Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: August 30, 2009
URL: http://organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=306&page=9
No Hindu ruler ever invaded foreign lands,
determined to destroy other cultures and civilisations. Asoka did not send
an Army to China or even to Sri Lanka to spread the message of the Buddha.
No Hindu preacher ever went round the world to publicise Hinduism as the only
gateway to salvation. No Hindu monarch levied any unjust tax-like jezia-on
Muslims. No Hindu sought revenge against the past evil deeds of Muslim rulers.
In recent times there has been a lot of hue
and cry over 'Hindutva'. Macaulay's children who inhabit editorial offices
in many newspapers have, in the past, taken an instant dislike for the word,
often going to the extent to comparing it with fascism. For our intellectuals,
the very word 'Hindu' is anathema: they recoil from it. To them, to say that
one is a Hindu is an admission of communalism.
Jawaharlal Nehru was one who led the great
anti-Hindu brigade. He was aghast that KM Munshi should want to resurrect
the Somnath Temple that had been desecrated and looted by Ghazni Mohammad
not once, but several times. He was even averse to then President Dr Rajendra
Prasad attending the inaugural ceremony of the renovated temple, though Nehru
had no compunction in asking that his ashes be immersed in Ganga which he
described in lyrical terms in his Last Will and Testament. Such was the hatred
that the anti-Hindutva forces aroused that the Shiv Sena was moved to ask
its followers to assert proudly that they are Hindus. Garv se kaho hum Hindu
hai. At least two generations of young Hindus have been brought up in India
to shun Hindutva and think of it as a destructive doctrine which it is anything
but, the frequent mile-long queue of young Indians wishing to offer their
prayers to Siddhi Vinayaka in Mumbai has another story to tell.
What is Hindutva? It means the "essence"
of Hinduism. And what is the essence of Hinduism? It can be summed up in one
word: "Tolerance". Tolerance of what? Tolerance of contrary views,
tolerance of dissent; tolerance of -and respect for -other religions. Yes,
Hinduism has a thousand shortcomings which Hindus themselves have sought to
correct down the centuries and continue to do so even today. For Mahatma Gandhi
Hinduism was "a relentless pursuit to Truth". "If today it
has become moribund, inactive and irresponsive to growth" he wrote (and
that was in Young India, April 24, 1924) it is because we are fatigued, and
as soon as the fatigue is over, Hinduism will burst upon the world with a
brilliance perhaps unknown before". Our so-called secularists cannot
stand that. They have to damn Hinduism in order to win the approbation and
applause of the "minorities".
What is Hinduism's political record? When
the Parsis landed in Gujarat in AD 717 they were given asylum and allowed
to live their lives the way they desired. Christianity came to India almost
two thousand years ago and survived. They were not hounded out. No Hindu ruler
ever invaded foreign lands, determined to destroy other cultures and civilisations.
Asoka did not send an Army to China or even to Sri Lanka to spread the message
of the Buddha. No Hindu preacher ever went round the world to publicise Hinduism
as the only gateway to salvation. No Hindu monarch levied any unjust tax-like
jezia-on Muslims. No Hindu sought revenge against the past evil deeds of Muslim
rulers. And what has been the record of barbarian invaders?
In his book: The Sword of the Prophet, Serge
Trifkovic has noted that "the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India
are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust".
When Mohammad Qasim invaded India, starting in AD 712, according to Trifkovic,
he "demolished temples, shattered sculptures, plundered palaces, killed
vast numbers of men-it took his men three days to slaughter the inhabitants
of the port city of Debal..." That was only the beginning. It is not
necessary to go into all the details of temple destruction, smashing of idols
and decimation of Hindus which can only make for painful reading.
After the Battle of Chittor, even Akbar had
ordered the slaying of 30,000 Rajputs on February 24, 1568. Hindus have never
sought revenge, It is not in their blood. Hindutva is unique in its inclusive
nature and the BJP- and every Indian-has every reason to be proud of it. It
allows every individual to follow his own self-chosen path to salvation. No
Hindu leader dare issue a fatwa. No Hindu religious authority can lay down
what is right or wrong, whether it is birth control, divorce or whatever.
The essence of Hinduism is total, utter freedom. If that is not something
to be proud of, what is? Are we to be governed by people who are not proud
of their own past, in the name of secularism? What a fantastically rich past
do we Hindus have which we want to share with our fellow Indians? Whether
it is in the realm of science, technology, astronomy, literature, philosophy
and the arts, it is we, the Hindus, who have ample reason to be proud of.
If that is not something to be proud of, what is? And we achieved all this
without robbing other nations and people as did the British, the French and
other barbarian European societies.
Hindus did not send missionaries to Portugal
or Spain to burn down Churches and impose Hinduism on the people on pain of
death, if they didn't. Hindus respected tribals as is explicit in the story
of Hanuman. They did not decimate them as did the Americans and Australians
and Spaniards in North and South America and in Australia. Hindus excelled
in mathematics, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, metereology and much else
and to Hindus dharma meant upholding values, not devastating conquered lands.
And what a great past do we have!
Macaulay himself, addressing the British Parliament
on February 2, 1835 said: "I have travelled across the length and breadth
of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such
wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such
calibre that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless we break
the backbone of this nation which is her spiritual and cultural heritage"
(emphasis added). Macaulay's children today are doing just that, damning Hindutva.
Hindutva is not anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or anti-Modern. Hindutva is
post-modern in the freedom it gives to those Hindus such as the ones who have
taken over Silicon Valley in the United States. Hindutva is a value-based
and value-enriching way of life and there is nothing comparable to it in the
world. To run it down is exactly what Macaulay would have appreciated and
that is exactly what our secularists are upto. There is no such thing as 'hard'
and 'soft' Hindutva. To own up to Hindutva is to regain our self-respect as
a people and as a nation. That should be the motto of the BJP.
Establishing Hindutva is to establish a knowledge
society whose motto is sarve janaha sukhino bhavantu. BJP should feel proud
of Hindutva as a noble aim to be pursued and not succumb to the pseudo-Hindutvawadis
who want BJP to be the B Teams of the Congress. There is nothing in the world
to beat Hindutva in its sheer catholicity. Hindutva is above all religious:
it is the greatest liberating force in the world of which all Indians can
be truly proud of. Young India should be informed of it. They are not anti-Hindutva
as many of our Macaulay's sons want to believe and seek to impress on BJP
leadership. They need to be marginalised.
