RSS and the Hindu Rashtra

The Sangh & The Hindu Rashtra

Prabhakar Sinha

PUCLPeoples Union for Civil Liberties

Bihar State Unit, Patna

First Edition2015

Author:Prabhakar Sinha

Published By:People's Union for Civil Liberties

Price : Rs. 30/-

Price : Rs. 20/- (For students)

Author

Printed at:Kala Mudran,Budhha Colony, Patna, Mob. : 9334330883

Contents Page

Preface v-vii

Chapter-I Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra 01-17

Chapter-II Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism 18-26

Chapter-III A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra 27-33

Appendix 34-38

Preface The RSS ( Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh or the Sangh)was founded in 1925 in reaction against the atrocitiescommitted on the Hindus in Malabar during the Khilafatmovement that the Indian National Congress had joined tofoster Hindu-Muslim unity. Hedgevar, the first Sar SanghSanchalak had unambiguously stated that the purpose of RSSwas not to join the National Movement against the British butto oppose the yavan -snakes (Muslims), who, reared on themilk of non-cooperation, were provoking riots in the nationwith their poisonous hissing. This anti-Muslim feeling waslater developed by his successor Sar Sangh Sanchalak M.S.Golwarkar into the concept of a Hindu Nation on which theMuslims had no claim because they allegedly were notindigenous but were invaders, quite overlooking the fact thatthe Muslims living in the country in the twentieth centurywere descendants of the Indians who had just changed theirreligion and embraced Islam. The change of religion didnot make them either invaders or non-Indians just becausethey had become non-Hindus. In fact, it is impossible todayto identify the descendants of the Muslims or any other groupof people who invaded India and settled down here.

The Sanghs anti-Muslim feeling was so overwhelming thatit did not see the British as enemies and took no part in theNational Movement for the countrys independence. In fact,Golwarkar in his book We or Our Nationhood Defined hascategorically stated that the leaders of the National Movementare traitors ( page 52 : 4th.edition,1947 ).To him only thosemovements are truly National, that aim at re-building ,re-vitalising, and emancipating the Nation from the presentstupor. Prior to independence, the Sangh did not need to gopolitical, because its maintaining a safe distance from theNational Movement helped it pursue its communal agendaunmolested by the British government, which found its rolehugely helpful in pursuing its policy of divide and rule leadingto Indias partition. The government of independent India,specially after Mahatma Gandhis assassination, could notallow it to pursue its divisive politics. The organization wasbanned. The ban was lifted only after it accepted certainconditions. However, it became clear to the Sangh that to makeits dream of a Hindu Rashtra come true, it needed politicalpower, and in 1951 the Jan Sangh was formed for that purpose.The Jan Sangh merged with the Janta Party in 1977, andfollowing the split in the Janta Party in 1980 adopted thepresent name the Bhartiya Janta Party ( BJP).It is the politicalarm of the RSS and its goal is turning India into a HinduRashtra. The threat posed to our secular democracy by the championsof a Hindu Rashtra should not be underestimated. They havean energy and driving force for attaining their objective whichthe others lack. With the attainment of independence, theenergy and driving force of other political parties generated

( v ) ( vi )

by a deep commitment to the cause of freedom came to anend. No other cause replaces it. But Sangh, on the other hand,continues to be driven by its passion for its dream of a HinduRashtra. It is this commitment and passion which did not breaktheir morale in 1984, and made them bounce back with 283members in Lok Sabha in 2014 from a mere two in 1984.Theycan be stopped only by the determined resistance of commoncitizens like us. But that requires an understanding of the natureand character of the opponents of our secular democracy andan appreciation of the danger they pose. The booklet is a littleeffort in that direction.

I am immensely thankful to Prof. Daisy Narain, PresidentBihar PUCL, for the elegant production of the booklet andrelieving me of the stress and strain of its publication.

April, 2015 Prabhakar Sinha

(The author is the President of National PUCL)

( vii )

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

1. Sanghs Worldview and Politics

(1) What is Sanghs Hindu Rashtra ?

In Sanghs Hindu Rashtra, the Muslims and Christians haveeither to become Hindus or accept to be second class citizenswithout a citizens rights. M.S.Golwaker,the most revered SarSanchalak of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), in hisfamous book We or Our Nationhood Defined ( 1938) clearlystated :

The non Hindu people in Hindustan must either adoptthe Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect andrevere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but theglorification of the Hindu nation i.e. they must not only giveup their attitude of intolerance and ingratitude towards thisland and its age old traditions, but must also cultivate thepositive attitude of love and devotion instead; in one wordthey must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the countrywholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing,deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment,not even citizens rights (emphasis added )

2. But does the Sangh still think of a Hindu Rashtra in whichall citizens regardless of their religion would not enjoyequal trust, respect and treatment ?

Yes. It continues to be hostile to the Muslims and theChristians. It views the members of all other religionsas trustworthy and loyal Indians but not the Muslims andthe Christians.

3. What is the basis of this opinion about the Sanghs view ?

They openly state that all the Indians living in the countryshould be Hindus. The President of their Dharm JagaranSamiti, Rajeshwar Singh has declared that by 31December, 2021, there wont be a single Muslim orChristian in the country. Mohan Bhagwat, the head ofthe RSS also declared at a meeting of the organizationthat by the time the young persons present would growold, there wont be a single Muslim or Christian in thecountry. Their other leaders have been exhorting Hinduwomen to produce four children each to correct whatthey call demographic imbalance.

4. What is the ground of their distrust of the Muslims andthe Christians ?

They contend that since Islam and Christianity had theirorigin in a foreign land (Mecca in Saudi Arabia andJerusalem in (now ) Israel, the followers of these tworeligions can never be loyal to Hindustan (India).

5 . How true is their belief that the Muslims and theChristians cannot be loyal to India because their religionsoriginated in foreign countries ?

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra2 ]

Fortunately, no civilized and enlightened country inthe world entertains such a baseless and narrownotion about the loyalty of her citizens. If thisjaundiced view had been accepted by them, Indians-the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christian, the Buddhists,the Jains and all others - would have been houndedout of the U.S.,U.K.,Australia, Germany,France,Canada, Mauritius, West Indies, South Africa,Fiji and other countries for being disloyal citizens, andIndia would have turned into a country of Refugee ofpersons of Indian origin..

6. Why does the Sangh hold this view, which is suicidal fora country whose people are exceptionally talented andhard working, and are settled all over the world on accountof their merit and worth ?

The Sangh was formed in 1925 during the British rule,when the Hindus and the Muslims were made to fighteach other by the British rulers to keep the Indiansdivided. The British policy of divide and rule culminatedin the partition of the country and the communal riotscausing the death and displacement of lacs of people inaddition to other inhuman acts. While the Indian NationalCongress saw the unity of the Hindus and Muslimsessential for ousting the British and gaining Indiasindependence and tried to douse the fire of the fratricidalconflict by trying to win their support, the Sanghs agendaremained uniting the Hindus to fight the Muslims. Theirmindset and goal remain unchanged till date, and theystill continue to perceive our national interest in termsof the Hindu versus Muslim conflict.It is a typical case of fixation. The Sangh has been

bequeathing this fixation to its succeeding generations.For it, the biggest hurdle in the path of Indias brightfuture continues to be the presence of the Muslims andthe Christians in the country. It is this fixation and theirdream of a Hindu Rashtra, which is at the root of theirexhortation to the Hindu women to produce morechildren to counter rise in the population of thenumber of Muslims.

7. Why do they fear the rise in the number of Muslims ?

They still insinuate that India will be partitioned again ifthe number of Muslims rises considerably. Theirpartition fixation has made them blind to the changeswhich have taken place since Indias partition. TheMuslims who migrated to Pakistan are leading amiserable life there. The Mujahirs (the Muslims whomigrated to Pakistan from areas not being part of Pakistanlike, U.P. Bihar etc.) are reduced to the status of anoutcast. About one lakh Bihari Muslims are still livingin camps in Bangla Desh hated by the Bangla Deshis fortheir support to the Pakistani Armed Forces, whichcommitted butchery during Bangla Deshs struggle forindependence. Pakistan has washed its hands off them,and refuses to accept them.

The new generation of both the Hindus and the Muslimsin India have moved on and want to live in the present andhave a decent life, but they are not being left alone by theelements in their respective communities who possessa mindset of 1940s.

8. Was there a difference between the approaches of theMuslim League and the Sangh ?

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra[ 3 4 ]

Strictly speaking, the two organizations cannot becompared, as the Muslim league was a full fledgedpolitical party which the Sangh was not, but their viewsin some respects are identical. Just as the Sanghperceived the Muslims as enemies of the Hindus, theMuslim League believed that the interest of the Muslimscould not remain safe in an India ruled by the Hindus.They asserted that the Hindus and the Muslims were twoseparate nationalities and could not remain in one Nation.So, India should be partitioned to allow each of thenationalities to have their respective nations. As a resultIndia was partitioned into India and Pakistan. Sangh alsobelieves that Hindus and Muslims are two nationalities,but asserts that India belongs to Hindus while Muslimsare invaders and have no claim on it. They may stay herebut not on equal footing with the Hindus.

With organizations like the Sangh and the Hindu Maha Sabhataking an anti-Muslim stance, the fear of the Muslimsthat their future could not remain safe in an India with80% or more Hindus cannot be said to be whollyunfounded.

9. Sangh admittedly is not a political party, then what is it?

It is not a political party but is a powerful politicalorganization.

10. What is the basis of the view that the Sangh is a politicalorganization ?

The Sangh and its affiliates campaign for the BJP atelections, it deputes its members to the BJP to aid andcontrol that party, its members occupy the ministerialposts including those of the Prime Minister and the Chief

Minister. A.B.Bajpayee,L.K.Advani and Narendra Modilike thousands of others occupying political posts areall RSS men. It openly influences the policy of the BJPgovernments at the centre and states. In fact, it doeseverything that a political party does. The only differenceis that unlike other political parties, it does not fightelection in its own name, but does it in the name ofBhartiya Janta Party, which is the Jan Sangh in its newAvtar, a political party it floated in 1951.

11. Then why does the Sangh deny that it is a politicalparty?

There is a historical reason for it. Ever since it wasformed in 1925, it kept aloof from the most importantpolitical agenda of the people of India itsIndependence. Its agenda was fighting the Muslims inthe name of protecting the Hindus. Its world viewremains unchanged, which determines its policies andprogramme.

However, later on in 1951, the Bhartiya Jan Sangh wasformed to pursue the Sanghs agenda of turning Indiainto a Hindu Rashtra. The Jan Sangh merged with the JantaParty in 1977 to fight the election to oust Indira Gandhi,who had clamped the emergency in 1975. Following asplit in the Janta Party in 1980, the Bhartiya Janta Partycame into existence as the new Avtar of the Bhartiya JanSangh.

There is a reason for the RSS (i.e. the Sangh )to callitself a non- political organization. Whereas almostall political parties float front organizations to pursuetheir political agenda, the RSS is the only organization,


which is not floated by a political party but has itselffloated a political party to pursue its political agenda.Thus, instead of the RSS being the BJP cats paw, it isthe BJP which is RSS cats paw.

12. The Sangh calls itself a cultural organization engaged incharacter building,which produces patriotic Indians. Howtrue is the claim ?

It is not possible to give an answer to this question whichmay be acceptable to all ,but each may be asked to applya test and come to his/her own conclusion. If in yourtown, city or kasba, it is common knowledge that theshop keepers who belong to the Sangh are men ofcharacter, fairer and more honest in their dealing withtheir customers and present a clear contrast with theother shop keepers, and if the public servants andprofessionals in different fields belonging to the RSSstand out in sharp contrast to their counterparts, it has tobe accepted that RSS produces patriotic men with a highmoral character; but if their claim is only as real as theBJPs claim to be a party with a difference, then theirclaim is hollow and a smokescreen for concealing theirnefarious activities.

My experience has been that they are different in onlyone respect, they are anti-Muslim and anti-Christian witha divisive bent of mind, but in other respects ,they are asgood or as bad as the others.

13. What is the true character of the Sangh as an organization ?

The Sangh is a political organization with a stand on all

political questions. Its unique feature (whichdifferentiates it from the other political parties) is itshostility to the Muslims and the Christians of our country.

14. Is it not true that its topmost priority is the promotionof Hindutva.?There is no basis for such a claim. It has not taken a singlestep for the reform of the Hindu religious institutionswhich are centres of corruption of all kinds, Most of theMahanths of the Hindu Mathas are ignorant and addictedto Bhang, Ganjaand worse. They use the property ofthe Matha for personal purposes. They are not a requiredto be educated or be knowledgeable about Hinduism.*Insharp contrast, Christian priests are educated and areengaged in social service, they live a simple life and ownno property. Even the Maulanas at Masjids live only onthe allowance they receive. They do not own the propertywhich belongs to the Waqf. The Sangh has never askedfor or would never ask for the reform of the Hindureligious institutions, because it cannot afford toantagonize the Mahanths, Sadhus etc. whose support itneeds for its political agenda. There is a quid pro quobetween the Sangh and the so called Sadhus. The Sanghwould not interfere with their fiefdom or ask for thereform of the degenerate system of Hindu religiousinstitutions, and would continue to wink at their corruptways in return for their support to its political agenda.(* There are a few religious institutions to which the facts mentionedabove do not apply )


15. If the Sanghs agenda is not the promotion and protectionof Hindutva, why does it swear in its name?

Just as it was not the agenda of the Muslim League toreform Islam or its institutions, but exploit the religioussentiment of the Muslims for its political agenda, theSangh exploits the religious sentiments of the Hindusfor attaining its political goal of a Hindu Rashtra.

16. But the Sangh exhorts the Hindus to say with pride thatthey are Hindus.

True, but they say nothing about the kind of Hindu oneshould become to be proud of . To most of us, MahatmaGandhi was a symbol of what a devout Hindu should be,but Nathuram Godse (reportedly a former RSS man )and his associates killed him for being anti-Hindu. Eventoday BJP M.P.s declare Godse to be a great patriot andthe Hindu Maha Sabha wants permission to install hisstatue at public places.

They never tell the Hindus on their own whether a Hindushould be proud of being a Hindu like Gandhi orNathuram Godse nor give an answer to this question

17. Why do the Hindu zealots hate Mahatma Gandhi ?

It is well neigh impossible to find a more devout andideal Hindu than Gandhi, but his was a Hinduism withouthostility to the members of the other religions orreligious communities. A Hinduism withoutcommunalism, specially, without hostility to theMuslims was anathema to the Hindu zealots, who werecommunal and not religious. It is for this reason that

Gandhi appeared to them as an insurmountable stumblingblock in their communal path, and a hated figure.

18. What is the difference between being religious and beingcommunal ?

Being religious means following the tenets /teaching ofones religion while being communal ( the sense in whichthe word communal is used in India*) is being againstthe members of other religions. Consequently,communalism is destructive of religious values i.e.religion itself. For example, Hinduism teaches us to bekind,compassionate, forgiving, helpful, loving, with afeeling of brotherhood for all (Vasudaiva kutumbkam),to be just, etc., but communalism engenders in peoplehatred and vengeance and instigates them to kill (men,women and children), rape, loot and commit otherinhuman acts against the members of other communities.All these heinous crimes are forbidden in Hinduism andin most other religions.Thus,communalism is an anti-thesis of religiosity.Mahatma Gandhis murder is the best example of thisantithesis He was a deeply religious man (he was adevout Hindu), but was totally anti-communal. Sincehe was a religious man, he had no feeling of animosityagainst the Muslims, though he was the unhappiestman due to Indias partition on account of them. TheSangh, the Hindu Maha Sabha and the others of theirilk like Godse had a right to strongly disapprove of hisstand and oppose him tooth and nail, but did religion(Hinduism in this case) sanction his murder? It didnot. It was a case of a communal Hindu murderingone of the most religious Hindu in history because his


religiosity had completely purged his soul of animosityagainst all including the Muslims despite Indiaspartition.

Mahatma Gandhis murder was the murder ofreligiosity by communalism.

19. Who is responsible for Indias partition ? Nehru orJinnah ?

There is no unanimous opinion on this question . MostIndians blame Jinnah for insisting on Indias partition,but there is also an honest opinion that Nehru and mostof the top leaders of the Indian National Congress (exceptMahatma Gandhi, who chose not to remain in Delhi tocelebrate Independence and was in Calcutta trying todouse the communal fire there) were so impatient tocome to power that they did not make a sincere effort tocome to a settlement with Jinnah, to prevent the partitionof India.

20. What is the truth ? Then who was responsible for Indiaspartition ?

The truth is that it was communalism both of the Hindusand the Muslims, which led to Indias partition. With theRSS and the Hindu Maha Sabha declaring the Muslimsto be enemies of the Hindus, and declaring that theMuslims and the Christians must cease to expectanything in Hindu India, it must be held responsible formaking it impossible for Muslims to feel safe in a Hindudominated India. In his book published in 1938 the RSSchief Golwarker categorically stated his firm positionon the fate and future of the Muslims and Christians inan independent India in the following words :

in one word they must cease to be foreigners or maystay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindunation claiming nothing, deserving not privileges, farless any preferential treatment, not even citizens right(complete quotation may be seen under question No.1).Golwarker had expressed his admiration for Hitler forsolving the Jewish problem in the same book. It is truethat in 1938, the world was not aware that six millionJews were mercilessly butchered under Hitlers policyof solving the Jewish problem, but in 1946-47 the worldhad full knowledge of the inhuman treatment of the Jews.

Could the Muslims be blamed for feeling terrorized bythe thought of living in an India with 80% Hindupopulation with the Sangh and the Hindu Maha Sabhabreathing fire and brimstone against them? The SanghParivar is trying to strike terror in the hearts of theHindus (who constitute 80 % of Indias population) eventoday by telling them that the Muslims may reduce themto a minority in not too distant future by producing morechildren and exhorting the Hindu women to produce atleast four children to ward off this possibility.Additionally, they are busy adding to the number ofHindus by launching their Ghar Wapasi Abhiyan forconversion of the Muslims and the Christians to theHindu fold).If the Hindus, who constitute 80 % of Indiaspopulation have reasons to feel unsafe due to a slightrise in the population of the Muslims, it is natural forthe Muslims constituting less than 20% of Indiaspopulation to fear living in a country engulfed inhorrendous communal clashes of 1940s and to feel


terror at the prospect of living in a Hindu dominatedIndia.In fact the activities of the Sangh Parivar andthe Hindu Maha Sabha and other organisations oftheir ilk offer justification for the Muslims demandfor a safe haven for themselves in the form of a Muslimnation .It is another matter that their terror made themjump from the frying pan of undivided India (whichwould have eventually cool down) to the fire in whichthey continue to burn.It is actually the communal Hindu organizations like theRSS and the Hindu Maha Sabha whose aggressivecommunalism led to Indias partition by striking terrorin the hearts of the Muslims at the prospect of living inIndia under the threat of subjugation and violence.Their aggressive communalism gladdened the heart ofthe British rulers who had been following the policy ofdivide and rule, and strengthened the case of the Muslimleague that the Muslims could not live safely under theHindus. They purposely branded the Indian NationalCongress as a party of Hindus and Mahatma Gandhias a leader of Hindus. Had there been no RSS and theHindu Maha Sabha with their communal agenda,(none of whom played any role in the freedomstruggle), India would have won independence andremained undivided.

20. Is it possible for India to remain in peace despite thecommunally charged atmosphere ?

The question contains two questions : (A ) whetherIndia can remain in peace despite continuous addingof fuel to communal fire by the Hindu zealots and

(B) whether it is possible for India to remain in peaceforgetting the communal hostility and distrust.

(A) If the Sangh continues to pursue its communalagenda of a Hindu Rashtra, there would be no peacesimply because the Muslims and the Christians arenumerically outnumbered. It is not in the nature ofman to surrender his honour and reconcile tosubjugation and injustice forever. The weaker sidechooses its strategy and weapon according to thecircumstances, and is not deterred by the thoughtof victory being unattainable. Fighting againstinjustice and dying for the cause itself becomes avirtue worth any sacrifice.

Khudiram Bose, Bhagat Singh and the other martyrswere fully aware that Indepedence was not roundthe corner, but were not deterred.

The virtue of a cause is decided by those who makesacrifices and not by their oppressors. The form thatthe opposition to communal oppression would take isunpredictable, but the fact that the country would notremain in peace is quite predictable.

(B) As for addressing the second question,India can remainin peace and attain great prosperity if Gandhis view ofIndia is accepted in all sincerity. He used the wordRamrajya to reach and touch the hearts of the millionsof illiterate Indians, but made its secular meaning clearin the following words :

Let no one commit the mistake of thinking thatRamrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Ram isanother name for Khuda or God.I want Khudai Raj, which


is the same thing as the Kingdom of god on earth.(February, 26 1947 )However, this quotation does reveal his secular approachbut does not shed light on rights and status of the Indiansbelonging to different religions and ethnicity. His viewin this respect is unambiguously expressed in the Harijanof August 9,1942 in the following words :

Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bredhere and who have no other country to look to.Therefore,it belongs to Parsis, the Israelis, to Indian Christians,Muslims, and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus.Free India will be no Hindu raj: it will be Indian raj basednot on the majority of any religious sect or community,but on the representatives of the whole people withoutdistinction of religion.

No wonder the votaries of the Hindu Raj had him killed.22. Is it possible now to have an emotionally integrated India

of all Indians, Hindus, Muslims and Christians, despitethe communal bitterness of the past decades or it is justa mirage or utopia ?

South Africa under Nelson Mandela has shown that it isnot a mirage but an attainable goal. Probably, with theexception of Jews under Hitler, no community wastreated more inhumanly than the black natives of SouthAfrica by the Dutch colonists known as Afrikaner. NelsonMandela himself spent 27 years in jail in inhumanconditions, but when the native people of South Africacame to power under him, they did not try to settle scorewith their erstwhile cruel white rulers, and chose to livein harmony with them despite the bleeding wounds of

centuries. Today, the Afrikaners have no country otherthan South Africa and continue to live in peace with theirformer victims.

Our wounds, both of Hindus, Muslims and Christiansis nothing compared to the wounds of the natives ofSouth Africa. Their love for their motherland hashelped them overcome their bitterness. When thecommunal leaders of India would love India more thantheir communalism, they would overcome theiranimosity and appreciate the value of emotionalintegration of Indians of all hues, colours and religion.But that is possible only if patriotism purges them ofcommunalism.

23. Are not the members of the Sangh Parivar patriots ?

They are the only patriots according to Golwarkarsdefinition For him, only those who strive for therevitalizing Hindu Nation (not its independence )arepatriots, and all other Indians who fought the Britishrulers for Indias independence and not for the HinduNationare either traitors or mere simpletons,misguided ignorant fools. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi,Jawaharlal Nehru,Jai Prakash Narain, SubhashChandra Bose, Ballabh Bhai Patel, RajendraPrasad,Ram Manohar Lohia, Bhagat Singh,ChandraShekhar Azad, Khudiram Bose and all who fought forIndias freedom are either traitors or fools.Golworkar in his book We or Our Nationhood Defined(1938) makes it quite clear in the follwing words : We repeat; in Hindustan, the land of the Hindus, livesand should live the Hindu Nationsatsfying all the five


essential requirement of the scientific nation conceptof the modern world. Consequently, only thosemovements are truly Nationalas aim at re-building,re-vitalising, and emancipating from the presentstupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalistpatriots, who with the aspiration to glorify the Hindurace and Nation next to their heart, are prompted intoactivity and strive to achieve that goal.All others.posingto be patriots and willfully indulging in a course ofaction detrimental to the Hindu Nation are traitors andenemies to the national cause, or to take a morecharitable view if unintentionally, and led into such acourse, a mere simpleton,misguided ignorant fools.

No wonder Gandhi,a devout Hindu sans the communalvirus appeared to them as their worst enemy.

CHAPTER II

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

24. Is there a difference between the Sanghs Hindutva andHinduism ?

Yes, there is a world of difference between the two.

25. In what respects the Sanghs Hindutva is different fromHinduism ?

They are different in many respects. For example, in theirattitude to love, sex, man - woman relation, womenssartorial freedom, freedom of thought, freedom ofexpression including the freedom of artists to expressthemselves, freedom of religious belief, freedom ofconversion and many more.

26. What is the difference in the Sanghs attitude to loveand that of Hinduism ?

In ancient Hindu society, love was neither a Sin nor amatter of Shame. Lord Shiva finally yielded to Parvatisboundless love and married her. Lord Krishna was notheld guilty of sin for his love for Radha nor for the love

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra [ 17

he received from sixteen thousand Gopis (young womenof a cow rearing caste). It might not have been literallytrue, but the idea of this love extraordinary, has neverbeen found blameworthy by Hindus but is admired andrespected.

Most extraordinary is the saga of King Shantanus loveat first sight for Satyawati, the daughter of a fisherman.Neither his status as the King nor his being a Kshatriyastood in his way, and he unabashedly approached herfather for her hand in marriage. The request was refusedunless he pledged that Satyawatis son would succeedhim as King. The King could not accept the conditionwhich would have denied his son Devvrat of his rightfulclaim to the throne. But so love sick did the King growthat his health was shattered causing great concern. WhenDevvrat learnt of the cause of his fathers incurableagony, he approached Satyawatis father and promisednot to claim the throne if he consented to his daughtersmarriage to his father. The astute fisherman expressedthe fear that at some point of time ,his son might claimthe throne as a rightful successor. Devvrat took no timein taking a vow that he would remain unmarried for lifeto ward off that possibility. It is from that day that Devvratwas given the name Bhishma. His father Shantanu marriedSatyawati and her sons succeeded to the throne. BothPandavas and Kauravas of Mahabharat were her grandchildren.

So high was the esteem in which love was held in theHindu Society that a son in his youth sacrificed thehappiness of conjugal life for the love of his aged father.

In sharp contrast, the Hindutva brigades raid parks,restaurants, clubs, and other possible places to huntand humiliate young men and women suspected to belovers. To them, love is an unpardonable sin and theSangh has cast on them the burden of saving Hindusand Hindutva by inflicting pain and shame on lovers.

27. What is the difference between their respective approachesto sex?

Hinduism celebrates sex as natural and free from sin,stigma or shame. In the temples of Lord Shiva, thedevotees revere and worship Shiva Linga in Yoni assymbol of creativity. The worshippers experience deepfeeling of reverence and are completely transported toan exalted state transcending their contemporary viewof sex and sex organs.

Unlike in Christianity and Islam, Hindu deities have theirfemale partners/consorts. Lord Vishnu has Laxmi as hisconsort. The same is true of many others.

The carvings depicting sexual acts on the walls of Hindutemples in India is an irrefutable proof of a healthyattitude of a healthy society to sex. The temples at Konarkand Khajuraho with such carvings are no exception; suchcarvings are found in different parts of the country.

They present the proof of the healthy outlook of theHindu society.

Vatsayans Kamsutra (a Treatise on Sex) writtenbetween the 1st and 6th century A.D. is proof of anenlightened society of which any society may be proud.

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism[ 19 20 ]

Sangh does not accept this Hindu view of sex. It mayendorse what the deities did, but has a very conservativeand negative attitude to love and sex in the world in whichwe live.

28. Is not the Sanghs Hindutvas attitude to man-womanrelationship the same as that of Hinduism ?

The ancient Hindu society judged the worth of a personin totality and his/her sexual relationships did matter injudging his/her qualities, virtue and worth. For example,the most revered five women for Hindus (Panch Kanya)are Kunti, Draupadi, Mandodari, Tara and Ahilya.Kuntiwas the mother of Karn, Yudhishtir, Arjun and Bheem,but none of them was the son of her husband Pandu. Theirreal fathers were Surya, Dharmraj, Indra and Vayu (allof them were gods) respectively. Draupadi had all thefive Pandavas as her husband while Mandodari and Taramarried Bivishan (the brother of her slain husbandRavana) and Sugriva (the brother of her slain husbandBali) respectively. Ahilya was deceived by Indra ,whoassumed the form of her husband and made love to her.Instead of being considered desecrated she is revered asone of the Panch Kanya. In fact, Hindus are enjoined toremember them every morning since they are consideredPratah Smaraniya (Worthy of being remembered everymorning).The Sangh, which is so hostile to love, is no less hostileto sexual freedom of women.

29. Does not Sanghs approach to womens attire conformto the ancient Hindu view and practice ?

No. The women in the ancient Hindu society dressed asrequired by the climate and their sense of elegance. Thereis no evidence to show that they were ordained to socover their bodies as not to tempt men to rape them. Therewas no deliberate attempt to conceal their physicalbeauty.

The Sanghs view is that women should wear dresseswhich cover their bodies so well that they do not attractmen. In fact, many of them blame womens dresses fortheir being raped.

30. Is not Sanghs approach to freedom of thought similarto the approach of Hinduism ?

Absolutely not. In fact, they are the very opposite, totallyanti-thetical. The ancient Hindu society believed inShastrarth (Debate).Any philosophy, religious belief orthought could be challenged and debated, and its validityor otherwise depended on the outcome of the debate.Ideas were not suppressed by force. Buddha challengedHinduism, but he was not physically attacked as wasProphet Muhammad, who was forced to flee fromMecca to Medina and take to arms to save himself andto spread his message. In contrast, Charvak (an ancientIndian atheist philosopher), who is believed to propagatehedonism (love for pleasure), was not physically attacked.It is popularly believed that he propagated the motto,

So long you live, live happily. Borrow and drink Gheei.e. if you do not have the means).Charvak was notphysically attacked.


Adi Shankaracharya (8 century A.D.) moved from oneend of the country to the other to debate and defeat allphilosophers of other views to make them accept hisphilosophy. He defeated all other philosophers and hisphilosophy was accepted. The freedom of thought andsuperiority of logic and knowledge were considered sosacrosanct in the Hindu society that the contrary viewwas readily accepted if it was convincing.

The Sanghs brigades vandalise art exhibitions and bookshops, burn books, force their withdrawal or get thembanned, disrupt meetings, beat up people who opposetheir ideas. This Hindutva is an enemy of Hiduism.

31. Does Sanghs approach to artistic freedom about nudityconform to that of Hinduism ?

The Hindu society found nothing repugnant in thecarvings of sexual acts on the walls of a sacred placelike the walls of temples, but the moral brigade of Sanghhounded out one of the greatest painters of India M.FHussain,who felt forced to flee to Quatar,renounce Indiancitizenship to become a citizen of that country at the ageof 90 plus, all because he had painted some goddesses innude. If they are allowed to have their way, they wouldraze to the ground the temples at Konark, Khajuraho andother places as the Taliban had done at Bamiyan inAfganistan.

32. Does Sanghs Hindutva conform to Hinduisms approachto religious conversion ?

Absolutely not. Though Hinduism does not believe inconversion and does not provide for conversion of non

Hindus to the Hindu fold, it does not use coercion asa means to prevent the conversion of a Hindu to someother religion. The conversion to Buddhism is the bestexample of a liberal and enlightened approach ofHinduism to conversion of its member to some otherreligion. In fact, conversion of Hindus to Buddhism atsuch a massive scale was catastrophic but was not resistedby force. Hinduism believed in God and soul, but Buddharemained silent when questioned about their existence.Buddhism is considered an Atheist religion for thatreason. But Buddha was never physically attacked.Instead, subsequently, he was adopted as an incarnationof Vishnu by Hinduism.

In fact, there is no provision in Hinduism for convertinga Non-Hindu to it. There is a sound reason for it. Everyperson is a Hindu by birth if his parents are Hindus. He/she is born to a caste also. Just as nobodys caste can bechanged, nobodys religion can be changed.

In Hinduism,there are Mantras and elaborate rites forall religious acts, but there is no Mantra or rites forconverting a Non- Hindu to a Hindu.

A Hindu also remains a Hindu even if he repudiatesHinduism, does not believe in the existence of God andconducts himself most unlike a Hindu. In this sense, it isfundamentally different from Islam and Christianity.AMuslim or Christian cannot remain a Muslim or Christianif he /she does not believe in Allah or God or Christ andrepudiates his religion.

33. Then how does Sangh resorts to Ghar Wapasi ofMuslims and Christians and make them Hindus ?


Just as its Hindutva with borrowed ideas and practicesof Islam and Christianity is very different from Hinduismin many respects, its which Ghar Wapasi (i.e.conversion of Non-Hindus to Hinduism) is also a slavishimitation of Islamic and Christian belief and practice.

34. Is conversion resorted to by Muslims and Christians rightand justified ?If it is done without resorting to foul means like coercionor pandering to greed or exploitation of theirhelplessness, it is justified from the point of view of theirreligion. Both Christianity and Islam believe that theirrespective religions lead to salvation of ones soul.Historically, they took to conversion not for their ownbenefit, but for the benefit of the persons converted.Christian missionaries have made great sacrificesworking in Africa and other countries to accomplishtheir mission.

Islam also has the same mission, but it also exploitedthe power of sword and the State for conversion apartfrom legitimate means.

35. If the Sanghs Hindutva is so different from Hinduism,what values has it been propagating and why ?

It has been packaging Islamic values with the label ofHindutva and selling it to the gullible Hindus to promoteits communal agenda. It is in Islam and Christianity thatsex is sinful. They believe that Adam and Eve committedthe Original sin in the Garden of Eden, which is at theroot of the suffering of mankind. It is in Islam that theQuran contains the words of God, and is unquestionable.

Thus, anything at variance with the Quran is not open toquestioning and is unacceptable. It is again in Islam thatthe work of art is looked at with great disapproval. It is inIslamic law that men and women are not equal. Again, itis in the Muslim societies that women are ordained tokeep themselves covered. Ghar Wapasi itself is animitation of Islamic practice. If one has a close look atthe behaviour pattern of the adherents of Hindutva,thesimilarity with the Islamist would be crystal clear.

Thus, the Sanghs Hindutva in many respects is a blindimitation of Islamic values and an anti-thesis ofHinduism.


CHAPTER-III

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

36.What would be Sanghs Hindu Rashtra like ?

It would be akin to the life in Pakistan , which is a MuslimRashtra (Islamic State). Pakistan was founded on the basisof the fear of Muslims that they would not remain safe inIndia under the rule of Hindus, who constituted more than80 % of its population. The champions of the HinduRashtra are hoping to achieve their goal of Hindu Rashtraby creating the same fear in the minds of Hindus by raisingthe bogey of Muslims outnumbering them and reducingthem to a minority. To keep this fear alive and growing,they exhort Hindu women to produce four children each.and have undertaken their Ghar Wapasi Abhiyan (thecampaign for converting Muslims and Christians toHinduism). They know full well that neither the Hinduwomen would respond to their call nor a significant numberof Muslims and Christians would convert to Hinduism, butresort to them in the hope the measures would reinforcetheir design to create a fear psychosis in the minds of

Hindus. Their other tactics is to create a sense ofvictimhood in the Hindu mind by hammering the pointthat they are being discriminated against in their own land,due the policy of appeasement (Tushtikaran) followed byother political parties. Factually, the allegation of someapparent favour done to the minorities in some cases maybe true; but it is a common and accepted practice indemocracies to do things to win the support of some classor section of voters. Just as the Sangh uses the tool ofcommunalism to mobilize Hindus in its favour , some ofthe others occasionally take measures not fully justifiedto win the support of Muslims voters. But can any politicalparty dare to be anti-Hindu in a country with 80% of itspopulation being Hindu? But the Sangh Parivar and itsleaders, who have been admirers of Hitler , continue tofollow the dictum of his infamous Propagand a MinisterGoebbels repeat a lie hundered times it becomes true.Though, it is dangerous to pander to the communal feelingof either the minority or the majority, communalism ofthe majority is more dangerous. History of Pakistanpresents its clinching evidence .

Sanghs Hindu Rashtra would deny equality to all citizensthereby demolishing the very foundation of democracy.Just as in Pakistan Hindus and Christian are second classcitizens, Muslims and Christians would be made secondclass citizens in the Hindu Rashtra. When the minoritieshave been taken care of , Hindutva would occupy the centrestage of politics with competitive Hindutva becoming themainstay of politics (with ) each group trying to prove itis more pure and true Hindu than the others. India willhave its Hindu counterpart of Al Quaeda, ISIS,Al Sabah,Boko Haram, Taliban and the others of their ilk. Religion

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra28 ]

based politics will take the same course in India as it hastaken in the theocratic Islamic states . Sanghs HinduRashtra would turn into a Kurukshetra (a battle field likethe battle field of the Maha Bharat) in which Hindus willshed the blood of Hindus. as Muslims are shedding theblood of Muslims in several Islamic countries.The samecause produces the same effect. A Hindu Rashtra cannotescape the inescapable fate of the religion based(theocratic) politics as the Muslim Rashtras ( IslamicStates) are doing.Democracy would be replaced by some kind ofdictatorship, which may masquerade as democracy. InPakistan, General Ayub Khan had tried to mask hisdictatorship with what he called Basic Democrary just asKing Mahindra of Nepal had tried to mask his absolutemonarchy with what he called Panchayati Raj (afterdispensing with a democratic government headed by B.P.Koirala). In Sanghs Hindu Rashtra, those of the Hinduswho would be part of the ruling class will be first classcitizens , the rest of the Hindu population will be secondclass citizens, the minorities will be third class citizensand the Hindus not submitting to the authoritarian ortotalitarian rule will meet the fate that a dissenter meetsunder such rule. Though in 21st century, it would not bepossible for the Hindu Rashtra to massacre the lacsopposing the authoritarian rule as was possible for Hitler,who tortured and killed all those Germans who wereopposed to his rule, they would meet a terrible fate. Therest of the population would be dealt with by governmentagencies as well as the Hindu Brigades more fearlesslyand ferociously than is being done by Bajrang Dal,RamSene, Shiv Sena and other such outfits today.

Women will not be free to dress as they like.They wouldbe enjoined to so dress themselves as not to attract mensattention or to invite rape. To protect them, women wouldnot be permitted to work outside their homes at night orlate evenings. Victims of rape would be blamed for theirmiserable plight. Love would be allowed only in the privacyof four walls. Expression of love at public places wouldbe prohibited. What is being enforced by Sanghs vigilantegroups now would be enforced both by the State as well asthe vigilante outfits of the Sangh. Todays love jehad (amisnomer for a love between a Hindu woman and a Muslimman) would be replaced by a Jehad on love itself. Thegovernment would prescribe a code of conduct inconformity with the Sanghs idea of purity to regulate thesexual relation of the people. Sex outside marriage wouldbe made punishable, live in relationship would a punishableoffence. Children not born of valid marriage would beillegitimate and would be entitled to nothing but the shameof their illegitimate birth.

There would be no freedom of thought and expression.Presently, the vigilante groups of Sangh decide whatbooks are objectionable from their point of view and forcetheir withdrawal from the market by vandalizingdisributors outlet and the book shops and disrupting theirbusiness. The publishers and distributors surrender to theirhooliganisn for fear of loss to their business.This is not arare phenomenon, but is a regular practice carried out bySanghs front organizations. Meetings where opinionsobjectionable to Sangh are expressed would be attackedby its brigades and disrupted. However, the other side ofthe coin is that as is typical of a fascist organizations,they act as if they have an absolute right to do and say

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra[ 29 30 ]

anything about anyone .Thus, those who do not support itat elections, are not Ramjadas ( i.e. children of Ram ),butHaramjadas (bastards) or are Ram Virodhi (against Ram)and consequently Rashtra Virodhi (traitors Ram,Virodhi, Rashtra Virodhi). To them, those who were notsupporting Narendra Modi should go to Pakistan. Theseare not rantings of whimsical persons but deep rootedconviction of the members of the Sangh Parivar advised tokeep their feeling concealed till their dream of a HinduRashtra is realized.

Their mindset is the same which causes not only burningof books, vandalization of book shops and cinema halls,disruption of meetings of opponents but also issuing ofFatwas as was done against Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreenand many others in theocratic Islamic States.

The culture of Shastrarth ( open debate ) would end. Therewould be no more argumentative Indians, as those daringto argue against the rulers of the Hindu Rashtra would bepunished as Rashtra Drohis. Debate is a serious threatto authoritarian rule, and would be nipped in the bud by therulers, more so in a theocratic State armed with thesanction of Dharma.

It is the philistine Hindu zealots who will be literary criticsand connoisseur of art and music. The ignoramus wouldteach the world about the unique achievements of sciencein ancient India showcasing a dead Ganesh coming to lifewith an elephants head as a marvel of plastic surgery, aPushpak Viman used centuries before Christ, guidedmissiles and anti-missiles freely used in Kurukshetra andmany more such wonders.

Films, plays, music,painting and other forms of art willbe enjoined to remain within the bounds of nationalinterest, Hindu culture and Hindu morality. The FilmCensor Board constituted by the present government hasalready given us the taste of what is to come. The morninghas already shown the day

History would be rewritten. Academic bodies dealing withhistory is already being packed with persons who cannotbe considered historians. These pseudo-historians havebeen propagating weird theories in the past would adornthe academic institutions of historians.. There would bemore of the variety who claim that Taj Mahal and QutubMinar were built by some Hindu Kings. They were thecranks of history. They would be our acknowledgedhistorians in the Hindu Rashtra.

Children would be brainwashed and regimented accordingto the need of the Hindu Rashtra. What is already beingdone in Saraswati Shishu Mandirs ( thousands of schoolsrunning all over the country under Sanghs direction ) withconstraints would be done aggressively under the patronageof their government. Schools would produce young menwith the mindset of Hindu Taliban (Talibans,meaningstudents, are young men who were taught to be fanaticMuslims and raised at the instance of the U.S. to fight theGodless Russians occupying Afganistan). The idea ofbrainwashing and regimentation of young men to formfascist organisations to deal with their opponents hasalways been dear to the RSS. Dr Moonje (who mentoredHedgevar, the founder of the RSS) purposely went to Italyto see for himself the educational institution whichproduced Fascist young men and praised them when he

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra[ 31 32 ]

met the Fascist leader Mussolini.Despite, theirpronounced aversion for western culture and proclaimedlove for things Bharatiya ( Indian ) including dresses, theyfelt no aversion for the Khaki Shorts and white halfshirts which the RSS adopted as their uniform and continueto don them even today .They did not look at the dressesof Ram Krishna, Shivaji, Maharana Pratrap and any otherIndian, but borrowed the dress, the Lathi and the martialparade from their western role models-Nazi Hitler andFascist Mussolini. Just as Dr Moonje admired Mussolini,Golwakar greatly admired Hitler one of the reasons forthe admiration being Hitlersfinal solution of the Jewishproblem (i.e. treating Jew citizens of Germany worse thanas animals and later killing them in millions.*

(Golwarkar admired Hitlers depriving the Jews of theircitizens rights and persecution, but could not have beenaware of their massacre in the concentration camps ).The glimpse of the life in the Hindu Rashtra presented hereis not a figment of imagination , but is based on the beliefand practices of the Sangh Parivar to which all of us are awitness.

Appendix

The idea and ideal of M.S.Golwarker, the moving spiritbehind the Hindu Rashtra in his own words :

The other Nation most in the eyes of the world today isGermany.This Nation affords a very striking example,Modern Germany srove, and has to a great extent achievedwhat she strove for, to once again to bring under one swaythe whole of the, territory ,hereditarily possessed by theGermans but which, as a result of political disputes, hadbeen portioned off as as different countries. Austria,forexample, was merely a province, on par with Prussia,Bavaria and other principalities, which made the GermanWorld Empire. Logically Austria should not be anindependent kingdom, but be one with the rest of Germany.So also with those portions inhabited by Germans,whichhad been included, after the war, in the new State ofCzechoslovakia. German pride in their fatherland for adefinite home country, for which the race has certaintraditional attachment as a necessary concomitant of thetrue Nation concept, awoke and ran the risk of starting afresh World conflagaration, in order to establish one,unparalleled, undispituted German Empire over all this

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra [ 33

hereditary territory. This natural and logical aspirationof Germany has almost been fulfilled and the greatimportance of the country factor has been once againvindicated even in the living present.Come we next to thenext ingresient of the Nation idea race, with which Cultureand language are inseparably connected, where Religion isnot the all absorbing force that it should be. German racepride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up thepurity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked her,purging the country of the Semitic Races the Jews. Racepride at its highest has been manifested here.Germanyhas also shown how well nigh impossible it is for races,and cultures, having differences going to the root, to beassimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for usein Hindusthan to learn and profit by. (page 42 ,WE orOur Nationhood Defined : 1947)Thus, Golwarkar hero-worshipped Hitler and found a rolemodel in him for purging the Jew citizens of Germany. Sixmillion Jews were butchered in the most inhuman way athis behest, but it made no difference to him. He might nothave known of the butchery at the time of writing the bookbut was fully aware of his crimes subsequently, andremained steadfast in his heroworship, as is clear from thefourth edition published in 1947.His vision of a HinduNation was identical with that of Hitlers vision ofGermany a nation of and for Germans only. Hitler treatedthe Germans who stood in his way no better than he treatedthe non-German. Today, he is a hated figure in Germany.

Golwarkar has adopted the notion of Nation from the Westand has based his vision of the Hindu Nation or a Hindu

Rashtra on it .To him, the Hindu Rashtra of his dream fulfillsall the five criteria of a nation. He writes :

In fine, the idea contained in the word Nation is acompound of five distinct factors fused into one indissolublewhole, The famous five Unities-Geographical, (country),Racial (race), Religious (religion). Cultural (culture) andLinguistic (language).To Golwarlkar Indians (except the Muslim and Christians)belonged to one race, one religion, one culture and onelanguage, and therefore, India was a Nation as wasGermany. Each of the claim is unfounded-a lie.The darkskinned Schedule Tribes living in the forests of Bihar,Orrissa, Chhattisgarh,Bengal etc., the inhabitants ofNagaland, Meghalay, Mizoram with Mngoloid features ,thepeople living in the Southern states and those living in theNorthern India ( Punjab, J & K,Gujarat, Maharashtra,Haryana, Bihar, Bengal or Rajashan) do not belong to oneRace. In his blind hatred for the Muslims, he ignores thefact that the Indians do not belong to one race. He alsoignores the fact that the converted Muslims of Maharashtraand he himself belong to one and the same race. All Indianswho are native to a place belong to the same race regardlessof the difference in their respective religions.India is alsohome to several religions.Apart from Hinduism, Islam,Christianity, Buddhism and Sikhism, there are otherreligions to which several Schedule Tribes adhere.Culturally also India is not uniform. Many of the ethnicgroups are culturally different from one another. Culturallythe inhabitants of the North East are different from theinhabitants of Punjab,Haryana, Bihar, U.P.et.etc Theschedule Tribes are also culturally different from the others

Appendix Appendix[ 35 36 ]

living in their neighbourhood,These are obvious facts, yetGolwarkars jaundiced eyes fail to notice the differenceand see them as culturally one. Most ridiculous is hisassertion that there is a Linguistic unity in the country.Topersuade the people to accept his absurdity, he tries to provehis point of linguistic unity by stating that all the differentlanguages of India, have originated in Sanskrit,andtherefore, are one despite their differences. In his anxietyto prove the existence of linguistic unity in the country ,hepropounds a laughable theory the common origin of allIndian languaes in the following words :

The last,language, seems to present some difficulties, forin this country every province has its own language.Itappears as if the Linguistic unity is wanting, and there arenot one but many Nations, separated from each other bylinguistic differences. But in fact that is not so.There is butone language, Sanskrit, of which these many languagesare mere offshoots, the children of the mother language.Saskrit,the dialect of the Gods,is common to all from theHimalayas to the ocean in the South, from East to Westand all the modern sister languages are through it so muchinter-related as to be practically one.Golwarkar flaunts his monumental ignorance with anembarrassing arrogance. It is common knowledge that onlyMarathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Bengali, Oriya,Assamese, Nepali etc. have their origin in Sanskrit.Thelanguage of the southern states namely, Tamil.Telugu,Malyalam, Kanada and other Dravidian languages belongto an entirely different family of languages.The languagesof the Schedule Tribes of Bihar, Bengal Orrissa, Jharkhandetc. belong to a Munda family which is unrelated to

Sanskrit.The same is the case of the languages of theinhabitants of Nagaland,Mizoram,Manipur,of the Lepchaof Sikkim etc.They belong to yet another family oflanguages, namely, Tibeto-Burmese which is unrelated toSanskrit. If Sanskrit words are found in them, it is due toborrowing. Most of the Indian languages have borrowedfrom English due to our interaction with the Englishmen.Borrowing is a common feature of languages.

Golwarkar has founded the edifice of his Hindu Nation ononly one pillar out of five required as per his owndescription. The fourone Race, one Religion, one cultureand one language-are missing. Only one out of the fiveUnities, namely, territory, exists, and so does his notion ofa Hindu Nation (Hindu Rashtra) resting on it..But in thename of five Unities required for a Nation, he has cursedIndia with a number of Disunities which continue to plagueus.

Appendix Appendix[ 37 38 ]

RSS and the Hindu Rashtra

Documents