A possible deconvolution for the convoluted logic of RSS: What Mohan Bhagwat could have said ....

In a recent blog entry the chief of RSS, Mr. Mohan Bhagwat (MB) was criticised for saying: He who is an Indian is a Hindu and he who is not a Hindu is not an Indian.

A long and winding debate ensued. It was desirable to retain the informal notions related to the words Hindu and Indian, and yet certain specificity was needed for precision, unambiguousness and substantiveness.

Mr. Thammayya, in one of his comments, had asked: Hey, I have another suggestion. What do you think, MB should have told? Interesting to know this.

I have recently outlined an abstract version of Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life), terming it, for various reasons, Sanatana Dharma. In light of this article, here is my take on what MB could have said:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the essential underpinnings of an open and free mind regarding religious truths is: There can be points of view regarding the Truth and the ways of attaining the Truth which are seemingly quite different from the ones I uphold but are equally valid.

Hindus pursue and practice such openness and freedom.

A belief in exclusive monopoly regarding religious truths and/or insistence on one's concrete details regarding the same, is inconsistent with this notion of freedom.

India, in our view, is a home-nation for Hindus. Those who are not Hindus are not legitimately Indian.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks:

0. The term Hindu is not defined comprehensively here. And yet, whatever is essential for the political debate is captured in terms of the concepts of openness and freedom.

For example:

a. The term Hindu is free from geographical, racial, linguistic, regional connotations and overtones.

b. So there can be Hindus residing as citizens of other nations.

1. Similarly, India, although not defined comprehensively, is hinted in the last sentence, to be the current geopolitical entity, whose citizens we are. This suffices for the political debate.

For example:

a. The term India is free from racial, linguistic, and regional connotations and overtones.

b. Those, who are currently residing in India as citizens but do not honor this openness and freedom are termed illegitimate citizens.

This allows us to use the terms "Hindu" and "India" with specificity necessary for the relevant aspects of political debate, while retaining the same informal notions regarding these words, which most of us may entertain.

Nonetheless, this is still a tentative version, and is open to be improved upon. Readers' suggestions are welcome.

Interestingly, a Dutch Politician, Geert Wilders has said many things which RSS could have, and should have articulated long long ago. Some of these are, I have provided links obtained from the same wikipedia page: "not tolerate the intolerant", "Ban Koran like Mein Kampf", and "There might be moderate muslims, but there is no moderate Islam".

However, as I have repeatedly alleged, owing to intellectual lethargy among those who are supposed to provide India with political leadership, these things have not happened here in India.