Saturday, June 16, 2012



Anti Hindutva, a euphemism for anti Hindu - Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

Listen to this article. Powered by

June 17, 2012

The ancient dream of the West has always been to overcome and defeat Hinduism. This was not merely owing to the compulsions of colonial expansion and exploitation, but the result of the evangelising proselytising nature of Christianity. Together, this was a formidable combination : the Bible and the gun. Since the early destruction of Hindu temples by the Nestorian Christians in the 7th and 8th centuries, through the Goa Inquisition of the 16th century and the subsequent activities of the missionaries of the Raj era and in independent India, both through direct conversion and Inculturation , the agenda has always been the same. That agenda is the destruction of the Vedic Agamic Hinduism which has continued down the millenia and bids fair to continue for several more millenia. For further details on the Christian destruction of Hindu temples, the work of Sita Ram Goyal and Swami Devananda Sarasvati are good sources.

One of the latest attempts by the anti Hindu crowd is the "anti Hindutva" campaign which questions the legitimacy of Hinduness and the incontrovertible fact that culturally and civilisationally India is a Hindu country. They deliberately and wilfully pretend that Hindutva is un Hindu, and set up a straw man of "Hindutva" which they then attack under the pretext that it is not Hinduism but Hindutva that they are attacking. The conversions (forced or otherwise) of Hindus
are the imposition of alien faiths onto the Hindu population. That these faiths have been internalised by segments of the population is also incontrovertible. Many Indian Muslims and Indian Christians, while practising their faith privately, have remained loyal to the country of their ancient lineage. But equally many more have succumbed to a chauvinism which questions such practices as the lighting of lamps at public functions as a 'Hindu' practice. There are also those who secretly aid the Church's agenda under the rubric of various causes, such as interfaith dialogue, a bogus venture for the Hindus, but a good cover for hostile elements to engage in Inculturation.

Then, there are those who ally with jihadi terrorism. And then there are those who while nominally being Hindu are sufficiently brainwashed by the British colonial educational system to be unable to distinguish between what secularism means in India and their valuable inalienable Hindu heritage. A carefully calibrated change is required in the educational system to incorporate a study of Indian history and the Hindu heritage so that young Indians do not fall prey to the niceties of Western scholarship which by and large use Western paradigms and also unquestioningly accept the colonial versions (still persisting) of Indian history, politics and civilisation. This is especially applicable to the work of the historians of the post independence Nehruvian era, often referred to as the 'eminent historians.' The damage they have done to the narrative of Indian history is incalculable and the many acolytes they have spawned need to be rejected.

The last few years have seen the proliferation of so called experts and scholars in Indian politics, who have a superficial understanding of the subcontinent, and who are also actively opposed to the Hindu ethos. This is disguised as anti Hindutvaism, because a straw man has been set up behind which Hinduism per se can be attacked, the latest being the bizarre attempts at tracking the Sangh Parivar on the internet, disguised as sociological analysis (see the latest effort by Ingrid Therwath's Cyber-Hindutva : Hindu Nationalism, the diaspora and the web' June 2012). It should be pointed out that she is a pupil of Dr. Christophe Jaffrelot, whose works are yet to be assessed. This is very similar to the 'fortress of Brahmanism' thesis put forward by racists such as Monier Williams, or the ubiquitious writer Arundhati Roy who spoke about the Brahmanic Hindu state and claimed that she was attacking this state, not India per se ! The present writer has written about both these hoaxes in previous articles (See The Mighty Fortress of Brahmanism in Haindava Keralam and in http :// and pointed out that both have misrepresented the complex evolution of Vedic Agamic Hinduism, which is the practice of the aam admi Hindu and millions of Hindus both in the homeland and in the diaspora.

The Supreme Court in its 1995 judgment had defined Hindutva as Hinduness, as a way of life or a state of mind.

This is, in the opinion of this writer, a weak formulation. It gives rise to all kinds of ambiguities behind which anti Hindu elements can shoot at their target. It is best to return and reemphasise Savarkar's definition of Hindutva. It is the common belief of all those who think of Bharat as Mathrubhumi (Motherland), Pitr Bhumi (Fatherland) and Punya Bhumi (Sacred Land). This last is particularly important since the Vedic seers saw in their vision the world of Devas and Devatas as celestials inhabiting the land. Hence, the proliferation of temples in the Indian landscape and the consecrated muftis (the Devas and Devatas) that reside in these temples, and are worshipped by Hindus. Hence too the importance of the Vedic rituals that accompany Hindu worship.

This central definition of Hinduness is essential if Hindus are to defend their culture and civilisation vigorously and unhesitatingly against the onslaught of the asuric forces, coming from abroad and as well as inside India.

Inside India we have a host of such writers such Prabhat Patnaik who throw around words like 'fascism' of which they have little or no understanding. Fascism is a European/Western phenomenon where the combination of corporate power and state power in order to further both the Bible and the gun (the Christian project) is quite unlike the Hindu ethos, whether at the individual level or at the state level or that of the Sangh Parivar organisations . These organisations are specially singled out as a localised target by the anti Hindu elements (See his 1993 article ' The Fascism of our Times'). Patnaik is a sociologist, but many other academics have carelessly or with deep malice, thrown this word around to describe any and every Hindu who is attached to the Punya Bhumi.

This practice is also accompanied by a subterfuge. Hindutva is then compared to their imaginary framing of Hinduism. Their 'imaginary community' (concept borrowed from Benedict Anderson) is precisely that, a concoction they have put together that ignores the ongoing practice of Vedic Agamic Hinduism, which is based on the vision of the Vedic seers. Rashtram (the limited translation is 'nation' ) was also first mentioned in the Rig Veda, where the Goddess Sarasvati pronounces on the reality of the Punya Bhumi:

"I am the rashtra moving people together for abhyudayam", (Rig Veda 10.125). Abhyudayam means welfare.

Many of the critics of Hindutva are simply ill informed, or have a half baked knowledge both of the Hindu ethos and the development of the nation state in Europe, whose two trajectories (both at the historical and the theoretical level) are different. Many, of course, are speaking with malice aforethought.

Neverthless, it is up to the Hindus to reject both groups immediately and firmly.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university)

No comments:

Post a Comment