Magazine Section / The Hindu
December 3, 2006
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
