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.

1
 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, but they cannot be treated as "minorities"

deserving of special protection or reservations, 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.

2
 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 multi-

racial 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.

3
 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

4
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. Such a group must have sufficient other

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,

5
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 disabilities and [3] which

disabilities cannot be removed except by 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

6
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 these can be removed by special

arrangements of education facilities and financial

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

7
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.

8
 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

9
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

10
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

11
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

12
 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.

13
 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.

14
 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 unbroken Hindu civilisation as the mainstream

history.

Thus, Hindutva is Hinduness in terms of our indigenously

(swadeshi) developed value-system which is founded on an

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.

15
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 but steadfastness no procrastination but

decisiveness, and no crass self-interest calculation 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.

16
 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.

17
 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. In a document titled

Declaration of Lord Jesus, the Vatican 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

18
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.

19
 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

20
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

21
 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

22
Mario: By why, Monsignor? Has the Church never made

mistakes in its thought?

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,

23
 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

24
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.

25
 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. As Lisa Miller, a senior

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

American history). Of course, we are not a Hinduor

Muslim, or Jewish, or Wiccannation, either. A million-

26
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

27
people who seek spiritual truth outside church is

growing. Thirty percent of Americans call themselves

spiritual, not religious, according to a 2009 NEWSWEEK

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

28
 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 As-

sociation 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.

29
 Second, Hindutva requires that national policies for

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

30
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.

31
 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?

32
 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

33
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

34
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

35
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

36
represented by Tipu Sultan and Rani Lakshmi Bai, both

inveterate warriors against European colonial domination

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.

37
 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

38
 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

39
 (Mahabharat)

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

40
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) Government of India - Satyameva Jayate

ii) Lok Sabha - Dharmachakra Pravartanaya
iii) Supreme Court - Yato Dharmastato Jayah
iv) All India Radio Bahujanhitaya
v) Doordarshan - Satyam Shivam Sundaram
vi) Indian Army - Seva Asmakam Dharmah
vii) Indian Navy - Shan No Varunah
viii) Indian Air Force - Nabhah Sprisham Diptam
ix) Delhi University - Nistha Dhriti Satyam
x) Life Insurance Corporation of India - Yogakshemam
Vahamyaham

41
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 socio-

cultural underpinnings of India are not an exercise of mere

juristic interpretation. It is more fundamentally the

acknowledgement of those social, cultural, ideational 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

42
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 parties which have been swearing by

'secularism' all these years, because of lop-sided

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.

43
 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.

44
 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 even today by

45
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.

46
 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".

47
 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 his conscience?" Then came Turley's

punchline: I submit that Jesus would promptly 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".

48
 (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, minorityism is a recipe for national

disintegration and disaster. Capitulationist Hindus 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

49
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.

50
 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%

51
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

52
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 car-

burnings. 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%

53
 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%

54
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%

55
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

56
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,

57
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 Shariat. These

contradictions are permitted for Muslims by the Mullahs

because India is considered Darul Harab.

58
 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

59
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

60
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,

61
 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

62
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.

63
 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

64
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

65
independence of a nation rests on the quality of the citizen's

thoughts such as his or her attitude to duties, morality, inter-

personal 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

66
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].

67
 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

renaissance.

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.

68
 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".

69
 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 Hindutva: India First

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 [non-

70
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. A de-falsified

Indian history would leave no one in doubt about it.

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

71
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.

72
 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.

73