“The conflation of India, Indus and Hindu is of course ancient and we know of the Indica of Arrian (which records the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Punjab) and the Indica of Megasthenes. Arrian refers to Punjabis east of the Indus as the Indoi.” – Aakar Patel
What exactly is Hindu rashtra? This is one of the phrases that worry those who are frightened of the tendencies of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. But are they right to be worried?
What is the RSS thinking of when its chief Mohan Bhagwat says, as he did a few days ago, that “Hindustan Hindu rashtra hai (India is a Hindu nation)”?
The question to be asked is: What does Mr Bhagwat mean by “Hindu” in this context?
And also a second one, what does he mean by “rashtra”? To answer the second one first, rashtra means nation, though loosely it could also mean state (ordinarily the word used in Hindi for the state is sarkar).
A Hindu state is a reasonably precise thing, because the religious texts tell us what its structure is.
Till 2008, Nepal was the only Hindu state on earth. The Chhetri (Kshatriya) dynasty ended with the republic of 2008. Why was Nepal a Hindu state? Because executive power flowed from a warrior king, as prescribed in the Hindu code, Manusmriti. But Nepal was a “Hindu state” only to that extent. Nothing else from Hindu texts could be applied because much of it is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The RSS has not made the demand that the Indian state be organised by caste, so we will assume that the word rashtra was used in the sense of “nation”.
The dictionary defines nation as “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory”.
Let us look at the word Hindu then.
The conflation of India, Indus and Hindu is of course ancient and we know of the Indica of Arrian (which records the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Punjab) and the Indica of Megasthenes. Arrian refers to Punjabis east of the Indus as the Indoi.
However, this conflation makes no sense when used in the line “Hindustan Hindu rashtra hai” because it would then mean Hindustan is an Indian nation, which is a tautology. Clearly, Mr Bhagwat meant something a little different when he said Hindu. One interpretation is that he meant that Indians should all recognise that it is Hindu identity that is at the root of their cultural expression.
That Islam and Christianity in India were also in some way an aspect of Hindustani culture and should be different from Islam and Christianity as they are practised elsewhere in the world.
When Hindu is used in the geographic sense, the RSS has support from many people, including some minorities who agree with its definition. Goa’s Deputy Chief Minister, Francis D’Souza of the BJP, told in an interview: “India is a Hindu nation. There is no doubt about it. It is always a Hindu nation and it will always stay a Hindu nation. You don’t have to create a Hindu nation.”
Asked to explain, Mr D’Souza said, “India is a Hindu country — Hindustan. All Indians in Hindustan are Hindus, including me. I am a Christian Hindu, I am Hindustani.”
The BJP’s Minority Morcha president Abdul Rasheed Ansari also agreed. In an interview to PTI, Ansari pointed to Allama Iqbal’s poem Tarana-e-Hindi (commonly known as Saare jahan se achcha). In it, Iqbal refers to Indians as Hindi in the lines — “Hindi hain hum, watan hai Hindustan ha-mara” (We are Hindis and our land is Hindustan).
Mr Ansari said that “in my opinion, whatever Mr Bhagwat said was in a social context.”
Another Muslim, Union minority affairs minister Najma Heptullah, also defended Mr Bhagwat in an interview [listen to the recording of what she actually said to the Hindustan Times]. Asked if it was right to call India’s minorities “Hindu-Muslims” and “Hindu-Christians”, Ms Heptullah said, “It is not about right or wrong. It is about history.” If some people called Muslims Hindi or Hindu they should not be so sensitive because it didn’t affect their faith, she added.
It is good that the RSS chief has Christians and Muslims interpreting his words, but it would be much better if he himself gave a coherent explanation that would satisfy his critics. – Deccan Chronicle, 31 August 2014
» Aakar Patel is an editor, author and columnist in Mumbai and Chennai. He tweets at @AakarPatel_mint — though he says he is not on social media!
Filed under: india | Tagged: civilization, culture, hindi, hindu, hindu culture, hindu nation, hindu state, hindustan, history, india, indian, indian history, indu, mohan bhagwat, psychological warfare, RSS, RSS |
BHARATA BHARATI 
Akaar wants an explanation from Bhagwat that will satisfy his critics. Howsoever hard Bhagwat may try, nothing that he says will ever satisfy his critics, even Akaar Patel. This is my observation from ever since I grew old enough to understand basic things which means more than 50 years.
LikeLike
this is the perfect analysis !!!….
LikeLike
Prior to the name India was finalized, the names Hindostan, followed by Indostan, were popular. The majority of the people belonged to the Hindu faith. With all it’s faults, since ancient times, the people and the country welcomed the Jews, Christians, Parsi, Agakhanis, and the Tibetians. Aakar Patel (AP), please remember, that aggressiveness emanated from Christians and Muslims, that resulted into the formation of Pakistan. Even to-day, the world over, Hindus have not chosen the path of aggressive behavior. AP, to look after and defend one-self, from the British connivance, organizations were formed, one of them being RSS.
AP, if you are not allergic to the word Hindu, you would appreciate that it has never preached violence but knowledge, given Yoga to the world, and accepted many paths leading to the ONE.
AP, can you believe it, Hindus are seeking Equal Rights in Hindu Rashtra!
LikeLike
” That Islam and Christianity in India were also in some way an aspect of Hindustani culture and should be different from Islam and Christianity as they are practised elsewhere in the world.” Very Nice Statement; Since India and Nepal are the only countries, where ‘Hindus’ are the major communities and Practising Hinduism, the RSS, the VHP and the other organisations should put in lots of efforts to make Hindus Strong physically, economically and socially so that no one dares to hurt anybody because he is practising Hinduism.
LikeLike
Of course India is a Hindu nation. That is self evident to those Indians who know—and admit—their Hindu history.
Obviously, Mohan Bhagwat is not using the term in its religious sense and the geographical sense is redundant. So he is using the term in a civilizational and cultural sense, what some call ‘social sense’.
But whether it is in the Hindu interest to included Hinduism’s declared enemies in a definition of Hindu nation, is a different matter.
LikeLike