW either has acted in bravado some sole incident here or there like the Pune Techie killed or as a reaction to extreme provocation as in Godhra (where it wasn't RSS as such at all!Congis on either side during riots with many convicted.)

The way the Seculars behave themselves, it reminds me of guerrilla tactics. They hit and move on! They can hit you with fascist, chauvinist, bigot, fundamentalist, primitive, or something else, and then they move on. Their attacks consist of manufactured outrage and ridicule, misrepresentation and lies.

Basically to indulge them with responses is to give them more respect than they deserve.

The main problem is that they control the babudom, vocal NGOs, media, education and have alliances with Abrahamist street power. So one can't just shoo them away as barking dogs as one would want to.

Besides the foreign media are outside the jurisdiction of India, and would continue to paint India and Modi black.

Modi's work is to destroy the Secular infrastructure without causing fires all across India. BJP doesn't want it to look like they are waging whole scale war but the controllers of secular infrastructure would be taken down through "sniper fire", one by one, where the hand would not even be visible. As they say, let the law take its own course.

Coming back to the sloganeering, in Indian context the Secular slogans do not really work out. If you call RSS as fascist, no Indian really understands what these Seculars mean, as India has not really lived through the European fascist experience, unless one uses the example of the British and Portuguese. Because GoI and many global Indians really care about what others think about us, we get embarrassed when somebody calls us "fascist". Secular's contribution is to embarrass RSS in front of the world. I don't really think they have that big an impact on Indians in India, except may be the AAP kind. Now Hindutvavadis too can start calling Seculars fascists, which would perhaps be appropriate, but then the question arises, which gallery are we trying to impress. Indians don't care, and Westerners wouldn't believe Hindutvavadis. That is why we don't really get much into a dueling match with the Seculars.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Dec 2014 06:45

KLNMurthy wrote:
Looks to me like the BJP is good at first-strike zingers, but is routinely unprepared for the second-strike when the riposte comes from the enemy. I hope Modi understood enough to be able to know that "haramzade" doesn't necessarily refer to non-Hindus; he may have apologized and moved on, as otherwise he would get dragged into the mud by the opposition.

She was calling politicians "haramzade" I guess. That was the problem

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Dec 2014 06:56

harbans wrote:There is one aspect that many identify with RW Hindutva baseness that has not been mentioned here. That of propensity towards the early to mid 20th century Fascist movements. There is both fact and fallacy in this judgement ironically. While movements like RSS were impressed with the 'discipline' and possibly many were happy that the Germans were fighting the British, they did copy paste some superficial attributes (Atleast) of the then fascists and transcribe it to their practice till date. The famous Khaki shorts are one visible aspect. Immediately if one looks at that aspect one can glean that the RSS too are not that decolonized if not Macaulized as they claim. The claim has a ring of truth to it when one hears RSS stalwarts rambling about Hitler. THe MSM just latches onto that and a barrage of coverage does nothing but reinforce the view that RSS = Fascist. Hindutva organizations did little to dispel the notion. ANd till they do so they will suffer pernicious and fallacious linkages to some of the worst aspects of the 20th century.

The idiocy is that the RW have really done little to no Karma to actually get equated to the Fascists, yet have drawn publicity to themselves through misplaced Goebbelization (not Macaulyzation) that they have some great affinity to the Fascists aims etc. Absolutely no endeavour has ever been undertaken to dispel that notion even though no act of the RW has really ever resembled what the SS and Nazis did. So why stick to an image that is regressed and not what you are. Even Subhas Bose who actually hobnobbed with the SS, Nazis, Jap imperialists did the Nazi salute, wore military fatigues etc got away in the eyes of the secularatii intellectuals (probably because he shunned Hindutva types), but he did.

So on one hand the Hindutvaadi borrows heavily the superficial aspect from the European Fascists and on the other it blames Nehru for being colonized. This is an apparent contradiction that any right thinking person will realize. Couple that with some wild statements emanating from some top Hindutvaadis about Hitler etc, the general public turns away and assumes the lies about RW = Fascism are sort of true. Then some Ram Sena types smash a few restaurants and harass couples in the name of culture, you have millions turning away from Dharmic roots and not willing to listen to what you have to say. The equations of RSS = LeT = IS start being put out without much questions asked.

An excellent assessment Harbans. Nandy's article posted earlier mentions Savarkar being influenced by the fascist movements in Europe. To some they appeared good at the time but WW2 and the "History written by the victors" changed all that. And you are right in pointing out that "Hindutva" gets a vicarious bad name from that old association without proper karma in the genocide genre

The interesting thing is that a mind colonized by English speaking people's worldview is seen (in the west and in India) as better than a mind colonized by a German speaking people's world view.

The entire world is never far from recalling Nazi atrocities - but no one is even going to recall Brit or more recently American actions that led to much death and destruction. Why? It's all about historiography. What is recorded becomes "History". If it is not recorded, it never happened.

So it is still going on.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Dec 2014 12:07

A dated view but provides an indication of where Indian academia is on the issue. Painting all of academia with the same brush stroke would be a mistake.

Ashis Nandy, T.N. Madan, & Rajeev Bhargava

Earlier, we had sensible public figures who were also deeply religious. Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Vivekananda used to speak with credibility on behalf of the vast majority of religiously minded Indians. Today, what we have is an unfortunate polarization between an influential and articulate minority of secularists and the vast majority of silent, religiously minded Indians. Neither takes the trouble to understand the other, and what we have as a result is a dialogue of the deaf. We need to hear the many reasonable voices of good sense within the Hindu and Muslim religious communities, surely, there must be a few courageous individuals who will speak up before their faith is totally hijacked by the terrorists!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Dec 2014 14:39

harbans ji,

Here is an article by Koenraad Elst on Nazi influence on RSS and its leaders. Was Guru Golwalkar a Nazi ?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Dec 2014 15:40

Makarand Paranjape
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm
http://makarand.com/acad/

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Dec 2014 15:50

Kapil Kapoor, e.g.,
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/indic ... apoor3.pdf

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Dec 2014 16:33

^^The dance that the RSS does in saving the honor of guruji, in light of his plagarised and immature works of "We" is amusing to watch. People will forgive that blunder called We, provided the RSS is sincere in its efforts on the ground and show that the vision of We has no place in its practices and thoughts. Are we convinced?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 15 Dec 2014 17:08

ShauryaT wrote:^^The dance that the RSS does in saving the honor of guruji, in light of his plagarised and immature works of "We" is amusing to watch. People will forgive that blunder called We, provided the RSS is sincere in its efforts on the ground and show that the vision of We has no place in its practices and thoughts. Are we convinced?

These are innuendos like so many before, where a certain view is demonized through repetition, throwing enough mud, but never through logic or coming up with alternative suggestions!

There is zero talk from secularists of how to proceed to look for solutions except words like

The RSS view of the term {"Hindu"}, seeks to impose not only a geographical marker but a cultural marker on this word, in deed, opposed to muslims and christians. It is this opposition to minorities, the associated history of these groups and their works opposed to minorities that is at the heart of the issue. The failure of the republic to assimilate and integrate minorities adequately and the failure to provide a "native" framework by ways of principles, values, objectives and laws continues to challenge the unity and integrity of the nation.

What one gets is shallow talk which hides the conflicting prescriptions
- Revert to earlier principles of Sanatana Dharma
- Wrong to not include minorities and their ideologies in nation building
- Hindus are responsible for failure to integrate minorities

One would imagine that the simple logic would be accessible, that one can't live by Dharma and at the same time have Dharma grafted over with Islam and Christianity so as to please minorities who pledge their allegiance to these religions. One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Dec 2014 19:57

A_Gupta wrote:Makarand Paranjape
http://www.infinityfoundation.com/manda ... ameset.htm
http://makarand.com/acad/

Nice. Thanks

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Dec 2014 21:05

RajeshA wrote: One would imagine that the simple logic would be accessible, that one can't live by Dharma and at the same time have Dharma grafted over with Islam and Christianity so as to please minorities who pledge their allegiance to these religions. One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.

My neighbors are Christian, so I can't live by Dharma, until I make them not-my-neighbors?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Dec 2014 21:22

We seem to have lost focus somewhat, although the diversions are edifying. Personally I am beginning to despair a bit and beginning to have alternate ideas about my own concepts of a web of Hindu unity in India. I stress once again that Hindu unity is like Arun Gupta's "cloth" analogy.

However, and I say this with an apology to Harpal Bector: The names Hindu nationalism and Hindutva are "toxic words". They need to be thrown in the gutter along with secularism. There is nothing you can do to rescue those words because those words have been claimed by people who have
1. No concern about exploring or defining Hindu unity that existed before the Islamic invasions
2. Do not give a damn about defending themselves against a reputation that pins on them the idea that the sole unifying goal of "Hindutva/Hindu nationalism" is based on opposing Muslims and Christians. They do not mind that label.

The most serious problems with these two points are as follows:

If Hindutva-vadis do not concern themselves with reiterating any pre-islamic/pre-historic Hindu unity, they are accepting undefended, and by default, the accusation that there was no sense of a unified nation in India before the British came. This after all is a sickular colonized conclusion that stems from what the British stated.

Most Hindus realize from childhood that there is a skein that links him with the entire nation - via culture, tradition and legends. That means unity even before Islamic invasions. It was the British who broke up the unity by providing a basis for disunity when they introduced concepts like "Aryan" and "Dravidian", Oppressive Brahmin and oppressed non Brahmin, upright and trustworthy (duh/yes sahib, okay sahib) mussalman versus the cunning Hindu. These are the very divisions that have torn India apart and none of them existed before 1700.

Hindutva seems content to fight the Mussalmans and the Christians, but even for that they need unity and Hindu support. And on here there is a sub-text that says that they are fighting against the "secular forces". Hinduvta seems to be happy with a sickular-hindutva lungi dance, where they claim that they represent Hindus and the sickulars are pro Muslims and pro Christian and anti-Hindu. By laying claim on expressions like "Hindutva" and "hindu nationalism" and then associating those words with being "anti-something", Hindutva seems to be content with the identity of being "against something". Hindutva is not claiming any ancient unifying identity - a postive factor that says "This is what Hindus are". It is just "we are against sickular, against Muslims, against christians"

To that extent Hindutva attitudes appear to be the exact opposite of what Rajesh claimed - when he said that Hindus are not this and not that, while Hindutva is "we are this and we are that". Actually it is all about "We are against this and we are against that". When I try to dig and see what positive Hindu identity Hindutva tries to bring to the table - I see nothing.

Does this mean I am anti-Hindutva? I came into this discussion expecting that my own feeling for nation as an ancient link would be upheld and represented by Hindutva-vadis. But no. All they do is oppose Muslims and Christians. With Muslims and Christians being less than 20% it is easy to pin Hindutva down around these points because they seem unable to step outside. it is Congress who have claimed to step outside the Hindu vs other religion equation and who claim they are addressing the problem of "caste" and addressing social ills. But where are the academic rebuttals of how 'caste' was made important to Indians. Where are the rebuttals to the "Aryan vs Dravidian divide? Where are the Academic works that show how Hindu dharma was above religion. There is a de facto acceptance by Hindutva and secular vadis that "we are another religion" Both Seculars and Hindutva-vadis have failed to address these issues. Both are caught in an never ending 'minority" lungi dance. Both are increasingly appearing like failures who succeed when the other fails more.

It is not possible to debate secularism and Indian issues with such a shallow grasp on India and both seculars and Hindutva-vadis seem unaware and unconcerned about a third group of Hindus who are neither sickulaism supporters nor supporters of "hindutva".

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Dec 2014 21:40

RajeshA wrote:These are innuendos like so many before, where a certain view is demonized through repetition, throwing enough mud, but never through logic or coming up with alternative suggestions!

The above are not innuendos but a direct critique of the work and organization in question regarding the matter. If you post an article on a document of idiocy called We, who's author himself is ashamed of it, do not go about blaming me for stating the obvious. A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization, for that is the verdict of my supreme court! Do you adhere to and respect their verdict?

One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.

You have many mischaracterizations on my positions. Were it not for past unfruitful experiences, I would invest the time to correct and clarify. However, your ideological guru Savarkar along with Jinnah were on the same page on the above comment. Maybe in your view, even Gandhi's views on the nation was shallow?

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 15 Dec 2014 22:10

shiv wrote:It is not possible to debate secularism and Indian issues with such a shallow grasp on India and both seculars and Hindutva-vadis seem unaware and unconcerned about a third group of Hindus who are neither sickulaism supporters nor supporters of "hindutva".

+1. Let alone people, who do not want a secular dispensation for they think, it is a foreign hoisted concept ill suited to our lands and civilization - but without hate and bigotry. Does not mean, they are incapably of pragmatic and hard actions to ensure buy in.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Dec 2014 01:26

A_Gupta wrote:
RajeshA wrote: One would imagine that the simple logic would be accessible, that one can't live by Dharma and at the same time have Dharma grafted over with Islam and Christianity so as to please minorities who pledge their allegiance to these religions. One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.
My neighbors are Christian, so I can't live by Dharma, until I make them not-my-neighbors?

Yes that is indeed a very common retort: My barber is Muslim so how can I be against Islam?!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Dec 2014 02:07

ShauryaT wrote:
RajeshA wrote:These are innuendos like so many before, where a certain view is demonized through repetition, throwing enough mud, but never through logic or coming up with alternative suggestions!
The above are not innuendos but a direct critique of the work and organization in question regarding the matter. If you post an article on a document of idiocy called We, who's author himself is ashamed of it, do not go about blaming me for stating the obvious. A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization, for that is the verdict of my supreme court! Do you adhere to and respect their verdict?

There was no reason to be ashamed of "We". It was the dictatorship of the seculars with all the power in their hands, which actually made RSS to rethink this as their official standpoint. It was a strategic decision and not an ideological one!

A certain sectarian view is nothing but worthy of demonization

So if I get down to asking similarly dumb questions, like

"If you are against sectarianism, does it mean you are in favor of slaughter of Hindus at the hands of the Islamics, as it is happening with the Yezidis, and as we have already experienced during our history of partition and earlier during Islamic invasions and rule?"

Because it seems you are advocating that position. Otherwise I can't make out the difference!

ShauryaT wrote:
RajeshA wrote:One can either take the hard and difficult line that these two don't mix or one can play the secular lovey-dovey games.
You have many mischaracterizations on my positions. Were it not for past unfruitful experiences, I would invest the time to correct and clarify. However, your ideological guru Savarkar along with Jinnah were on the same page on the above comment. Maybe in your view, even Gandhi's views on the nation was shallow?

Here's something I became aware of recently: It is attributed to MK Gandhi.

Perhaps this has deep meanings, unfathomable by me!

In the end, you have again repeated your animosity to the Hindutva position, but again without any content, without any logic, without any reasoning. Just throwing words around like "sectarian", "worthy of demonization", etc. hoping something sticks, but again without even a tiny weeny little bit of wisdom of how one integrates ISIS/Talibanism and Dharma in this Indian nation.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Dec 2014 03:01

IMHO, No reason left to argue with Gandhian folks. Not to mention the fact that Nehru implemented the same plan and named it Secularism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Dec 2014 03:07

shiv wrote:We seem to have lost focus somewhat, although the diversions are edifying. Personally I am beginning to despair a bit and beginning to have alternate ideas about my own concepts of a web of Hindu unity in India. I stress once again that Hindu unity is like Arun Gupta's "cloth" analogy.

It is an issue of terminology!

shiv wrote:However, and I say this with an apology to Harpal Bector: The names Hindu nationalism and Hindutva are "toxic words". They need to be thrown in the gutter along with secularism. There is nothing you can do to rescue those words because those words have been claimed by people who have
1. No concern about exploring or defining Hindu unity that existed before the Islamic invasions
2. Do not give a damn about defending themselves against a reputation that pins on them the idea that the sole unifying goal of "Hindutva/Hindu nationalism" is based on opposing Muslims and Christians. They do not mind that label.

The most serious problems with these two points are as follows:

If Hindutva-vadis do not concern themselves with reiterating any pre-islamic/pre-historic Hindu unity, they are accepting undefended, and by default, the accusation that there was no sense of a unified nation in India before the British came. This after all is a sickular colonized conclusion that stems from what the British stated.

Most Hindus realize from childhood that there is a skein that links him with the entire nation - via culture, tradition and legends. That means unity even before Islamic invasions. It was the British who broke up the unity by providing a basis for disunity when they introduced concepts like "Aryan" and "Dravidian", Oppressive Brahmin and oppressed non Brahmin, upright and trustworthy (duh/yes sahib, okay sahib) mussalman versus the cunning Hindu. These are the very divisions that have torn India apart and none of them existed before 1700.

Hindutva seems content to fight the Mussalmans and the Christians, but even for that they need unity and Hindu support. And on here there is a sub-text that says that they are fighting against the "secular forces". Hinduvta seems to be happy with a sickular-hindutva lungi dance, where they claim that they represent Hindus and the sickulars are pro Muslims and pro Christian and anti-Hindu. By laying claim on expressions like "Hindutva" and "hindu nationalism" and then associating those words with being "anti-something", Hindutva seems to be content with the identity of being "against something". Hindutva is not claiming any ancient unifying identity - a postive factor that says "This is what Hindus are". It is just "we are against sickular, against Muslims, against christians"

We Hindus have unity in two ways:

1) Unity of Identity
2) Unity of Purpose

If we are looking for Unity of Identity in Hindutva, then I am afraid, that would be a little difficult. When you are searching for the "cloth" in which we are all woven together, then "Hindu" and "Hindutva" would not offer such a cloth.

That "cloth" we are looking for is simply called "Bharatiyata"! It refers to our Bharatvarsha, to our Bharatiya Sabhyata, to our Bharatiya Sanskriti, to our Dharma!

Hindu and thus Hindutva provides a Unity of Purpose! That purpose is to restore Bharatiyata, and cleanse it of Adharma, get rid of that rubber that is deleting "Bharatiyata".

One can ask the question, "what is so good about doctors? They are only against something! All of them are out to eradicate bacteria and viruses! All they give are bitter medicines".

Well Hindutva is medicine, Hindutva is surgery! Hindutva is not the good-looking face in the mirror that one can admire! Hindutva is not the robust healthy body that would have elegance in its movement!

shiv wrote:To that extent Hindutva attitudes appear to be the exact opposite of what Rajesh claimed - when he said that Hindus are not this and not that, while Hindutva is "we are this and we are that". Actually it is all about "We are against this and we are against that". When I try to dig and see what positive Hindu identity Hindutva tries to bring to the table - I see nothing.

There is perhaps some misunderstanding of what I meant. I had written:

RajeshA wrote:"Hinduism" is defined as "this, and this, and that, and that, and this, ...". Sanatana Dharmics put "this, and this, and this" into the mixture, and the British put "that, and that, and that" into the mixture.

"Hindutva" is defined as "not this, not that", "not Islam, not Christianity, Not Macaulayism, not Western Universalism, ...".

"Bharatiyata" is defined as "all that what is within this", "all that what is defined by the land between the Himalayas and the Ocean, all that what evolved and grew organically based on Āryatva and Dharma".

Hindutva is indeed defined by its adversaries. Hindutva is against Islam, Hindutva is against Churchism! "Hindu" comes from "Hindutva" and not from "Hinduism".

However Bharatiyata is defined by all we hold important and wonderful. Bharatiyata is the "cloth".

But Hindutva is essential, because it is the only way to save the cloth!

shiv wrote:Does this mean I am anti-Hindutva? I came into this discussion expecting that my own feeling for nation as an ancient link would be upheld and represented by Hindutva-vadis. But no. All they do is oppose Muslims and Christians. With Muslims and Christians being less than 20% it is easy to pin Hindutva down around these points because they seem unable to step outside. it is Congress who have claimed to step outside the Hindu vs other religion equation and who claim they are addressing the problem of "caste" and addressing social ills.

Hindutvavadis do not oppose "Muslims" and "Christians". Hindutva opposes Islam and Church! This is a very essential difference, however Seculars deliberately choose to ignore this.

shiv wrote:But where are the academic rebuttals of how 'caste' was made important to Indians. Where are the rebuttals to the "Aryan vs Dravidian divide? Where are the Academic works that show how Hindu dharma was above religion. There is a de facto acceptance by Hindutva and secular vadis that "we are another religion" Both Seculars and Hindutva-vadis have failed to address these issues. Both are caught in an never ending 'minority" lungi dance. Both are increasingly appearing like failures who succeed when the other fails more.

Hindutvavadis do not claim to be another religion. Many Hindutva leaders including BJP leaders have often spoken of "Hindu" as being "simply a way of life". They did not proceed to give an exact definition, but they reject the notion of being a "religion".

There have also been a lot of writings and comments about "Varna" not being "Caste" and not being "birth-based".

This is again an effort to paint "Seculars" and "Hindutvavadis" as equal-equal!

shiv wrote:It is not possible to debate secularism and Indian issues with such a shallow grasp on India and both seculars and Hindutva-vadis seem unaware and unconcerned about a third group of Hindus who are neither sickulaism supporters nor supporters of "hindutva".

This third group, this group of "Hinduists", "Rationalists" and "Globalists" have a shallow grasp of civilization issues, of nature of religion, of threat assessment, and would love to say that they have received their Moksha from "dirty" Hindutva, and have instead embraced "Pooja-Paath ka Dharma", "Western Scientific Temper" and left "Tribalism/Nationalism" behind. This group loves to hug Ashrafs and Church-goers and claim that they are above narrow bigotry, even as their religious faces, the Islamists and the Missionaries are keeping their "peace" solely because of some threat of Hindutva backlash.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Dec 2014 05:39

RajeshA wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:
My neighbors are Christian, so I can't live by Dharma, until I make them not-my-neighbors?

Yes that is indeed a very common retort: My barber is Muslim so how can I be against Islam?!

Nice try at shifting the goal-posts. Your earlier post essentially said Hindus can't live by Dharma in India as long as Christians, Muslims are around. Now you're saying something about being anti-/pro- Islam. I guess as Shiv suspected, the only Dharma you know is being anti-Islam, etc.

My Christian neighbors behave in a very dharmic way towards the nation. They are physicians, surgeons and rocket-scientists; in public service; they could go after more lucrative jobs but want to serve the nation. Sorry, no Hindutva-vaadi stuff is going to displace them.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Dec 2014 05:42

What is Hindutvavaadi nationalism?

Answer one would get after reading this thread - Hindutvavaadi nationalism is the nationalism that India is for Hindus alone, and it is the presence of Muslims and Christians that makes India not-strong, not-prosperous and not-peaceful.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 16 Dec 2014 06:00

That is a very broad-brush tarring of all "hindus" and overly general. I think everybody should speak for herself. - not for all <pick your grouping you consider a part of>.

For example, designating a way of life as a "cult" has severe consequences. swAdhyAyIs are termed a "cult" in the US. A few years back when they had a big gathering in the windy city (it was at Wrigley's stadium as I understand it) there was a shooting and there were some casualities.

Labelling goes both ways - as long it stays in the ivory towers all is well. Usually it doesn't stay in the ivory tower of a guru and his followers.

By the way swAdhyAya was started by Sri Pandurang Shastri Athavale (19 October 1920 – 25 October 2003) or dadaji.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Dec 2014 06:11

RajeshA wrote:

This is the full speech:

While I was listening to this bhajan[1], as also to the Ramdhun, the scene of my Noakhali days came vividly before my eyes. The party comprising these very men and women[2] used to accompany me for about half a mile while I proceeded on my tour in the morning. I only wish to tell you that you should not give up your goodness. If all the Muslims say that they wish to sever all connection with the Hindus and wish to live separately, should we out of anger start killing them?

[1] By Rabindranath Tagore. The purport of the bhajan was : “Let us all aspire and say that our Bharat may rise to great heights in the world. It may attain eminence in the field of religion and action. Again a new sun will rise above it.”

[2] Which, besides Manu Gandhi, included the Press correspondents, Sailen Chatterjee and Biren Sinha.
If we do that we shall be engulfed in such a holocaust that we shall all be reduced to ashes and none will survive Indiscriminate looting and arson will only spell disaster for the whole country. Regular warfare also, I must say, causes only destruction and nothing is gained thereby.

What has been said in the Mahabharata is of universal application. It does not apply to Hindus alone. It depicts the story of the Pandavas and the Kauravas. Though they were blood-brothers the Pandavas
worshipped Rama, that is, goodness, and the Kauravas followed Ravana, that is, evil. Renouncing
ahimsa they took to violence and fought among themselves with the result that not only were the Kauravas killed, but the Pandavas also were losers in spite of their victory. Very few among them survived to see the end of the war and those who did found their lives so unbearable that they had to
retire to the Himalayas. This is exactly what is happening in our country today.

Today is the first day of the National Week. I trust you are observing it as a day of fasting and prayer. There was mass spinning also from 3 to 4 p.m. in which the Congress President, his wife, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, Acharya Jugal Kishore and many others took part. The spinning yajna having been completed so beautifully and enthusiastically you will soon be breaking the fast but how good it would be if as a result of today’s rededication the names of Rama and Rahim and the message of the bhajan are permanently engraved in our hearts. But today all this remains but a dream in India.

I am being inundated with abusive letters and telegrams. This shows how grossly some people misunderstand my ideas. Some think I consider myself too big even to reply to their letters while others think I am enjoying myself in Delhi while the Punjab is in flames. How can they understand that I am working day and night for them wherever I am? True, I cannot wipe their tears. God alone can do that.

Khwaja Abdul Majid [3], who is a trustee of the Aligarh University, came to see me today.

[3] “Bapuji is now going to drive us out of India in our old age,” Khwaja Abdul Majid remarked to a member of Gandhiji’s party, affecting a laugh. “When India is divided, I shall come to take asylum with you. You won’t let the Hindus murder me,” he added playfully. Gandhiji, overhearing the remark, interjected: If a fanatic should kill you, I shall dance with joy! My misfortune is that I have not many like you who would die bravely and without anger. If I had even half a dozen [men] like you, the flames that threaten to devour us would be put out and peace would reign in India in no time.
He has a lot of landed property but at heart he is a fakir. He used to be my host whenever I went to Aligarh. Swami Satyadev Parivrajak, who had been on a pilgrimage to the Himalayas, used to accompany me. He was a very active worker but now God has taken him away. He told me he would accompany me but he would not join me if I dined with a Muslim. On hearing this Khwaja Saheb said, “If that is what his religion enjoins, I shall make separate arrangements for him.” Though the Swami was accompanying me Khwaja Saheb did not mind when the Swami did not dine with him. Would that those good old days were here again when there used to be heart-unity among Hindus and Muslims. Khwaja Saheb continues to be the president of the nationalist Muslims. Other nationalist Muslims who had graduated from the Aligarh University in those days are today ideal students of the Jamia Millia and are excellent workers. They are like on oasis in the Sahara. Even if somebody killed Khwaja Saheb he would not wish him ill. Such people may be few but we must retain our innate qualities. When faced with bad characters we should not stoop to their level.

But we committed this mistake in Bihar. Nationalist Muslims had been killed by Hindus there and Hindus friends of Islam had been done to death by Muslims. We should dispassionately think where we are drifting. Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India.

The Concluding verses of the second chapter of the Gita describe how a godfearing man should live. I would exhort you to read and understand those verses and ponder over their meaning. You will then realize what our ideal is and how far short of it we are today. Our independence is at our threshold and
it is our duty to ask ourselves whether we are fit to have it and sustain it. This week, while I am here, I propose to administer you the dose which would make you worthy of freedom. If we keep on quarreling amongst ourselves we shall lose our freedom even after attaining it.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Dec 2014 06:15

...the Islamists and the Missionaries are keeping their "peace" solely because of some threat of Hindutva backlash.

Raw, naked fear.

PS: I don't know about the Islamists, but the Church most definitely thrives on martyrs. They would not keep their "peace" if they could manufacture martyrs.

PPS: With Islamists, we know that the potent slogan was "Islam khattre mein hai". So credible threats of danger they would welcome.

PPPS: the reason there is peace is because most people are not insane.

PPPPS: Yes, as the STFUP thread proves, Pakistan is collectively insane; it is certainly possible.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Dec 2014 07:57

Let me approach this in a slightly different manner.

Before the earliest Islamic invasions, India had a society whose state we have have forgotten. What we now know about that time is what the British have told us. Let me, for starters discard British terminology for that pre-Islamic period and simply leave a gap or a vacuum in our knowledge of that period for the time being. (I will be careful here because my own mental colonization may well make me inadvertently include some things - but let me start somewhere)

Before the Islamic invasions, Hindus were not called Hindus. Jains were not called Jains, followers of Jainism. Buddhists were not called Buddhists, followers of Buddhism. There was a system of native terminology that Indians used to describe people of their own society but I am not searching for that right now. The word "religion" and even the concept of "religion" did not exist, so people did not refer to each other as separate religions. Of course they might have viewed each other as followers of separate systems of beliefs, but none of these systems had coercion or compulsion as a necessary feature. The tenets of the people who were later to be called Hindus, Jains and Buddhists did not involve killing the other for not following a particular path. You could debate or dispute, but not kill for belief. There was no book that enforced such laws in any case.

When the Islamic invaders came, they were the first taste the people of India had of a coercive religion that killed unbelievers. It was India's first taste of the idea that people could be split up into two groups based on God, called believers and unbelievers. To Indians who believed that God was a unified whole - the idea that one God was special must have been laughable. But that is a different issue. Since Al Beruni actually kept a written record - what he wrote was to later be accepted as "history" by the British - but that was going to be in the future. The Muslims tore through India - being particularly vicious in the North. They won some and they lost some. They had military organization, an ideology, justice systems and record keeping like Europeans, but they did not have the theoretical framework to "classify and divide" India into ten thousand different groups as the British did later - "Aryan, Dravidian, Kolarian, Brahmin, non Brahmin, Untouchable, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Tribal, Rajpoot, Gujerati, Bengalee, Urdoo" and a thousand other names for people who simply did not consider themselves different people until then.

Exactly why the British came and divided up Indians into ten thousand groups based on their observations is a whole different topic that SN "Balu" Balgangadhara has dealt with in exquisite detail. I am not going into that. But after the British did that, they went further to re organize Indian education by starving Indian education systems and re educating Indians to work for them and to appreciate British goods. So Hindus started seeing themselves as Brahmin, non Brahmin. Non Brahmins started seeing themselves as oppressed classes, oppressed by Brahmins and developed anger at Brahmins. Indians saw themselves as Aryans and Dravidians. The Punjabees were a separate race or Aryan descent. The Tamils were a separate race of "dravidian" descent. At least some "Aryan" Indians allied with the Europeans as being of the same pure stock and stared looking down on Dravidians. Dravidians for their part "learned" that they are a loser race and developed a degree of anger at Aryans (not at the British!!). North Indians realized that they were tall, fair skinned and wheat eating. Bengalees realized that they were short, dark complexioned and rice eating. People from the northwest began to pride themselves in their "martial" prowess and began to consider the Bengalee and the Tamil a cowardly nonmartial type. In turn, Sri Lankan Tamils who massacred Indian Punjabis were taking revenge at stereotypes that made the Punjabi martial and the Tamil non martial. The same happened in Bangladesh in 1971.

In the midst of all this chopping up of Indian society into ten thousand categories that, for the British, meant that there was no "Indian nation" save the one that they were to create, the Brits also created "Religious" categories.

There were the Mussalmans, the martial Mughals whom the British defeated. There were Hindus - an elitist religion of "Brahmanism" where elite Brahmans subjugated the poor non Brahmins. There were Buddhists, Sikhs and untouchables This is what we were taught and this is what our grandparents and great grandparents believed and this is what we believe to this day.

But politically, it was the Mussalmans who were useful to the British in holding on to India. Muslims were used as a ploy to apply political pressure on the Indian independence movement so that the British could hold on to India. Gradually Muslims too bought into this idea and wanted a piece of the "India" pie separate from the Hindus. The Muslim intellectuals had everything to gain from internalizing and spreading everything about "Hindus" that the British started - i.e. "Aryan, Dravidian, Kolarian, Brahmin, non Brahmin, Untouchable, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Tribal, Rajpoot, Gujerati, Bengalee, Urdoo"

Of all these hundreds of splits of Indian society that the British encouraged and "created" by education, the most serious split was the Mussalman-non Mussalman split. That led to three countries and much animosity and bloodshed. I see the sickular versus Hindtva battle to be constantly revolving around the Muslim question. The sickulars seem to be hung over with the notion that if we somehow were more sympathetic to Muslims, then India and Pakistan would be whole again. Hindutva-vadis are saying "balls" that ain't gonna happen. In a way Hindutvavadis are right because the sickular viewpoint fails to "acknowledge" Pakistan as a separate Muslim nation and tends to see them as "one people". This attitude is a huge threat to the idea of Pakistan. Hindutva vadis are right in saying Pakistan is a separate nation, and Hindutva vadis make the demand that if Muslims needed a separate nation, Pakistan exists for them. Those Muslims who are in India must be Indians to the core. The sickulaars are arguing about this and are inadvertently (or deliberately) provoking Muslims to be splittist.

But it does not help the Hindutva cause to say "We are against Islam or Christianty or Muslims or Christians" As long as people are Indian and can weave the social fabric that existed before the British splits came, the Hindutva ideal is good. But Hindutva vadis are not united despite the "regimentation" impression that the lathis and chaddis of the RSS give rise to. There are a sizable number of Hindutva vadis who are actually against a whole lot of things and they are self goal scorers for Hindutva.

Hindutva needs to be more than a name or a slogan. It has to be an intellectual movement that leads and guides the politics. Right now it is political expediency, support from petty groups with absurd agendas, and a parochial fight with secularists over Islam. Hindutva is still small and nowhere near pan-Indian. It has to grow and mature in a much more positive way. We have to look at how all those ten thousand splits were created in Indian society and widened to divide India into a hundred nations of degenerate people that could not survive. This is the burden of decolonization that we face.

Today, it is easy to see that Islam is hardly "peace" - we are getting beyond the point when anyone can seriously claim that Islam came with peace. See what happened in Australia last night. But that is leaving out what the British did with our minds. Neither the sickular libtards nor the Hindutva vadis are addressing that. They are literally heathens in their blindness.

Islamic mental colonization is a different issue. they are reacting with anger. But should Hindus do exactly that? I do not see thinkers thinking for hindutva. I see only apologists with anger. Anger only leads to loss of ability to think. It needs to be set aside. The time to do it is now. Hindutva has five years to rise above pettiness.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 16 Dec 2014 08:37

shiv ji: Going by your above post it seems like you are proposing solution to the current doldrums "hindutva" is in is to consolidate under an apex body like Vatican or Mecca or Bodh Gaya? This presupposes that all those who consider themselves haindava to have extra-territorial loyalties just like what are now failed religions. IOW, your solution is to make "hindu" a religion (an organized one with tithe and all). I hope I am wrong in my summary of your post above. Otherwise I have this great cognitive dissonance with all the self-contradictory arguments you have forwarded till now.

But then may be neither of us can transcend the macalAyite head shaping that has gone on for centuries of which we are a product.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Dec 2014 08:58

matrimc wrote: I hope I am wrong in my summary of your post above.

You are wrong.

I have proposed NO solutions.

I have asked that people should apply their minds to try and see what has transpired in our past so that pan Indian solutions can be arrived at for myriads of issues aside from the one-track "Hindu-Muslim" one

To repeat an edited quote of my conclusions

Hindutva needs to be more than a name or a slogan. It has to be an intellectual movement that leads and guides the politics. Right now it is political expediency, support from petty groups with absurd agendas, and a parochial fight with secularists over Islam. Hindutva is still small and nowhere near pan-Indian. It has to grow and mature in a much more positive way. We have to look at how all those ten thousand splits were created in Indian society and widened to divide India into a hundred nations of degenerate people that could not survive. This is the burden of decolonization that we face.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Dec 2014 09:54

Some points to ponder upon:

We are all agreed that the basis of the Hinduva-vadi vs Sickularist dispute is about Islam/Muslims and Christianity/Christians

Why is it that in India:
1. There no intrinsic movement to oppose Jews
2. There is no intrinsic movement to oppose Parsis
3. There is no fundamental drive to take over Buddhist and Jaina places of worship
4. There is opposition to Brahmins and labelling them as elitist/racist/exclusivist
5. There is a feeling that Dravidians are a separate identity
6. There is doubt about the historic importance of Ayodhya or Ram Sethu, which are said to be part of Indian "mythology"

I will provide the answer I have in my mind. Every one of the above points coincides with what the British observed or commented about India. Where the British failed to make a distinction Indians have retained their earliest, uncolonized attitudes.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Dec 2014 09:56

How much of the Hindutva-Secular fight is based on colonial attitudes in both parties. How long should Hindutva-vadis persist in fighting the demon of secularism alone without acknowledging that the opposite of secular is "religious". The history of secularism is the history of opposing religion(Christianity).

If secularism opposed Christianity (religion) who would oppose secularism? Only a religion would oppose secularism. Therefore Hindu-ism, which opposes secularism is a religion. How does Hindutva define the Hindu religion?

Is it possible that Hinduism is not a religion but yet finds secularism unfair? We are stuck on English words with European meanings are are unable to express our reservations to secularism using words like "secular" and "religious". That is because we do not have the words to express ourselves (Hindus) as a concept. Shouldn't Hindutva be applying itself to this abstract but vital issue? Perhaps they, like seculars, simply do not understand, for we are all heathens in our blindness.

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 16 Dec 2014 12:13

The word Hindu, Hinduism, Hindutva were formulated by those outside of Hinduism ie. followers of Islam and Christianity. Therefore it is no surprise, that 'Hindu' movements are expressly opposed to Islam and Christianity and any other 'ism' which considers 'Hindus' to not be a part of that 'ism' ( eg. secularism, Western Universalism, communism ).

This is not a bad thing. Opposition to such ideologies is sorely needed at this point.

BJP's official ideology is not Hindutva or Hinduism. It is 'ekatma manave' ( loosely translated as 'Integral Humanism' ) formulated by Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay. You can read up on that if you wish. Or just follow Modi ji's speeches.

Hindutva as formulated by Savarkar is followed by RSS and its affiliates. And it is because it is needed at this time. When the opposing ideologies have been vanquished, there will be no further need for it.