Sie sind auf Seite 1von 73

Constitutional Foundation of Secularism Secularism, Minority Rights and Hindutva

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY [Fmr. Union Cabinet Minister for Law & Justice & Convenor, Advocates for Dharma, HDAS]

Three terms: Secularism, Minority, and Hindutva need to be clearly defined in this paper. DEFINITION OF MINORITIES IN INDIA I define first the concept of Minority before we discuss minority rights. It is essential in this context to understand how Muslims and Christians came to be regarded as minorities in India. The word minority as a group of persons possessing common characteristics, has a substantive meaning only if special protection in the Constitution is to be provided to that group in order to be compensated for some past socially imposed disability.

It would be meaningless to have a discourse on minorities at all, much less waste public money on

compensation in money or affirmative action, if there is no socially imposed disability in the past which handicaps that group from competing with other social groups or

communities. Merely being small in numbers is not enough to merit recognition as a minority. Numbers are not a sufficient basis for defining a minority. The Whites of South Africa are numerically a small number, deserving but of they cannot be treated or as "minorities" or




affirmative action. Parsis in India despite being a microscopic minority numerically, have themselves consistently refused to ask or accept for any Constitutional safeguards since they have never felt forcibly disabled in Hindu dominant society. Parsis are therefore not a minority in the Constitutional or statutory dispensation. What then is the definition of minority ? Nor are Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains for the same reason.

The present practice in India is to regard any group of less than 50% of the population-except of course Hindus (e.g., in Kashmir) as minorities. This is ridiculous. Strange as it may sound, there is no definition of minority in the Indian Constitution [although Articles 29 and 30 make provisions for a minority, religious and linguistic), nor is there a definition in the United Nations Resolutions or an universally accepted definition in international law. Some countries such as Thailand and Brazil, refuse to accept that there are minorities in their country. These nations have told the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities that they have no minorities to notify, despite being a multi-religious multiracial society. In 2001, a 11-judge Constitutional Bench, judgment on the question of minority rights in education [T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case] did not define the term ''minority". What they did do was to opine that minorities are not lo be defined nationally but state-wise, thus overturning their 1971 DAV College judgment.

Subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, such as delivered by a 5-judge Constitutional Bench in 2003 in the Islamic Academy case, and the 7-judge Constitutional Bench in 2005 in the Inamdar case, have also not defined the concept of minority. In 1992 India's Parliament enacted the National

Commission for Minorities Act, but did not define a minority in it. Section 2 (c} of the Act merely states that minorities are what the Government of India will notify in the Gazette!! The Government has arbitrarily notified, for no reason or explanation, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Parsis as

religious minorities. Even the State Minorities Commissions have not bothered to define minorities. In other words, the nation has been discussing minority rights for the last sixty years without even defining what or who can be the minorities. How can we identify minorities if we do not have a definition of the term? Hence, I shall begin with my definition of minority and then discuss what their rights can be in, the context of national integrity. In this connection, it is appropriate to

quote from the judgment of the 3-judge Supreme Court bench in Bal Patil versus the Union of India case, delivered by Justice Dharmadhikari in 2005: "Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase the fond hope of various sections of the people in getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of the constitutional guarantee. Encouragement to such fissiparous tendencies would be a serious jolt to the secular structure of constitutional democracy. We should guard against making our country akin to a theocratic State based on multi-nationalism". What we can therefore hold now is that if a group is numerically small, and substantially below 50% of the population, then although it has the necessary attribute of a minority, that attribute is not sufficient for it to be declared a minority for the purpose of constitutional or statutory protection.







attributes as well, to be identified as a minority.

Based on the circumstances arising out of the Indian legacy, in recognition of defining events of Indian history,

I would define a Minority in India as : A collective of Indian citizens, constituting a numerical minority and situated in a non-dominant position in society, with characteristics which ethnically differs

from those of the majority, and having suffered from imposed deprivation over a long period have acquired disabilities, which disabilities cannot be removed

except by providing special constitutional protection and facilities for affirmative action, are by definition a minority. That is, for sufficiency of attributes to qualify as a minority under the Constitution of India, it will be required that [1] such a group be in a non-dominant position in society, [2] to have suffered deprivation for a long period and thus have acquired be disabilities removed and [3] by which special




constitutional protection such as reservations in jobs and educational institutions. By this definition, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes would constitute a minority even if they are a part of the numerical majority Hindu community. Their disabilities

cannot be removed except by specific affirmative action such as reservation in jobs, education, and in legislatures. Backward castes of the Hindu community also suffer disabilities, but of these can be removed by special financial

arrangements assistance.




But due to our political folly and selfishness, these backward castes have been given reservations in jobs and education which cannot now be taken away except by persuasion in the future. When world class primary and secondary education can be provided to all, it is possible that the youth of the backward castes would prefer to compete rather than advance by availing of quotas. Since, the Indian DNA structure is the same for all castes, hence, competing on merit, if equally empowered, is possible for the backward castes. But Muslims and Christians cannot be considered as minorities in Indian society because their disabilities are not acquired from deprivation imposed on them. In fact Muslims

and Christians, like the Whites of South Africa, have been ruling classes in India for a long period and had oppressed the overwhelmingly majority Hindu community . Sequentially in time, these two religious groups have ruled India for over a thousand years, during which period they practiced religious apartheid against the Hindus. Hence, for national integrity, patriotic Indians should resist with all their might any attempt to introduce quotas for the benefit of Muslims and Christians in jobs and education, or for anything else. Those Muslims and Christians who consider themselves as patriotic Indians should also, like the Parsis, reject any offer by mischievous politicians to introduce quotas for them. Instead they should ask for world class primary and secondary education to empower them to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the society. Whatever has now been incorporated in the Constitution for minority rights cannot be taken away because Articles 29 and 30 are part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution and hence cannot be amended out.

Hence, minorities will continue to have the right for example, to administer their own educational institutions. But as the Supreme Court has held in the Islamic Academy case, the unfettered right to administer does not include the right to mal-administer. Hence, minority-run educational institutions, including unaided ones, must be subject to obtaining Government approval for curriculum standards, faculty quality, and basic infrastructure, that should be common to all. Sooner or later, we must require that ali students including Muslims and Christians, learn Sanskrit. Our long term link language has to be Sanskrit, because it's vocabulary is in large measure in every Indian language. Even Tamil has 40 percent of its vocabulary in common with Sanskrit. If Hindi vocabulary be progressively Sanskritised till the Hindi becomes indistinguishable from Sanskrit, then we can begin learning Sanskritised Hindi and then over a period of time shift to Sanskrit. The goal of minority rights has to be to further social justice. Towards this end, we must strive for equal and high

quality educational opportunity and create a mindset for national unity and integration. But we cannot accept special rights for religious minorities of Muslims and Christians, just as we cannot for Brahmins although they as poor a community as Muslims and Christians. The logic is the samethose who have been ruling classes cannot claim minority status in the constitutional matrix. In my opinion, Muslims and Christians should themselves decline to accept reservations in employment and education, and its leadership should instead look inward and analyse why after being ruling class of India for thousand years, they need now reservations to compete with hitherto hapless Hindus who have suffered huge prosecution, discrimination and impoverishment at the hands of Muslim and Christian rulers. Economic science teaches us that only in a

transparently regulated competitive market system, the allocation of the nations resources for alternative uses will


be optimal and of maximum return on investment. This means giving to primacy to merit. However, those sections of society which have

disabilities, which could be mental, physical, gender, or cognitive, that which have been imposed on those sections

by circumstances or by prolonged social discrimination, are

entitled to affirmative action to compensate for these disabilities and inability, to empower them to compete but with a handicap. This is how we can achieve inclusive development. By this criterion, only Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and women are entitled to by-pass the usual

competitive selection by merit. To offer reservations and quotas to Muslims and Christians is however unjustified because these two communities do not suffer from any

imposed disabilities because they were part of the ruling

classes of India-- for a total of 1000 years, and hence could not be victims of any social or political oppression. In any event it is bad economics too because

affirmative action leads to sub-optimisation. It is pure and simple appeasement hence to recommend or advocate

reservations or quotas for these two communities as in fact as the Sachar and Ranganath Misra Commissions have done. The question that I have repeatedly asked those who are appeasing the Muslims today is: Why the Muslim community that ruled India for over eight hundred years and belonged to privileged ruling class even during the hundred fifty years of British Raj while subjecting the Hindus to untold tortures, violence, rape and suppression have

become socially handicapped compared to Hindus? Or to Parsis who are in microscopic numbers? To date I have not received even a semblance of an answer. Dr.Ambedkar had warned us 60 years ago about the terrible consequences of appeasement. Analysing the

attitude of the Congress Party in 1940 to the demands of the Mohammed Ali Jinnah, he said the party was adopting a policy of appeasement. In his book Thoughts on Pakistan, which I believe must be read by every patriot, Dr.Ambedkar had said: Appeasement [of Jinnah] means to offer to buy off the aggressor by conniving at or collaborating with him in the rape, murder and arson on innocent Hindus who

happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress.

Appeasement has no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does.
The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased their aggressiveness and what is worse, the Muslims

interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler. He therefore felt that the creation of the separate Islamic state of Pakistan with transfer of population could be a preferable settlement that could end the Hindu-Muslim problem in the sub-continent.


However, the Congress Party which was handed power by the British did not heed Dr.Ambedkars sage advice. Today, after six decades, it is too late to implement Dr.Ambedkars suggestion, instead I would suggest that we accept as our brothers and sisters those Muslims and Christians who proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus, and that they accept change in religion does mean change in their ancestral Hindu culture. When Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh made the ridiculous statement that 'Muslims have the first charge on our resources', he was revealing that he too had contracted the 'M' virus viz., Minorityism which unbalances the brain and rationality of Indian political leaders, and makes them lopsidedly favour minorities even if not required on the principles of equity. Of course being compassionate to deprived minorities and their concerns is a noble human rights value. But being fixated on Muslims and Christians, as the only minorities of concern, even if they are majorities in pockets e.g., in Kashmir and Northeast India, is lopsided.


In such a lop-sided minorityism, Hindus as and when in minority do not have the same rights, even as a 'last charge', as the events in Kashmir and Northeast have proved. DEFINITION OF HINDUTVA I now define Hindutva [or Hinduness] as a collective mindset, that regards India as the motherland[Bharat Mata] from the Himalayas to the islands in Indian Ocean and its glorious continuing history. Thus, Hindutva is Hinduness in terms of our indigenously (swadeshi) developed value-system which is founded on an unbroken Hindu civilisation as the mainstream

adarsh darshan derived from our ancestral heritage.

The aim of this value-system is to avoid cognitive

dissonance that is the mental disorientation that arises from contrasting and conflicting modes of thought. We cannot be

noble if we posture to mislead, manipulate without social purpose, and be authoritarian. The cognitive synchronization takes place when the

individual is in a state of steady mind, and remains committed to redeeming society from unrighteous rule without fear or favour.

That means giving up a life style that requires having to change mental gears abruptly, often and completely every day. Thus the Hindutva mindset is focused and is of single pointedness of mind. There is therefore no equivocation but forthrightness, no temporization decisiveness, but and steadfastness no crass no procrastination calculation but but


enlightened personal advancement.

This is Swadharma, or

creative conformism to values. This is the Hindutva mindset that we need to today. In this Hindutva, the non- Hindu religious minorities can be co-opted if they acknowledge with pride the truth that they are descendants of Hindus consistent with the modern genetic research on the DNA of resident Indians. Then our nation may be defined as Hindustan i.e., a land of Hindus and those others who with pride acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus. But taken together, Hindutva is a multi-facet concept of identity, social constitutional order, modernity, our civilization history, economic philosophy, and governance.


Sanatana Dharma is eternal because it is based not upon the teachings of a single preceptor of a chosen prophet but on the collective accumulated wisdom and inspiration of great seers and sages from the dawn of civilization. Hindu theology and scriptures therefore are accumulated revealed knowledge and not revelations of any prophet that was taken down by scribes or followers. In case of the Bible, St.Paul who compiled it had never met Jesus Christ, and therein lives an unresolved controversy on what Jesus actually said. In this study, we have essentially followed Sri Aurobindos formulation of Hindutva, which though having the same goal as Savarkars, is more broad-based. Hinduness springs from

Sanatana Dharma in Sri Aurobindos broader formulation as also in Savarkars narrower formulation. In the final analysis, Hindutva today conforms to Vedanta as propounded by Swami Vivekananda, and as also as re-interpreted by Gandhi, Golwalkar and Upadhyaya. Hindutva is a concept that reflects the broad spiritual ethos of India fostered by many great rishis, yogis and sanyasis, and their diverse teachings but one spiritual vision.


This unique feature of focusing on the message and its truth rather than the authority of the messenger brings Sanatana Dharma proximate to a science, and spiritually its logic akin to the scientific inquiry. In science also, a principle or a theory must stand or fall on its own merit and not on the authority of anyone. If Newton and Einstein are considered great scientists, it is because of the validity of their scientific theories. In that sense, science is also apaurusheya. Gravitation and Relativity are eternal laws of

nature and existed long before Newton and Einstein. These are cosmic laws that happened to be discovered by the scientific sages Newton and Einstein. Their greatness lies in the fact that they discovered and revealed great scientific truths. But no one invokes Newton or Einstein as authority to prove the truth of laws of nature. These laws stand on their own merit. This is the greatest difference between Sanatana Dharma and religions like Christianity and Islam. Declaration of Lord Jesus, the In a document titled proclaims non-


Christians to be in a gravely deficient situation and that even non-Catholic churches have defects because they do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility. This of

course means that the Vatican refuses to acknowledge the spiritual right of the Hindus to their beliefs and practices! Christianity consigns non-Christians to hell, and the only way they can save themselves is by becoming Christians, preferably Catholics, by submitting to the Pope. A Hindu thus even if he lives a life of virtue, is still consigned to hell by Christianity because he refuses to

acknowledge Jesus as the only savior and the Pope as his representative on earth. The same is true of Islam; one must submit to Prophet Muhammad as the last, in effect the only prophet, in order to be saved. Belief in God means nothing without belief in Christ as the savior or Muhammad as the Last Prophet. Even one who

believes in God but does not accept Jesus or Muhammad as intermediary is considered a non-believer and therefore a sinner or a Kafir. These two major religions simply do not tolerate pluralism. This is what makes both Christianity and Islam exclusive, what makes Hinduism pluralistic and tolerant, and therefore Hindutva naturally inclusive.


Hinduism recognizes no intermediary as the exclusive messenger of God. In fact the Rigveda itself says: ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti, meaning cosmic truth is one, but the wise express it in many ways. The contrast between exclusivism and pluralism becomes clear when we compare what Krishna and Jesus Christ said: Krishna in the Bhagavadgita says: All creatures great and small I am equal to all. I hate none nor have I any favoritesHe that worships other gods with devotion, worships me. Jesus on the other is quoted as saying: He that is not with me is against me. Moreover, a devotee cannot directly know God, but can only pray to God and go through the intermediarywho jealously guards his exclusive access to God. Those who try otherwise, even if a priest, is ex-

communicated as was done in the case of Rev.Don Mario Muzzoleni, as he himself records in his recent book: Don Mario Mazzoleni was a Catholic priest in Rome. He went in search of the Ultimate Truth and reached Sathya Sai Baba. He then spent 12 years studying the miracles of Puttaparti Sathya Sai Baba and wrote a book called A Catholic Priest Meets Sai Baba. Bishop

Monsignor Roberto Amadei of the Vatican summoned him and expressed disapproval [see pages 268-269 of that book]: Bishop: They have telephoned me from Rome to tell me about this book of yours. You uphold some ideas which are not in line with those of the Church. For example, the Christ, for us, is Jesus Christ, and there cannot be anyone else. You made a distinction between Jesus and the Christ. Mario: Yes, but I mean to say that there is a difference between the human and the divine nature of Jesus Christ: the first is the container, the other is the content; the first is illusory, the second is real. Bishop:This is precisely the point of real divergence

between what you say and the official doctrine of the church, the Magisterium. I cannot agree with your

opinion. You end up putting Christ and Sai Baba on the same plane! Mario: Not exactly in those terms, but I understand that it would be easy to interpret it that way. I know that it is difficult to explain it, especially with centuries of


interpretations behind us, but, Monsignor, who can deny God permission to take whatever form He wishes whenever He wishes? Bishop:Mario, God cannot contradict Himself. If He has

revealed to us that He has come as savior only in Jesus Christ, He cannot break His word. The conversation continued. Bishop maintained that the Truth was revealed in toto and once and for all, by Christ, etc.. Nor did Jesus disappear as man: he is as eternal as the Christ, to the point that the two go together. I looked at him, puzzled; then I asked him: Mario: Are you maintaining that the body of Jesus still exists? But where, Monsignor? Bishop: For example, in the Eucharist. Mario: Tell that to any child, and he will tell you that he sees nothing but a piece of bread. I ask you please to tell me where the true body of Jesus, in flesh and blood, could be hidden or manifest. Bishop:See Mario, here too you are not in agreement with the Church

Mario: By why, Monsignor? mistakes in its thought?

Has the Church never made

Bishop: Lets not get into that; it is beside the point. Mario: Why do we have to come to a point where I am told Lets not get into that? (it wasnt the first time that phrase had come up). Monsignor, permit me to ask you a provocative question. Our Scriptures tell us that the Christ will come again. How will we recognize Him? Bishop: (after a moment of hesitation and confusion) That will happen at the end of history, when humanity will have finished its existence. Mario: Even the astronomers say that this Universe is unbelievably vast and in continuous expansion; do you really believe that only the history of our tiny human race is marked by a single, definitive close? Bishop: There is no other worlds. Therefore, that is how it is. Mario: There is no need to posit the existence of other worlds Besides, if humanity ends for good all at once,


what would be the purpose of Christ returning in the flesh, in all His glory? To show Himself to whom? The bishop touched on a number of other themes, in the effort to convince me that I was wrong. It was not really an interrogation; rather he was sounding me out to see if I really thought as I wrote; and it became evident that indeed I did. My position seemed irredeemable, and all vestige of hope was lost when he subtly suggested that I change my mind, and I assured him that I would never, never at any time, betray what I felt and continue to feel in my conscience.

On May 24, 1992 Don Mario Mazzoleni was excommunicated from Catholic Church for his relationship with Sathya Sai Baba and for writing the book.
Hinduism is the exact opposite of this. Anyone can know

God and no jealous intermediary can block his way. And the Hindu tradition has methods like yoga and meditation guided if you like, through a guru to facilitate one to reach God. Further, this spiritual freedom extends even to atheism. One can be an atheist (nastik) and still claim to be a Hindu. In addition, there is nothing to stop a Hindu from revering Jesus as the Son of God or

Muhammad as a Prophet. In contrast, a Christian or a Muslim revering Rama or Krishna would be condemned to death as a Kafir or burnt on the stakes as Joan of Arc was, as a pagan possessed by the devil, or the enemy. The main objective, in fact, of the Sanatana Dharma is to unfold the tremendous multi-dimensional potentialities of human intelligence, step by step, from the outer physical body level to subtle inner mental to intellectual and ultimately to the highest spiritual level, leading to Enlightenment and Self Realization. The human being is constituted by soul, mind and body, parallel in functions to a company incorporated constituted by a proprietor, manager and workers. The ultimate goal of human life is to experience a deep sense of fulfillment. All else e.g., position, purse, power, prestige, prize, profession etc., are at best, simply the means to that goal which fulfillment be achieved only by acquiring and cultivating the ingredients of Dharma because the human, unlike the animal, can reason logically deductively and inductively to

conceptualise, analyse, and theorise.


Besides the eternal and universal human values and norms in Sanatana Dharma prescription for other aspects of human life as well are embedded. Sanatana Dharma as expressed in different parts of the Vedas, has prescriptions for individuals living in different roles, e.g. as a mother (Matridharma), a father (Pitridharma), children (Putri/Putradhrma), a king (Rajadharma), a Guru (Gurudharma), a student (Shishyadharma), a woman

(Naridharma), a husband (Patidharma) etc.. Sanatana Dharma has provision as well for emergencies (Apaddharma) of different kinds. The Vedas are the basic and primary sources of Sanatana Dharma and are regarded as the roots of Dharma {Vedokhilo dharmamulam in Manusmriti 2/6}. Thus scientific foundation and spirit of inquiry has once again beginning to find favour abroad. journalist with Newsweek, writes: America is not a Christian nation. We are, it is true, a nation founded by Christians, and according to a 2008 survey, 76 percent of us continue to identify as Christian (still, that's the lowest percentage in As Lisa Miller, a senior

American history). Of course, we are not a Hinduor Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccannation, either. A million26

plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity. The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: "Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names." A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal. The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like this. They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me. Americans are no longer buying it. According to a 2008 Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of us believe that many religions can lead to eternal lifeincluding 37 percent of white evangelicals, the group most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone. Also, the number of

people who seek spiritual truth outside church is growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves spiritual, not religious, according to a 2009

Poll, up from 24 percent in 2005. Stephen Prothero, religion professor at Boston University, has long framed the American propensity for the divine-deli-cafeteria religion as very much in the spirit of Hinduism. You're not picking and choosing from different religions, because they're all the same, he says. It isnt about orthodoxy. It's about whatever works. If going to yoga works, greatand if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that's great, too. Then there's the question of what happens when you die. Christians traditionally believe that bodies and souls are sacred, that together they make up the self, and that at the end of time they will be reunited in the Resurrection. You need both, in other words, and you need them forever. Hindus believe no such thing. At

death, the body burns on a pyre, while the spiritwhere identity residesescapes. In reincarnation, central to


Hinduism, selves come back to earth again and again in different bodies. So here is another way in which

Americans are becoming more Hindu: 24 percent of Americans say they believe in reincarnation, according to a 2008 Harris poll. So agnostic are we about the ultimate fates of our bodies that we're burning them like Hindusafter death. More than a third of Americans now choose cremation, according to the Cremation Association of North America, up from 6 percent in l975. Let us all say om. There are, in my view, eight components of this mindset that the nation needs today which I call as Virat Hindutva. First, Hindus must regard and foster the concept of the nation as formed on the ethos of the unbroken civilization of Hindustan; their common history of endeavours, struggles, defeats and victories. Ancient Hindus and their descendents have always lived in this area, from the Himalayas to the islands of Indian Ocean, an area called Akhand Hindustan, and thus reject the British tutored historians that Indians are ethnically diverse and came from outside by period invasions.








development should synchronize and harmonize the material goals with spiritual advancement, what Deendayal Upadhyaya had called Integral Humanist outlook. Third, India that is Bharat, which is ancient Hindustan, is a Spiritual State in consonance with the concept of sarva panth sama bhaava. Hence the declaration in the Preamble of the Constitution that India is a Secular State be replaced by a declaration that Hindustan that is Bharat is a Spiritual State. Fourth, a national law is required to prohibit induced and wholesale religious conversion especially from Hinduism to proselytizing Semitic religions, because only the Brihad Hindu society can maintain secularism and regard all religions lead to God. Such a prohibitive law will however not bar re-conversion of any Indian to the original Hindu religion, that is the return of any Indian to his or her ancestors faith. Fifth, that there is no theologically sanctioned concept of birth based social hierarchy.

Varna never was conceived as

birth-based in Hindu scriptures, but a choice that was subject to each abiding by the prescribed disciplines of that Varna. The present practice of birth-determined Varna is un-Hindu, and is excess baggage that requires to be off-loaded and purged from the body-politic of the nation is the interest of a virat Hindu unity. Sixth, all Hindus to qualify as true Hindus must make effort to learn Sanskrit and the Devanagari script, in addition to mother tongue, and pledge that one day in the future, Sanskrit will evolve to become Indias link language since all the main Indian languages already have a large percentage of their vocabulary derived from or in common with Sanskrit. To re-throne Sanskrit, Hindi vocabulary should keep

Sanskritising till Hindi itself becomes indistinguishable from Sanskrit, just as Pali became two thousand years ago. Seventh, Hindus must prefer to lose everything they possess rather than submit to terrorism or dictatorship. The virat Hindu must have a mindset to retaliate when attacked by terrorists. The retaliation must be massive enough to deter future attacks.


Eighth, the Hindutva art of governance would be structured on the principles of Ramrajya and drawn from the tenets propounded in Chanakyas Arthsastra. These eight attributes constitute a mindset that a modern virat Hindu must have to be in a position to confront the challenge that Hindu civilization is facing from globalization, terrorism and from fraud foreign Christian missionaries, who unfortunately are also aided and abetted from within the country by confused Hindus. Without such a virile mindset--which is virat Hindutva, Hindus will be unable to confront the subversion and erosion that today undermine the Hindu foundation of India. This foundation is what makes India distinctive, and hence we must safeguard it with all the might and moral fibre that we have. The Constitution of India being supreme law, hence every other law must conform to the Constitution. So the question

arises: Will Hindutva be a contradiction or violative of the Constitution? In other words, can Hindutva be incorporated by

amending the Constitution?


I would like to mention some Hindutva goals which meet the test of Constitutionality and hence need to be pursued even under the present Constitution. Thanks to the Constitution Bench judgment in the Farooqui case [1994], no mosque is an essential part of Islam, and hence can be acquired for a public purpose and even demolished. Thus for restoring the Kashi Visvanath temple or the Krishna

Janmabhoomi temple, demolishing of the existing mosques by a government is constitutionally permitted. The Ramjanmabhoomi temple case is currently entangled on the unauthorized demolition by some people taking law into their own hands, but that is IPC offence and has no constitutional significance. Any government can constitutionally even now take-over the project for public good, and build a Ram Janma bhoomi temple. Third, Article 370 is peculiar provision. It can be deleted by a Presidential notification subject to the concurrence of the J&K Constituent Assembly which has long ceased to exist. They have already driven out Pandits. Hence, there is no fetter

constitutionally to abolish Article 370 by a notification. By way of


abundant precaution the President can obtain the concurrence of the J&K Governor. Fourth, since the Article 44 is a Directive Principle for State Policy to have uniform civil code and moreover since the Muslims, on ground of violation of the Shariat, have not objected to the IPC as a uniform criminal code, hence it is constitutional to enforce Article 44 as not violative of Article 15public Order/Health.. Fifth, time has arrived for us to openly declare India as an ancient Hindu civilization, which the only way we can perform the Fundamental Duty under Article 51-A(f), and boldly up revere our sacred symbols. For example, the total ban on cow slaughter in Article 48 has been held by a 1958 Constitution Bench to possess constitutionality in the sense that it held to be a reasonable restriction on fundamental rights of all Indians.

Sixth, at present the Government has been taking over Hindu temples its resources and land and using it for all kinds of non-religious purposes under the states enacted Hindu Religious

Institutions and Charitable Endowment Acts on the pretext of maladministration of the temple properties. Under Article 31A(1)(b) of the Constitution such take-over cannot be permanent. If mal/administration charge is true, then the Government should rectify it within a reasonable period such as three years, and then hand it back. These six constitutionally valid pillars are what Hindutva is based and can be achieved within the present Constitution. The Constitution, it is my submission, was intended from the very beginning, to represent Hindu ethos. The illustrations selected to represent the Muslim period also imply this intention: Only two illustrations have been selected: i) A portrait of Akbar and (ii) portraits of Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh. From the whole range of Muslim themes, only Akbar is selected. Akbar come closest in his ideals and practices to what can be called the Hindu spirit: his relatively liberal politics, his reported refusal to make the Mughal state an instrument of exclusive Muslim hegemony, his relatively less hostile attitude towards Hindu religion, his refusal to treat Hindus as degraded

dhimmies on account of religious belief. Akbar approximated to a certain extent the Hindu ideal of social and political behaviour and unsurprisingly found a place in the Constitution of India. The other two men who represent the 'Muslim Period' are Shivaji and Guru Gobind Singh: men who fought the persecution and bigotry of the Mughal rule under the successors of Akbar, especially Aurangzeb. Akbar is chosen because he was liberal: Shivaji and Gobind Singh are chosen because they fought the oppression and cruelty of the Mughal state which was acting as the instrument of Islamic religious supremacy. They refused to recognize a political dispensation that functioned as an instrument for the fulfillment of Islamic religious agendas. They fought for safeguarding the dignity of their culture and religious values from the depredations of a theocratic Muslim state. The three represent the grand spiritual if secular, ethos of Hindutva. The Constitution of India is cognizant of this fact. The pictures chosen from the British period and the era of India's freedom movement are also unique. The former era is

represented inveterate



Sultan against



Lakshmi colonial






warriors whose battles were not defined in terms of mere speeches and slogans but enacted within the context of blood and sweat. Another figure chosen from the phase called 'Revolutionary movement for freedom' is Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. One is compelled to ask the question: Why is Netaji chosen to represent the revolutionary movement for the freedom of India? The fact is that it was Netaji whose gallantry and dedication raised the morale of the freedom fighters and led to wider repercussion in other sections of Indian society. His courage, his sacrifice, his fighting spirit are the true values representative of the final assault of the Indian people on the edifice of colonial rule. The only person chosen to represent the theme 'India's Freedom Movement' is Mahatma Gandhi, whose deep association with Hindu values, Hind Swaraj and Ram Rajya are no hidden facts. The Constitution of India thus seems to have chosen very Hindu icons to represent its ethos.


The 'aroma' of Hinduness or Hindutva also permeates the most important constitutional and administrative units of the Indian state. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the august premises of the Indian Parliament - a house where matters of national concern are discussed and the fate of the nation is decided. The head of the Lok Sabha is the Speaker, and what we find inscribed holdly above the Chair of the speaker is the following:

Dharmachakra Pravartanaya (for the turning of the wheel of

righteousness). It is accepted by all that the notion of 'Dharma' is the most significant cultural signifier of the Hindu world. The rulers of ancient India had accepted the path of dharma as their area of political exertion and the managers of free India's politics accepted that notion by putting the dharamachakra on the national flag, and the related motto in the central place of the highest legislative body. The Parliament of India bears prominent reminders of the Hindu ethos at many places: i) At door no. 1 is inscribed


Lok Devarampatraarnu Pashyema tvam vayam vera

(Chhandogya) Translation: Open the door for the welfare of the people and show them the path of noble sovereignty. ii) At the door of the Central Hall -

Ayam nijah paroveti ganana laghuchetasam Udarcharitanam tu vasudhaiva kutumbakam

(Panchantantra) Translation: To think in terms of me and others in a narrow say; for the men of liberal character the whole world is taken as one family. iii) On the dome near lift no. 1

Na sa sabhayata na santi vriddhah Vriddhah na to ye na vadantidharmam

Dharmah sa no yatra na satyamasti Satyamna tadyachhalambhyupaiti



Translation: No assembly is a sabha which does not comprise elders; he is not an elder who does not speak according to dharma; no dharma survives without truthfulness; nd every truth is necessarily devoid of cunning and deceit. iv) On the dome near lift no. 2

Sabha v na praveshtaya Vakavyam va samanjasam Abruvan vibruvan vapi Naro bluvati kilvishi
(Manusmriti) Translation: Either do not enter the sabha or speak only according to dharma when you are inside it. Those who do not speak or speak untruthfully and unrighteously are partakers of sin. These teachings - and there are many more - inscribed on the domes and walls of the Indian Parliament signify the values


that the fathers of Indian democracy and parliamentarianism wanted to inculcate. It goes without saying that all the noble virtues included in the above mentioned aphorisms are derived from the Hindu heritage of India. The founding fathers seem to have found a deep consonance between India's Hindu ideals and the ideals of a modern secular democracy. The impact of Hindu heritage and its value systems on the legal and administrative life of India becomes all the more apparent when one examines the core ideals adopted by various institutions. Some of the examples are as follows: i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) Government of India - Satyameva Jayate Lok Sabha - Dharmachakra Pravartanaya Supreme Court - Yato Dharmastato Jayah All India Radio Bahujanhitaya Doordarshan - Satyam Shivam Sundaram Indian Army - Seva Asmakam Dharmah

vii) Indian Navy - Shan No Varunah viii) Indian Air Force - Nabhah Sprisham Diptam ix) x) Delhi University - Nistha Dhriti Satyam Life Insurance Corporation of India - Yogakshemam


These ideals are ideals of the Hindu world. They do not convey religious dogmas, therefore no rituals or gods are invoked in them; they are civilisational values whose sanction comes from deep humanism and a commitment to a righteous way of life. They are noble virtues whose adoption was deemed to be relevant for the future of modern India's democratic polity. The Indian Constitution and the Indian polity pay their homage to the ancient value systems of the Hindu way of life, and Hindutva. Thus the interpretations of the higher judiciary of the land, assigning the Hindu way or Hindutva to the centuries old sociocultural underpinnings of India are not an exercise of mere juristic interpretation. of It is more fundamentally ideational the and





political norms that give the people and territory of India their defining identity. Inspite of the currently fashionable denial by the purveyors of a warped secularism, the Hindu underpinning of India's milieu have been vested with great significance by the leaders of the freedom movement and has been subtly but insistently stated in the structures of the democratic institutions set up by

Independent India. Our Constitution, our Parliament, our highest


Judiciary, and other important organs of the state recognize most clearly that the ultimate normative sources of inspiration for shaping free India's destiny would remain the millennia old heritage of Hindu ideals and civilisational concerns. The founding fathers of India's political regime seem to have had no doubt in their minds that India can remain a pluralistic and democratic polity only to the extent that it adheres to the fundamental values of a democratic and pluralistic Hindutva. DEFINITION OF SECULARISM Political 'secularism' parties all which have been swearing of by





minorityism, have failed to persuade the masses that what they advocate is good for country. Secularism as defined and propagated today in India has been reduced to minorityism or minority appeasement. Only Hindus have to appease Muslims and Christians in majority in pockets of India, or anywhere else in the world.


The question today is not whether secularism is flawed but whether we should conceptually redefine secularism to make it acceptable to the masses in the country. Such a re-defined concept must be harmonized with concept of an Indian identity, which requires that India be regarded as Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those other who proudly accept Hindus as their ancestors. In this context, Indianness means 'Hindutva'. Thus, Indian identity rests on two pillars: India as Hindustan and Indian-ness as Hindutva. In India, Jawaharial Nehru and his followers had given the concept of secularism an anti-Hindu content. For example, personal and inheritance laws would be legislated for Hindus and subject to judicial review, but not for Muslims and Christians. In the name of secularism Nehru propagated that India should ostracize Israel because otherwise the Muslims of India would be offended. This was done at the cost of national interest.


Thus Manmohan Singh's "M virus' has its roots in Nehruism. Even in public functions, cultural symbolism such as lighting a lamp to inaugurate a conference or breaking a coconut to launch a project was regarded as against secularism. A conceptual void thus will remain until we not only reject minorityism but also develop a concept ofsecularisn that is in harmony with the national imperative of Hindutva and the nation as Hindustan. To fill this void, we need to develop therefore a concept of secularism by which an Indian citizen could comprehend how he or she should bond "secularly" with another citizen of a different religion, language or region and feel as a fellow countrymen. The Indian instinctively cannot accept the idea that India is what the British had put together, and that the country was just a body administratively incorporated. Instead, Bharat-Mata has a soul which Deendayal Upadhyaya had called Chiti, which soul was not recognized in Nehru's view. The ridiculous idea that India is a nation fostered by British rule, propagated




Jawaharial Nehru University historians, finds just no takers amongst the Indian people. Only by using religious symbols can this void be filled. India being 83 percent Hindu, and that the folklore in this religion is pan-Indian, therefore it is easy for the masses of all Hindustanis to understand religious bonding. Ramayana narration traverses from the Punjab to Srilanka. Mahabharata covers incidents from Assam to Gujarat. Adi Shankara connected Kerala to Kashmir. This not need alienate Muslims and Christians if they proudly accept that their ancestors were Hindus. The problem arises only if the Muslims and Christians identify themselves with foreign invaders or as an international community

transcending national interests. Minorityism has undesirable effect on national integrity. For example, minorityism enables Muslim men to resist family planning by making their women vulnerable to sudden divorce, and hence not have voice in how many children they will bear.


Muslim men know that uniform civil code will never come under a regime committed to minorityism. Christian missionaries have now under minorityism got a free hand to conduct money-induced religious conversion. They are not bothered from where that money comes and what ethical and moral norms they have to violate for it. For example, Mother Theresa shocked the conscience of all genuinely secular minded persons when she wrote directly to Judge Lance Ito of Los Angeles Court on behalf of a known fraud and embezzler Charles Keating who was facing prosecution because he stole $252 million from 17,000 pensioners, retail stock holders and insurance

premiums by selling them bogus bonds of his company. He had donated $5 million (Rs.25 crores) to Missionaries of Charity, Kolkata headed by Mother Theresa, and that was enough for her to write to Judge Ito directly asking him not to convict Keating! Her words to Judge Ito were even more astounding: "Please look into your heart as .you sentence Charles Keating -and do what Jesus would do".


Judge Ito ignored her plea, and convicted Keating to spend years in jail, and also imposed a huge fine. He however asked the Public Prosecutor (Deputy District Attorney in US) Paul W. Turley to reply to Mother Theresa. Turley turned Mother Theresa's plea on her by posing a question "You asked Judge Ito to do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you: Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease I his submit conscience?" that Jesus Then would came Turley's and



unhesitatingly return the stolen property to its rightful owners." Then Turley implored Mother Theresa: "You have been given money by Mr.Keating that he has been convicted of stealing by fraud. Do not keep the money. Return it to those who worked for it and earned it! If you contact me I will put you in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession".

(Extracted from Hitchens Christopher: The Missionary Position: Mother Theresa in Theory and Practice). Of course, Mother Theresa felt no such moral

compulsion, ignored Turley and kept Keating's tainted and stolen gift of $5 million. Hence, we Hindus must learn today that in the name of secularism and misinterpretation of 'vasudeva

kutambakkam' we do not fall prey to pious looking foreign ladies dressed in saris and talking about a 'universal God'. Remember, when Ravana came to abduct Sita, he came dressed as a pious sanyasi, and not as his true self. Likewise, disintegration minorityism and disaster. is a recipe for national are



paving the way for this to happen. The only antidote is a virat Hindutva. The present UPA is hell bent on protecting the interests of the Muslims and Christians by lop-sided minorityism. In 2005 a group of Mizos were discovered by Jewish scholars as a lost tribe. The Mizos also confirmed that their

practices were Jewish but formally they were converted forcibly to Christianity by British colonialists. They desired to return to the Jewish faith. Therefore in November 2005 Israel decided to dispatch some Rabbis to Aizwal to conduct the necessary re-conversion ceremonies. But Dr.Manmohan Singh intervened on the direction of Ms. Sonia Gandhi to ask the MEA to cancel the Rabbis' visa and inform Israel that "Government of India does not approve of such conversion activities". In fact if Hindus have to accept reservations to Muslims and Christians because their presumed discrimination and deprivation, would Hindus be also justified in demanding that Muslims and Christians atone for past atrocities committed by their rulers on Hindus or alternatively, disown their rulers, and declare themselves proudly as those whose ancestors were Hindus. Regrettably, Islamization begins when there are

sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges as Dr.Peter Hammond has observed in his many writings.

When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. As long as Muslim population remains under 2% and the non Muslim majority remains cohesive in any given country, Muslims will be for the most part a 'peace-loving minority, and not a threat to other citizens.This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6% Australia -- Muslim 1.5% Canada -- Muslim 1.9% China -- Muslim 1.8% Italy -- Muslim 1.5% Norway -- Muslim 1.8% At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major

recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2% Germany -- Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% Spain -- Muslim 4% Thailand -- Muslim 4.6% From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For

example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food

preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8% Philippines -- Muslim 5% Sweden -- Muslim 5% Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling

government to allow them to rule themselves (within their


ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing carburnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim

sections, in: Guyana -- Muslim10% India -- Muslim 13.4% Israel -- Muslim 16% Kenya -- Muslim 10% Russia -- Muslim 15% After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40% Chad -- Muslim 53.1% Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7% .

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-

conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70% Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4% Qatar -- Muslim 77.5% Sudan -- Muslim 70% After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90% Gaza -- Muslim 98.7% Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1% Iran -- Muslim 98% Iraq -- Muslim 97% Jordan -- Muslim 92% Morocco -- Muslim 98.7% Pakistan -- Muslim 97% Palestine -- Muslim 99% Syria -- Muslim 90% Tajikistan -- Muslim 90% Turkey -- Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-ul-Islam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, Sharia is the only law, the Madrassas are the only schools, and the Koran is the only Holy dictum, in such nations as in: Afghanistan -- Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%

Somalia -- Muslim 100% Yemen -- Muslim 100% Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate or kill the less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons adduced on the basis of the Shariat. We see this happening increasingly in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Some of the radical Muslim leaders especially in forums where foreign journalists are usually present, proclaim unabashedly that the Muslims in India are living in perpetual


threat and are being treated as second class citizens in this country. If that were indeed so, these leaders need to explain how over two crores Bangladeshi Muslims and over a lakh Muslim immigrate into India illegally from Pakistan at the risk of being killed by BSF or the Army at the border, and another 80,000 Muslims who came from Pakistan on valid visas and just vanished and got absorbed in India, gave up their Free From Fear environment and first class

citizenship status in Bangladesh and Pakistan respectively to court a life of perpetual fear and a status of second class citizenship in India? If it is the poverty of India then explain, as Konrad Elst in his book [Indias Only Communalist] pertinently points out, why successive UN reports on the State of the Arab countries have documented how inspite of their God given abundant oil wealth, they are hopelessly behind in

practically every respect of human endeavour: human rights, gender equality, enterprises set up, original research

conducted, inventions patented, internet access per head,


books published, sales per book foreign book translated, etc. not to mention democracy. Indeed therefore, religion-based quotas and reservation is not certainly the cure for a backwardness which is not imposed but caused by unsafeguarded and unregulated educational system. The lack of Hindu unity and the determined bloc voting in elections by Muslims and Christians has however created a significantly large leverage for these two religious

communities in economic, social and foreign policy making. Thus, although uniform civil code is a Directive Principle of State Policy in the Constitution, it is taboo to ask for it because of this leverage. It is not as if Muslims will not accept uniform laws when it suits them, even if it is against the Shariat. For example, Muslims accept uniform criminal code under the IPC even though it infringes the Shariat, but resist uniform civil code because it violates the



contradictions are permitted for Muslims by the Mullahs because India is considered Darul Harab.


Accordingly Muslim leadership deploys its leverage where it is tactically advantageous. This leverage exists despite the people of India who declare in the Census that they are adherents of religions which were born on Indian soil, that is Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains constituted 83.21% of the total Indian population (as of last Census in 2001). In 1941, this proportion, adjusted for Partition, was 84.44%. But this figure hides the fact that Hindus resident in undivided Pakistan have migrated to post- Partition India which is why the share of Hindus and co-religionists have barely reduced since 1941. In the area now called

Bangladesh, Hindus were 30% in 1941. In 2001 they are less than 8%. In Pakistan of today, Hindus were 20% in 1941, and less than 2% in 2001. Such religious cleansing has however not been noticed by anybody in the world! When Hindus do not care, why should the world take notice? If the figures are adjusted for this migration, then in the five decades 1951-2001, Hindus have lost more 3 percent


points in share of Indian population, while Muslims have increased their share by about 3%. What is even more significant is that Hindus have lost 12% points since 1881, and the loss in share has begun to accelerate since 1971 partly due to illegal migration of Muslims from Bangladesh. The current scenario of minority appeasement is that Muslims and Christians together even though less than 16% of the voters, vote en bloc. Hindus despite being over 83% of the voters are hopelessly divided and amorphous. Hence unless a Hindu bloc vote emerges, being at least 35% of the 83% minority appeasement will continue at Hindus cost. The mother of all problems thus amongst Muslims is the lack of secondary and higher levels of education among. But let alone the Muslim women, even the literacy rates of Muslim males is way below the national average. This is so inspite of the fact that community wise, the percentage of Muslims living in urban areas is 50% higher in comparison to the percentage of Hindus, and the chances of obtaining


higher education are more easily available to urban dwellers as against the rural folks. Thus much more than reservations as a cure, the Muslim community in India must undergo a cultural

revolution to develop a healthy attitude to secular and cognitive arts and sciences and to gender equality.

Reservations and quotas are not the right medicine for the Muslim communitys current backwardness. A lioberal

outlook and a commitment to gender equality is. More recently, Mr.Jonah Blank, an American journalist curious about this Hindutva, took a journey in 1991-92 from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka on the route taken by Lord Rama. He then wrote a book about titled: Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God Retracing the Ramayana Through India [published by the well known Houghton Mifflin of Boston USA]. He writes: Indias land may be ruled by aliens from time to time, but never her mind, never her soul..... In the end, it is always India that does the digesting" [p.217]. He concludes: But somehow a nebulous sense of Indianness does exist, and it binds together Gujaratis,


Orissans, to Nagas who might seem to have nothing at all in common. Perhaps it is this elusive, undefinable [yet very real] link that has allowed the sub-continent's multitude of races to live in some rough semblance of harmony for four thousand years[p.218]. Despite Blank's unthinking adherence to "facts" of Indian history as written out by British colonialists, the reality of his direct experiences from his travels in India makes him come to the opposite conclusion to the British colonialists viz., India has always existed because of the Indian-ness [read: Hindutva as

Substance} of the people.

In all the fleeting centuries of history holds

Dr.Radhakrishnan in his work on Indian Philosophy, in all the vicissitudes, through which India has passed, a certain marked identity is visible. It has held fast to certain psychological traits which constitute its special heritage, and they will be the characteristic marks of the Indian people so long as they are privileged to have a separate existence. If we can abstract from the variety of opinion

Dr.Radhakrishnan adds: and observe the general spirit of Indian thought, we shall find that it has a disposition to interpret life

and nature in the way of monistic idealism, though this tendency is so plastic, living and manifold that it takes many forms and expresses itself in even mutually hostile teachings. This Hindu-ness or Hindutva has been our identifying characteristic, by which we have been recognized world-wide.

The territory in which Hindus lived was known as Hindustan, i.e., a specific area of a collective of persons who are bonded
together by this Hindu-ness. The Salience thus was given religious and spiritual significance by tirth yatra, kumbh mela, common festivals, and in the celebration of events in the

Ithihasa, viz., Ramayana and Mahabharata.

Hindu Rashtra thus defined, is our nation that is a modern Republic today, whose roots are also in the long unbroken Hindu civilisational history. Throughout this history we were a Hindu Republic and not a monarchy [a possible but weak exception being Asoka's reign]. In this ancient Republican concept, the king did not make policy or proclaim the law. The intellectually accomplished (but not birth-based or determined) elite in the society, known as Brahmans, framed the laws and state policy and the King (known as Kshatriya) implemented it.

Thus it was ordained: I deem that country as the most virtuous land which promotes the healthy and friendly combination of Brahma and

Kshattra powers for an integrated upliftment of the society along

with the divine powers of the Gods of mundane power of the material resources -Yajurveda XX-25.

Hindutva hence, is our innate nature, while Hindustan is our territorial body, but Hindu Rashtra is our republican soul. Hindu

panth [religion] is however a theology of faith.

Even if an Indian has a different faith from a Hindu, he or she can still be possessed of Hindutva. Since India was 100 percent Hindu a millennium ago, the only way any significant group could have a different faith in today's India is if they were converted from Hindu faith, or are of those whose ancestors were Hindus. Conversion of faith does not have to imply conversion to another culture or nature.

Therefore, Hindutva can remain to be interred in a non-Hindu in India. Hence, we can say that Hindustan is a country of Hindus


and those others whose ancestors were Hindus. Acceptance with pride this reality by non-Hindus is to accept Hindutva. Hindu Rashtra is therefore a republican nation of Hindus and of those of other faiths who have Hindutva in them. This formulation settles

the question of identity of the Hindustani or Indian.

We Indians have been waffling on the question of identity now for over six decades. Time is at hand to rectify that waffle by adopting an Agenda for Action to inculcate Hindutva as the core of our identity. Its implementation requires political action.

This is the goal : to chart a road map for India that is Hindustan to become a Hindu Rashtra based on inclusive Hindutva.

The greatest sage and sanyasi of the 20th century, namely Chandashekharendra Sarasvati, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt at Kanchipuram, TN, who is reverentially referred to as the Parmacharya counseled the Indian leadership on August 15, 1947 that: "having become free, we must translate that freedom into independence". Freedom is a physical attribute of a citizen's rights, such as the right to a livelihood, the freedom of travel etc., while


independence of a nation rests on the quality of the citizen's thoughts such as his or her attitude to duties, morality, interpersonal relations, social commitment, and nationalism. This requires knowledge of the correct history of Hindustan a common language and a healthy mindset to act for the benefit of the nation. Hindutva embodies all these aspects. Hindutva however has to be inculcated in our people from values and norms that emerge out of Hindu renaissance, that is, a Hindu theology which is shorn of the accumulated but unacceptable baggage of the past as also by co-opting new scientific discoveries, perceptions and by synergizing with modernity. This is the only way that Hindustan can become a modern Hindu Rashtra, thus achieving independence after having

recovered our freedom [in 1947]as Parmacharya had wanted. Hindu-ness of outlook on life had been called Hindutva by Swami Vivekananda also and Hindutva's political perspective was subsequently developed by Veer Savarkar. Deendayal

Upadhaya briefly dealt with the concept of Hindutva when he wrote about chiti in his seminal work: Integral Humanism. The


focus of all three profound thinkers is the multi-dimensional development of the Hindus as an individuals harmonizing

material needs with spiritual advancement and which needs then have to be aggregated and synchronized to foster a united community on the collective concept of Hindutva. Swami Vivekananda defined Hindutva, upon returning from Chicago in 1896 in an address in Lahore as follows: Mark me, then and then alone you are a Hindu when the very name Hindu sends through you a galvanic shock of strength. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when every man and woman who bears the name Hindu, from any country, speaking our language or any other language, becomes at once the nearest and dearest to you. Then and then alone you are a Hindu when the distress of anyone bearing the name Hindu comes to your heart and makes you fell as if your own son or daughter were in distress [Collected Works, vol 3, page 379].


Paraphrasing what Veer Savarkar had said, the following is what he said enlightened Hindus need to tell India's minorities and others: If you come along with us, then with you. If you do not, then

without you. If you oppose us, then inspite of you. Hindutva shall
prevail. And Deendayal Upadhyaya outlined how to modernize the concepts of Hindutva as follows: We have to discard the status quo mentality and usher in a new era. Indeed our efforts at reconstruction need not be clouded by prejudice or disregard for all that is inherited from our past. On the other hand, there is no need to cling to past institutions and traditions which have outlived their utility. This is the essence of

Thus, we should invite Muslims and Christians to join us Hindus on the basis of common ancestry or even seek their return if it is acceptable to them [Ghar vapasi] to our fold as Hindus, in this grand endeavour as Hindustanis, on the substance of our shared and common ancestry.


It is worthy of notice that, recognizing this limitation, Hindu spiritual leaders in the past have from time to time come forward to rectify it, whenever the need arose e.g., as the Sringeri Shankaracharya did by founding the Vijayanagaram dynasty or Swami Ramdas did with Shivaji and the Mahratta campaign. Such involvement of sanyasis is required even more urgently today. Following the lead taken in 1964 by Guru Golwalkar, the Sarsanghachalak of RSS, to bring the Sadhus and sanyasis, into a forum for which the VHP was founded. The VHP has since engaged in mobilization of the sants and sadhus through the Dharma Sansad, and now in the Dharma Raksha Manch for social action, which has become crucial for our spiritual consolidation. In fact, this is the real substance of India as Swami Vivekananda had aptly put it when he stated that: "National union of India must be a gathering up of its scattered spiritual forces. A Nation in India must be a union of those whose hearts beat to the same spiritual tune.... The common ground that we have is our sacred traditions, our religion. That is the only common ground... upon that we shall have to build".


Hence, the essentiality of Hinduism, or alternatively the core quality of being a Hindu, which we may call as our Hindu-ness [i.e., Hindutva], is that theologically there is no danger of Hindutva, or the advocacy of the same, of ever degenerating into fundamentalism. In fact, so liberal, sophisticated, and focused on inward evolution is Hindu theology, that in a series of Supreme Court judgments, various Constitutional Benches found it hard even to define Hinduism and Hindutva as anything but a way of life, as we discover from an useful review of these judgments by Bal Apte MP [in Supreme Court on Foundation, 2005]. The danger lies in not blending Hindutva individuality with the collective determination to defend Hinduism against the multi-faceted threats its focus today. But we Hindus must invite Muslims and Christians to join in this grand endeavour of forging a virile identity on the basis of our shared and common ancestors. Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and Parsis are already with us Hindus, and we are with them. Let us on this principle of Hindutva form a new Brihad Virat Akhand Hindustan. The identity of Indian is thus Hindustani; our nation a Hindu Rashtra i.e., a republican nation of Hindus and those others [non70

Hindutva: India First

Hindus] who proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus.

It is this acknowledgement that remains pending today. We

can accept Muslims and Christians as part of our Hindustani family when they proudly acknowledge this fact of common ancestry and accept furthermore that change religion does not require change of culture. Thus the cultural identity of India is undeniably, immutably, and obviously its Hindu-ness, that is Hindutva. Indian history would leave no one in doubt about it. A de-falsified

The Hindu consciousness that is needed today therefore is that which encompasses the willingness and determination to collectively defend the faith from the erosion that is being induced by the disconnect with our glorious past through history books.

That is, by a failure to usher a renaissance after 1947 India has lost her opportunity to cleanse the accumulated dirt and unwanted baggage of the past. The nation missed a chance to


demolish the birth-based caste theory as Ambedkar had wanted to do. The battering that the concept of Hindu unity and Indian identity has taken at the hands of Nehruvian secularists since 1947 has led to the present social malaise. Thus, even though Hindus are above 80 percent of the population in India, they have not been able to understand their roots in, and obligations to, the Hindu society in a pluralistic democracy. Today the sacrilege of Hindu concepts and hoary institutions is being carried out not with the crude brutality of past invasions, but with the sophistication of the constitutional instruments of law. The desecration of Hindu icons, for example the Kanchi Kamakoti Mutt, is being made to look legal, thereby completely confusing the Hindu people, and thus making them unable to recognize the danger, or to realize that Hindus have to unite to defend against the threats to their legacy. We Hindus are under

siege today; and we do no realize it!!

That is, what is truly alarming is that Hindu society could be dissembled today without much protest since we have been lulled into loss of self-esteem about our past or that the capacity to think collectively as Hindus has been grossly weakened.

Hindus are being lulled, while Muslims and Christians are being subject to relentless propaganda that they are different, and are citizens of India as would be a shareholder in a company that is run for profit, and not as those who are descendents of Hindus, and a product of conversion and force, and that they too have a duty to perform in protecting Hindu culture. But, if this degeneration and disconnect are not rectified and repaired by a resolve to unite people, the Indian nation may go into a tail spin and ultimately fade away like other

civilizations, like Greece and Egypt, have for much the same reason. To resist this siege, we need Hindutva. Numbers [of those claiming to be adherents to Hinduism] do not matter in today's information society. It is the durability and clarity of the Hindu mindset and quality of commitment to Hinduness of those who unite that matters in the forging of an instrument to fight this creeping danger and bring forth a renaissance of Hindustan as virat nation and a global power.