Mohan Bhagwat Row: Hindus Of Hindustan Are The Same As Afghans Of Afghanistan
Yet another controversy has erupted.
Minutes after RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat‘s Hindu remark, all opposition parties and left-liberal cabal came together and said the comment is against the spirit and ethos of the Indian Constitution.
Many, in fact, are surprised over their sudden love for the Constitution.
They are saying that the comments underlines RSS’ dream to make India a Hindu Rashtra.
Before mentioning the reasons for this cabal to oppose Bhagwat’s comments, it is necessary to understand what he said at the RSS event.
The very first comment that Bhagwat made was: “RSS considers the 130 crore people of the country as Hindus.”
This was vehemently reacted by the left-liberal cabal, saying it is not right to call all people living in India as Hindus.
The subsequent statement that Bhagwat made, which the Lutyens media played down, are: “Irrespective of religion and culture, people who have the nationalistic spirit and respect to the culture of the country and its heritage are Hindus.”
“The son of mother India, whether he may speak any language, from any region, follow any form of worship or not believing in the worship of any, is a Hindu,” he added.
Bhagwat also said Hindu includes everybody those believe India as their motherland, love India and its people, water, land, animals and forests and reflect in their lives, the country’s great traditions and culture, in which the whole creation is looked at with friendliness and their welfare is cared for.
These comments are nothing new. In fact, these comments reflects the idea of Hindustan since its inception.
The question then arises – why the cabal is against calling all as Hindus in India? What are their arguments?
The answer is simple – It is a matter of perception. For example, what would one call people living in Afghanistan as? Afghani, right? People living in Tajikistan are called Tajiks; in Turkey they are called Turks; in Arab they are called Arabi.
Likewise, the citizens of Britain, France, Italy and Germany, are called British, French, Italian and German. So also, the citizens of Bangladesh are called Bangladeshis.
So, how should a person living in Hindustan identified? Should he be identified as a Christian, a Muslim or a Sikh? No, he will be called a Hindu, just as people are called Afghanis, Tajiks, British, German, French, in their respective countries.
Hence, what is the problem then?
The problem with left-liberal cabal is that they link the word “Hindu” to a religion. But, Bhagwat defines “Hindu” in geographical and civilisational connotation and meant that a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu citizen in France is called a French national.
They very well know these identities, but never talk about it. The reason is simple. They do not want to see India united.
They always want to see India divided and talk about multi-culturalism, which is an utopian idea. They consider India as conglomeration of nations. For them, India became a nation in 1947, not before that.
Greatest of testimony is Mahatma Gandhi himself. He wrote: “The English have taught us that we were not a nation before and it will require centuries before we become one nation. This is without foundation. We were one nation before they came to India. One thought inspired us. Our mode of life was the same. It was because we were one nation that they were able to establish one kingdom. Our leading men traveled throughout India either on foot or in bullock-carts …”
“What do you think could have been the intention of those farseeing ancestors of ours who established Setubandh (Rameswaram) in the south, Jagnnath in the east and Haridwar in the north as places of pilgrimage? You will admit that they were no fools. They knew that worship of God could have been performed at home. They taught us that those whose hearts were aglow with righteousness had the Ganga in their own homes. But they saw that India was one undivided land so made by nature. They, therefore, argued that it must be one nation. Arguing thus, they established holy places in various parts of India and fired the people with the idea of nationality in a manner unknown in other parts of the world,” he added.
Supreme Court’s Definition Of Hindutva, Hinduism
This is one problem, but there is yet another attached to it. The left-liberal cabal talks about Constitution and claims that Bhagwat’s comments were against the spirit of the Constitution. Is it so?
No. Because, Hindu, Hindutva or Hinduism is nothing do to with religion, but is a way of life, which was also endorsed by Supreme Court in its verdicts at different occasions in the past.
The Supreme Court, in its verdict on Sastri Yagnapurushadji and others vs Muldas Bhudarda Vaishya case in 1966, held that Hinduism was no religion, but a way of life.
This view of the apex court was reiterated in the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras and Others vs Late R Sridharan case 10 years later in 1976.
The Supreme Court’s proposition was that Hinduism symbolised culture, not religious practices.
In 1995 Manohar Joshi case, Justice JS Verma wrote in conclusion, “It is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption that any reference to Hindutva or Hinduism in a speech makes it automatically a speech based on Hindu religion as opposed to other religions?”
“…these words (Hindutva and Hinduism) are used in a speech to emphasize the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian cultural ethos,” the apex court had said.
The cabal had moved Supreme Court alleging malpractice by Shiv Sena to seek votes in the name of Hinduism as per Representation of People Act (RPA).
In 1990, Manohar Joshi of Shiv Sena had defeated Bhaurao Patil of the Congress in Maharashtra.
Patil had challenged Joshi’s election on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123 of RPA.
The section prohibits attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred among communities on the grounds of religion, caste etc for electoral gains.
Way Of Life And Religion
Therefore, the Supreme Court clearly defined Hindutva or Hindusim as way of life, where different religious groups can live as one nationality, exactly what Bhagwat meant.
The cabal says that a nation should be a garland of flowers, but stops to talk about the thread which binds it. That thread is our culture, civilisation and history, which is called Hindutva or Hindusim. So, should there be any problem at all?
Some are fearmongering that the RSS is indulging in conversion. If Bhagwat had said all 130 crore people should become Hindus, it would then have been an unconstitutional act.
In fact, his statement is an attempt to unite the nation, but the left-liberal cabal is least interested in it, because it would not fetch them electoral gains.
One must also ask the left-liberal cabal – what they understand by Hinduism or Hindutva? According to them, Hinduism is casteism, hardly realising that caste system also is prevalent in Christianity, Islam, Judaism and other religions.
So, the controversy over Bhagwat’s comments is nothing but political – the politics of appeasement to woo Muslims and other minority communities, by creating fear about RSS in them.