In a recent press gathering, the chief of RSS, Mr. Mohan Bhagwat has said:
1. “He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.”
2. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said that those who were Indians were Hindus and if one was not a Hindu he could not be an Indian.
3. "For us the word Hindu did not mean any religion but a way of life,"
1. “He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.”
2. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat on Sunday said that those who were Indians were Hindus and if one was not a Hindu he could not be an Indian.
3. "For us the word Hindu did not mean any religion but a way of life,"
We need to look at it a little closely to find out what MB must have meant by this. Some of my friends tell me that this has always been the stance of the RSS.
There are some very interesting consequences arising out of this. Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, this statement is like "Something that we do not know" is same as "Something that we do not know". Fair enough. MB and RSS have enough space for maneuver.
Therefore we have some interesting questions for the RSS. What is the way of life that is called by the name Hinduism? And who is an Indian? Let us try and analyze what these terms can not mean.
Let us call the present geopolitical entity India as India-GP. Similarly let us call the so called geographical Akhand-Bharat of the RSS India-AB. The passport holders of India-GP as Indian(s)-GP. Let us call those who live south-east of the Hindukush valley and in the peninsular region as Hindu-GP. If we add the Tibetan region to this Hindu-GP, we term it as Hindu-AB. Let us call the yet to be defined "way of life" WOL, and those who are Hindus by this way of life Hindu-WOL.
There are two interesting observations to be made here. India-GP, India-AB, Hindu-GP, Hindu-AB are geographic regions. Hindu-WOL is not a geographic definition.
MB's statement consists of two parts besides mentioning that by the term Hindu, MB meant Hindu-WOL.
a. Every Indian is a Hindu,
and
b. A person who is not a Hindu can not be an Indian.
We have following questions:
0. How do we determine who is a Hindu-WOL?
1. Are there Hindu-WOL residing outside India-GP? If yes, then in what sense does MB mean that they are Indians? Does RSS advocate issuing Indian-GP passport to them?
2. Are there people who are not Hindu-WOL within India-GP? If yes, what does RSS recommend towards non-Hindu-WOL living in India-GP? For example, are they to be thrown out of the India-GP?
3. What is the attitude of the RSS towards the government representing the India-GP state?
There is one easy path that RSS can take. They can define that a Hindu-WOL respects all religions. This leads to a funny situation that a Hindu-WOL need not respect Hinduism-WOL, and yet can be a Hindu-WOL . The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!
Another question is: Does a Hindu-WOL have to respect those religions who are bloodthirsty against them, for example those who have vowed to destroy Hindu-WOL?
Mr. MB, now the time is here to stand up and be counted. Your convoluted language will not work. The least you can do to allay these misgivings is to make your notions of Hindu and Indian very very clear, preferably giving examples. Hiding behind the veil of secrecy and ambiguity will be counterproductive.
There are some very interesting consequences arising out of this. Firstly, since MB(RSS) has not defined what a Hindu is, and what an Indian is, this statement is like "Something that we do not know" is same as "Something that we do not know". Fair enough. MB and RSS have enough space for maneuver.
Therefore we have some interesting questions for the RSS. What is the way of life that is called by the name Hinduism? And who is an Indian? Let us try and analyze what these terms can not mean.
Let us call the present geopolitical entity India as India-GP. Similarly let us call the so called geographical Akhand-Bharat of the RSS India-AB. The passport holders of India-GP as Indian(s)-GP. Let us call those who live south-east of the Hindukush valley and in the peninsular region as Hindu-GP. If we add the Tibetan region to this Hindu-GP, we term it as Hindu-AB. Let us call the yet to be defined "way of life" WOL, and those who are Hindus by this way of life Hindu-WOL.
There are two interesting observations to be made here. India-GP, India-AB, Hindu-GP, Hindu-AB are geographic regions. Hindu-WOL is not a geographic definition.
MB's statement consists of two parts besides mentioning that by the term Hindu, MB meant Hindu-WOL.
a. Every Indian is a Hindu,
and
b. A person who is not a Hindu can not be an Indian.
We have following questions:
0. How do we determine who is a Hindu-WOL?
1. Are there Hindu-WOL residing outside India-GP? If yes, then in what sense does MB mean that they are Indians? Does RSS advocate issuing Indian-GP passport to them?
2. Are there people who are not Hindu-WOL within India-GP? If yes, what does RSS recommend towards non-Hindu-WOL living in India-GP? For example, are they to be thrown out of the India-GP?
3. What is the attitude of the RSS towards the government representing the India-GP state?
There is one easy path that RSS can take. They can define that a Hindu-WOL respects all religions. This leads to a funny situation that a Hindu-WOL need not respect Hinduism-WOL, and yet can be a Hindu-WOL . The compulsion to respect Hinduism-WOL is absent because Hinduism-WOL is not a religion!
Another question is: Does a Hindu-WOL have to respect those religions who are bloodthirsty against them, for example those who have vowed to destroy Hindu-WOL?
Mr. MB, now the time is here to stand up and be counted. Your convoluted language will not work. The least you can do to allay these misgivings is to make your notions of Hindu and Indian very very clear, preferably giving examples. Hiding behind the veil of secrecy and ambiguity will be counterproductive.
Whatever Mohan Bhagavat has told is not new.
ReplyDeleteThe same was told by Guruji Golwalkar some 50 years back.
Even Arobindo Ghosh had told the same thing long back.
He has used the word Indian, so that everybody understands easily.
You are using Indian in terms of citizenship only.
But, RSS is using it as nationality.
Since this country is called "Hindustan", the national of this country is a Hindu.
And since today majority of people are using the term Indian for a national in this country, Hindu and Indian become synonyms.
Now we have 2 Hindus - Hindu national and follower of one of the traditions under Hindu dharma.
The 2nd one can be called as a Way Of Life.
But, RSS uses the word Hindu to address the national and not just the religion.
Now Dr.Abdul Kalam is not a Hindu by birth.
But, RSS considers him as a Hindu national.
So, whatever be the religion, if that person agrees that he is son/daughter of this soil, if he feels proud about our past achievements and if he feels the enemies of this nation as his own enemies and friends as his own friends and is one with the history of this land, then he can be considered as a national and RSS calls him/her as Hindu.
@Narendra
ReplyDeleteYou mean a Muslim who is avowedly against idol-worship (has a scripture telling him to destroy idols) can be a Hindu by merely taking pride in India's past?
I do not know if I should sympathize with your intelligence. Hindus are suffering because to fools like you.
The day Kalam publicly announces that he is proud of the temple at Rameshwaram, he will be declared an apostate and fatwas will be issued against him. Has Kalam critically evaluated Koran? The day he openly does that Jihadis will target him. Otherwise Kalam is only a useful idiot in the hands of Muslims to force Secular agenda down Hindu-throats.