The Saffron Book: Many Splendoured Hindutva

By Prafull Goradia

Hindutva is the only binder which can galvanize the Indian nation towards progress and prosperity. In essence, nationalism is synergy. The effort of four Indians should yield the result equivalent to five or six of them. Most Christians and Muslims of India have a Hindu ancestry. Their collective memory has not necessarily forgotten their castes. It is not uncommon to find a Catholic claiming himself to be a Brahmin and insisting on a Brahmin bride. Nor is it unusual to come across a Muslim who claims that he is a Rajput to indicate that he is not a convert from any other caste. The Bohras are forthright in their claim that all of them were converted from Brahmins.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Diamond Books
• Release date: Apr 15, 2021
• ISBN: 9788128816628

Book preview

Introduction

1

Awake and Unite!

After centuries, a unique opportunity has come our way. The current can be the Indian century provided we Indians amalgamate as metals in an alchemy. Combined to create a national synergy so that the efforts of four Indians lead to the result of five or six. That is the only way we can generate surpluses in order to leapfrog across lost centuries.

For the greater part of history, brawn has dominated brain, muscle has overruled mind. World War II was an epic example of the resulting brutality. Now, at last, a time has come when the brain is beginning to ride the body. The greed of nations no longer covets the territory of other countries. Colonialism ended decades ago as land ceased to be the principal source of wealth. In the process, trade has replaced war as the instrument for countries to enrich themselves. The Indian generally, and the Hindu in particular has preferred trade to war.

At the dawn of this new millennium, there are high hopes and many expectations. With the advent of the computer revolution, we are set to play a big role in information technology. Five million or more Indians are likely to get rich as a result. That is a matter not only of hope but also honour. But India is a nation of a hundred crore. What about the rest of our people? Just as a chain is as weak as its weakest link, a society is as woeful as its poorest section. Unless we enable all our people to have a chance to be well off, India will not be united enough to seize the opportunity.

Apart from the difference between the poor and the rich, there are several obstacles in the path of Indian unity. The Muslim contempt and the Hindu hatred must be overcome.

This is the deepest and the widest schism in our society. Without removing or bridging it, India cannot be truly one nation. I have therefore devoted a great deal of space to this syndrome. Many leaders ranging from Emperor Akbar to Bhakta Kabir to Mahatma Gandhi have all failed to bridge the schism except temporarily or in a few sectors. Their approach was to placate whereas mine is to be open and frank. Unless everyone is enabled to express oneself freely, no true dialogue, or understanding can come about. After all, there can be no true friendship without frankness. How can there be a true friendship unless the two speak up the truth about each other?

Women must get their equal place in society. Casteism must go. There should be no need for anyone to feel like a dalit or a neglected tribal. This book shows how these gulfs can be bridged. Unless every region of the country makes equable progress, national unity will be difficult to sustain. The backward region would have a grievance while the prosperous area would consider the poor an economic drag. The vast difference in the employment prospects of those educated in English and the rest has to be removed, if ours is to be a united society.

A bane of our country are the anti-Hindu Hindus who enjoy all the legitimacy of their Hindu pedigree including names such as Sitaram, Harkishan and yet spend all their lives trying to divide our society by inciting the poor without reducing their poverty, instigating the Muslim without redressing his grievance. In fact, they form a perennial fifth column. Are they not a symptom of a masochistic trait? Or, are they a cancer that destroys the pride and self-confidence of Indians as a nation? Or else how can India tolerate a street in the middle of New Delhi that commemorates Aurangzeb?

2

Why The Saffron Book?

Dear Reader

It was at a friend’s house in Kochi in 1996 that I encountered an intelligent youngman. If I remember right, his name was Ratnakaran. In the wake of a general election, a ministry had been formed at the centre but voted out within thirteen days. There was still a great deal of excitement in the air about Hindutva and the reason why it was considered untouchable by most political parties.

Ratnakaran was sure about the reason. How could any sensible person associate himself with a movement inspired by mendicants and sadhus in saffron? Ratnakaran was at an English university in 1992 where he had seen pictures of men with tridents in hand, presumably at Ayodhya. He could recall a magazine cover as well. The report inside was damning.

Being a resident of Kerala, he had evidently enjoyed arguments on the pros and cons of dialectical materialism. The only acceptable alternatives were either a version of capitalism or the in between approach often called welfarism practised by social democrats in Europe/To Ratnakaran, the rest was tribalism or chauvinism, fascism or obscurantism. In his perception, Hindutva fell into the last slot.

I did my best to explain to the young man that Hindutva was at least as dialectical or logical as any other thesis. He heard me but I doubt if he listened. He demanded the source of my contention; which book, what author and so on. Having been a research student, he had to have written evidence. My spoken word had fallen on a deaf ear. Mind you, anything written could equally meet with a closed mind. But the reach of a book is potentially wider than that of spoken word.

Following up on the need for the written word, I had to go back to 1923 when Veer Vinayak Damodar Savarkar had systematically defined the concept of ideology in his work entitled Hindutva. In subsequent years, Hindu nationalism has been described. Its history has been traced at length but the core of Hindutva has not been defined again.

To Veer Savarkar, Hindutva was the history of the land beyond the Sindhu river. All those who or whose ancestors have shared that history are Hindus. God and worship have little to do with Hindutva. If anything, Hinduism is a part of Hindutva. Stated in another way, whoever can claim Hindustan or undivided India as his/her fatherland as well as holyland is a Hindu. He also used the Sanskrit words pitribhu and punyabhu respectively for fatherland and holyland. In the process, anyone whose faith was founded in India is automatically a Hindu like a Buddhist, a Jain or a Sikh.

Here, Veer Savarkar tended to contradict himself. If faith and worship were not the bedrock of Hindutva, why stress so much on the importance of holyland? Could having India as fatherland or pitribhu not be sufficient as a qualification? For then, all those Christians and Muslims today whose ancestors were converted would be Hindus for the purpose of Hindutva. They might continue to look upon Jerusalem, Mecca or Medina as their holyland or punyabhu.

As far as fatherland is concerned, why can it not be adopted? Many an Indian has acquired British or US citizenship. Men and women of Indian origin are members of the British parliament. So have been prime ministers of Fiji, Mauritius and Trinidad. So long as the citizen’s first loyalty is to his country, whether original or adopted, he is a patriot. Remember, to adopt a child is perfectly legitimate among Hindus as well as Christians. This reasoning makes it possible for persons of even foreign origin to be Hindus without changing their mode of worship. First loyalty to the motherland would be more appropriate to the children of Mother India. Fatherland is a word of European preference used particularly in Russia and Germany. To us in India, the country is a mother. Whatever be the differences in argument or expression, Veer Savarkar’s was a seminal work.

I was 19 when I first read Veer Savarkar’s book. The message sank so deep into my mind that I kept mulling over it from time to time all these years. My conclusion is that Hindutva is a dialectical or a logical concept, so much so that only one premise has to be accepted. That premise is the basic explanation of life given by Hinduism or sanatan dharma, that all living beings are members of the universe and their souls transmigrate in the endeavour to achieve mukti or salvation. Thereafter, Hindutva flows logically as well as smoothly like a well spun yarn from a cotton sliver.

It is indeed a pity that this dialectical element of Hindutva has not yet been appreciated. In the absence of this awareness, Hindutva has often been an object of derision, if not also prejudice. Once a leftist friend exclaimed to me: ‘I wish you were on our side, you express yourself so effectively. We could have more of your letters in our column’. What do you mean by your side? I gently enquired. ‘On the side of progress more than being an advocate of nationalism’, was her reply.

There have been other experiences. One was the remark made at the India International Centre in New Delhi by a well known assistant editor. He was reported to have said, ‘Over my dead body will that chap’s letters be printed in my paper’. We had never ever met and yet the fury! I knew he was a Marxist and I later discovered that he thought I was a fascist. These incidents reflect how the English language media is dominated by men and women whose thought process frame of reference is biased.

The language in which one reads and writes inevitably influences the thought. It was British policy to divert Indians away from their faith and culture in order to make them loyal members of the Empire. A casual reading of Lord Macaulay and Sir Charles Trevelyan would show how clear and systematic was the endeavour.

By a combination of circumstances, the effect of the endeavour fell on the Hindus. The Muslim youth did not as much take to education in English. They largely confined themselves to the madrassa. With deep loyalty to the ummah and the khalifa, the Sunnis were not natural nationalists. The Hindus were, therefore, the potential problem and hence their faith and culture were the focus of imperial attention.

The Marxist prejudice was also concentrated on the Hindu faith and culture because of many reasons. For one, it was difficult to penetrate the ring of cultural defence jealously maintained by the ulema. For another, if provoked, the Muslim was more capable of a violent riposte. For yet another, the Marxists could empathise with the supranational preference of Islam. They themselves considered the nation to be an instrument of exploitation. They were devout internationalists. From every angle, Hindutva was the obvious target of communist antagonism.

The English language media is influential. The intelligentsia, by and large, prefers to go by what the English language media writes or says rather than what the Indian language media contends. Another visible factor is that quite often the language newspapers borrow from the English newspapers. As if this was not enough, the foreign media is also guided by what is printed in English. The dice is therefore loaded against Hindutva.

To make matters even more difficult, the writers on Hindutva do not always use the English idiom. Although they do use the English language, their frame of reference is not what the bulk of the intelligentsia understands easily. Since I was educated in English, I presume my idiom would be nearer the mark. Moreover, my approach to analysis is shaped by the methodology of Sir Basil Liddel- Hart, the British captain who taught generals. He was a thinker writer on military strategy in the years between the two world wars and after. For excellence in strategic action, I have held in high regard Field Marshal Eric von Manstein who was the outstanding strategist amongst the German generals during World War II. This approach differs with the traditional treatment of Hindutva which is often more warm and mystical and less cold and analytical.

A widely held impression is that the ideology of Hindutva was conceived in response to the Islamic dominance during the medieval centuries and more recently, the substantive advent of Christianity.

This is incorrect. The dawn of a Pan-India was dreamt first by Sri

Krishna 3400 years ago. Vishnugupt Kautilya, nearly 2000 years ago, i.e. about 15BC, popularly known as Chanakya, also had the vision of a great empire. Adi Shankaracharya, some 1200 years ago, traversed the whole of India on foot and set up the four dhams at Dwarka, Badrinath, Puri and Kanchi. He thus demonstrated the essential integrity of India. All this was well before either Christianity or Islam came to India. True, the concept of cultural nationalism evolved later, for the simple reason, that nationalism was unheard of even in Europe until the 18th century.

Before I come to how nationalism is essential for the Indian civilisation to take off again, let me emphasise that Hindutva is the only dialectical ideology that has taken root in Asia. Dialectical in the sense of not merely being logical but also the basis of policies. All other ideologies are of European pedigree, be it Marxism, welfarism as practised by the Social Democrats in Europe or capitalism, whether supply or demand side. Ideally, the Asian genius is best motivated by an Asian ideology. The whole of Asia east of Pakistan, has also an ethos which is Buddhist or Hindu in origin. The influence of Lord Buddha extends right up to Japan.

Hindutva is the only binder which can galvanize the Indian nation towards progress and prosperity. In essence, nationalism is synergy. The effort of four Indians should yield the result equivalent to five or six of them. Most Christians and Muslims of India have a Hindu ancestry. Their collective memory has not necessarily forgotten their castes. It is not uncommon to find a Catholic claiming himself to be a Brahmin and insisting on a Brahmin bride. Nor is it unusual to come across a Muslim who claims that he is a Rajput to indicate that he is not a convert from any other caste. The Bohras are forthright in their claim that all of them were converted from Brahmins.

As the reader proceeds, he you will find that the core of Hindutva is self actualisation. Consequently, it is averse to the subjugation of others. Nor has it shown any desire to dominate other countries. If all the countries in the world could be influenced by a similar volition, surely the earth would be a more peaceful place. All in all, Hindutva is a many splendoured idea. The book offers glimpses of this splendour.

Letter writing offers the scope to express oneself freely. Each letter is written to be self-sufficient and readable by itself. The same point might therefore have been mentioned in another letter. The essence of each letter is highlighted on its first page. On the other hand, chapters need references and, perhaps, quotations which would confine the brush to paint with restraint rather than with ease. Moreover, the rules of emperical research must blur an uninhibited vision of the future. This volume has no pretension to either scholarship or research. It is only a series of individual letters.

Suraaj

MANY A DREAMER HAS CHASED THE IDEAL STATE BUT THUS FAR IT HAS PROVED A MIRAGE. SURAAJ OR A GOOD STATE IS AN ASPIRATION AS OLD AS CIVILISATION. MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, IN INDIA WE HAVE CALLED IT RAM RAJYA. MAHATMA GANDHI CERTAINLY DID BUT HE DID NOT DEFINE IT JUST AS ANYONE BEFORE HIM. BEING A PRESCRIPTION FOR PRACTICAL POLITICS, THIS VOLUME DEFINES THE GOAL FOR WHICH THE ENTIRE MOVEMENT OF HINDUTVA IS STRIVING. THE LETTERS THAT FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY OFFER THE DEFINITION OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AS WELL AS POLITICAL FACES OF SURAAJ.

At the core of Suraaj would be the rule of dharma which requires the leaders to be more ethical than the others. In contrast, under the rule of law, all have equal obligations.

3

Vision

Dear Aslam

I can see that you were protesting the other evening against the idea of suraaj or, what Mahatma Gandhi used to call, Ram Raj. To quote his words, By Ram Raj, I do not mean Hindu Raj. I mean by Ram Raj Divine Raj, the Kingdom of God. For me, Ram and Rahim are the same deity.

To answer your protest, let me be more direct and tell you that suraaj is not in any way visualised as a Hindu state or a theocratic polity. The concept merely represents an ideal state.

Nevertheless, if you were a Muslim cleric, perhaps your mind would flash to the idea of Darul Islam. Or what is also often described as Nizam-e-Mustafa (the system of the Prophet), an ideal which was born with Islam and has lived with most devout Muslims. Similarly, many a socialist intellectual looks upon the call of Ram Rajya as a bugle of revivalism. This would be a case of reading a Hindu ideal with a Marxist mind. If you agree with what I have said, I request you not to read a Hindu ideal with either a Marxist or a Muslim mind. Your other fear was that Ram Rajya means reviving a state which last existed several thousand years ago since when life has become unrecognisably different.

Now let me submit how a Hindu with a modern mind would view Ram Rajya of the future. The expression Ram