5. HINDU RASHTRA – the meaning

    HINDU RASHTRA – the meaning

                                                  (Continued from last post – Hindutva, Secular in Nature)

Before we embark on the journey to establishment of a Hindu Rashtra, we must be clear as to what it means. In the archaic sense it means that the Government and the constitution should take up Hindutva as state religion. This meaning draws parallels with the Islamic Governments. But can we draw such parallels?

My reply to this question is a big ‘NO’! Why?

Hindutva has no ‘Sharia’ to enforce, no Hindu economic policy to pursue, no ‘Kafirs’ to exterminate and no plans to spread Hindutva by the sword. For Hindus, the rule books like Manu-samriti and others are suggestive and not directive or fundamental. The Geeta, which Hindus believe to be the word of God, speaks of personal betterment in relation to individual and the society without saying that one religion is superior to others and that one should not respect them.

Therefore, by Hindu Rashtra I mean the assimilation of all people living in geographic boundaries of Hindustan in Hindutva, with complete freedom to profess their religions and co-exist peacefully under a unified civil and political code. It is not possible to wish away a vast section of population, which constitutes more than 20% of total population of India. The ideal Hindu Rashtra would mean that all people living in this part of the world believe in Hindutva. The concept is akin to Balraj Madhok’s concept of ‘Indianization’. Is such a transition possible peacefully?

No one will reply to this question affirmatively for obvious reasons. The problem lies with the world ‘Hindu’ and not with the philosophy it represents. Almost 99.9% of Muslims in in India are decedents of Hindu ancestors, who were converted to Islam in the last millennium. Mark my words. They did not take up Islam but were converted! Ashoka the Great had taken up Buddhism and was not converted to Buddhism. When a person gets converted he takes up the new value system and not only shuns the earlier value system completely but also develops aversion for it, unlike a person who takes up a new faith, as he retains some of the values of his earlier faith. Thus it is more difficult to convince a convert about the niceties of faith of his forefathers.

Here is an interesting paradox of Indian peninsula:

Sindhu river is Indus river and the country of river Indus was called India. A resident of India is Indian and nobody living in the Indian peninsula objects if called an Indian. Now, the country of Sindhu river called Sindhu-desh was known as Hindustan (literally means the land of the Hindu) since long and if we call the resident of Hindustan as Hindu, a big section of people would object to it strongly, because the word ‘Hindu’ when used alone, is associated with a Dharma.

For argument sake, if there were no term ‘Bharat’, the natural translation of the word ‘Indian’ would be ‘Hindu’, irrespective of his religion. In such a situation an Indian Muslim would have called himself ‘Hindustani Muslim’ or ‘a Muslim of land (stan) of Hindus. Similar could be argument for other isms of this country. But ‘Hindustani Jain’, Hindustani Bodh’ or ‘Hindustani Sikh’ sounds strange to the ear, because they don’t require being qualified with the adjective ‘Hindustani’ and they associate themselves naturally with this landmass called Hindustan.  Strangely, not even Muslims object to India being called Hindustan or Hindostan. In fact, ‘Hindustani’ is a resident of land of Hindus i.e. a Hindu.

Therefore, the name Bharat spoiled the game. So called minorities are not ready to be called Hindus of Hindustan but are happy to be called ‘Bhartiya’ of Bharat.

Here comes another important question. Why do we need a Hindu Rashtra, et all?

(to be continued…)