In an interview to Hiranya magazine, senior RSS pracharak Ranga Hari spoke on a wide-ranging topics, including Hindutva, nationalism, renaissance, revivalism and revisionism. “Renaissance is a process of reawakening to our eternal values,” he says. Excerpts:
“Aham raashtri sangamani chikitushi prathamaa yajniyaanaam“, say the Vedas, which means Rashtra Devata is foremost among the worshipful. How do you look at it?
We can find more than one deity in the Vedas. Revered Swami ji Dayananda Saraswati, citing examples, has authentically and authoritatively established that, in spite of giving different names in keeping with the place, time and occasion, the deity is one and the same. And, viewed from this angle, when we treat Rashtra Devata as a separate deity, it will be tantamount to accepting that it is distinct from other deities, which, I feel, is not appropriate. Now the question of justification arises. And the answer is, when we think about Rashtra discretely, the name given to that deity, which is nothing but the divine spirit, is Rashtra Devata. It is just like invoking Agni, while offering oblations. Here, let us remember “Ekam sat” denotes the One without the second. Hence, treating Rashtra Devata as a separate deity is not tenable. According to our concept, it is nothing but a facet of God. Only thing, when we think of Rashtra separately, our focus gets centred on it.
Does it mean that the Vedas are stressing on the need to think about the Rashtra?
It is not merely the question of importance, but of relevance also. If we study the Vedas, we will come to realise that the Vedas have organised the whole of humanity into different groups, taking into account the needs of every individual, and also given appropriate names to such human groups. That is, if one is Samiti, another one is Sabha, the third one is Samhati, and there are Visha and Vidhata. Likewise, Grama, Janapada, Rashtra, etc., are other forms of organised human units formed at different places and times. If carefully analysed, we will be able to find much more meaning than what we are able to get in the Vedas at a glance. Also, these were not airtight compartments and hence prone to overlapping. For instance, Samiti, at a different place and time, may become Rashtra. That is, these were the names given to the organised units of humanity that came into being at different places and times, prompted by the survival instinct. So, Rashtra is one such organised human society, identified by the Vedas. And, while thinking about it, naturally the thought about Rashtra Devata will also come up.
Savarkar and Gandhiji were the faces of nationalism of the 20th century. To whom, you feel, you are nearer with regard to the concept of nationalism?
If you look into the history our renaissance, you will come to know that every nation has its own soul, has its own message to deliver, and has the commitment to deliver that message to the world. It was towards the end of the 19th century, in 1897, at Rameswaram, Swami Vivekananda propounded the doctrine, “Every nation has a message to deliver, a mission to accomplish, and a destiny to fulfil.” Till then no politician had ever said that our nation had a role to play. In modern political science, not even renowned political theorists like Harold Joseph Laski have said that a nation has its own soul, and the nature of that nation is the manifestation of its soul, which is essential for the world. And it was Swami Vivekananda who said it first.
Bharat has a common nature is an incontrovertible truth. And Bharat’s common nature is Bharatiyatva. However, when we say Bharatiyatva, the root word is Bharat. Bharat is a land. Is it not the name- popular name – of the people instrumental in the evolution of this common nature Hindu? So, when it comes to the name of the people, that common nature is called Hindutva
And it is this Rashtratva that progressively became the Rashtratva of the RSS. That is, the inspiration and source of the Sangh’s Rashtratva is Swami Vivekananda. In comparison, neither Gandhiji nor Savarkar has put forth this proposition. Every nation has a soul, which forms the foundation of that nation’s message. And, as every nation has a message to deliver, all are relevant.
To speak in Swami Vivekananda’s language, in a music concert, the music played by everyone has its own relevance. And, even though they were great men, Gandhiji and Savarkar have not given this message. However, Shri Guruji, probably may be because of his association with the Swamiji’s movement, has developed and presented this theory. Hence, the Sangh’s Rashtratva or Rashtriyatva is akin to that of Swami Vivekananda, rather than that of Gandhiji and Savarkar.
Swami Dayananda Saraswathiand Swami Rama Tirtha are part of it; as also Annie Besant, a foreign lady, who said: “When nations of the Earth were sent forth one after another, aspecial word was given by God to which each, the word each was to say to the world, the peculiar word from the Eternal which each one has to speak.” Then she continued, “To Egypt in old days the word was Religion; to Persia the word was Purity; to Chaldea the word was Science; to Greece the word was Beauty; to Rome the word was Law; and to India the eldest born of His children, He gave….” Here, after a pause, she said, “There is no translation for this word, and that word is Dharma. This is the word of India to the world, which sums up the whole in one. And this is India’s nationalism.” To be truthful, even Savarkar has not said it; nor has Gandhiji! Supposing somebody is able to establish with proof that Gandhiji has said it, I will have no hesitation in accepting it without any reservation. Because if at all Gandhiji has said it, I will be the happiest person to acknowledge it.
In Savarkar’s concept of nationalism one cannot find any importance given to spiritualism as well as spiritual reference. But according to Swami Vivekananda, that is the most vital factor. If properly viewed, the real reason for neglecting the spiritual aspect seems to be their (Savarkar’s and Gandhiji’s) active involvement in politics.
There is a general feeling that although ‘Hinduism’ is good, ‘Hindutva’ should be opposed. Is there any difference between the two? If yes, what is the difference?
Of course, there is a difference! However, the reason for the difference is due to the practice of measuring our thoughts and perceptions using the English yardstick with the advent of English education. And we get confused and our perceptions go wrong when we use the English yardstick. The words Hinduism and Hindutva are nowhere to be found in our ancient literature. However, the English, the Portuguese and the Dutch, who came here, as they had no other go, had to use their own yardstick to measure us. When the followers of Jesus Christ’s religious beliefs organised themselves into a group, Christianity was born. That is, the personal religious beliefs of Jesus Christ became the common belief of his followers. In the same way, the English called Islam Mohammedan-ism. In English grammar they call everything an ism. This is not confined to religion. For instance, we find the terms Macaulay-ism, Hitler-ism, etc.
In 1897, Swami Vivekananda propounded the doctrine: “Every nation has a message to deliver, a mission to accomplish, and a destiny to fulfil.” Till then no politician had ever said that. In modern Political Science, not even political theorists like Harold Joseph Laski have said that a nation has its own soul, and the nature of that nation is the manifestation of its soul, which is essential for the world. And it was Swamiji who said it first
However, when they applied this yardstick in India, they could reach nowhere! In Bengal if the word Durga was everywhere, in Uttar Pradesh it was Ram, and in Dwaraka everywhere it was Hare Krishna. And if they had come to South India, it would have been Mariyamma everywhere. Is there a founder for this? Christianity has a founder in the person of Jesus Christ; and Mohammed for Mohammedan-ism! So they could call these isms! However, they could trace no founder here. During those times the geographical name given to people in India was ‘Hindus.’ And hence their belief system was given the name ‘Hinduism.’ It was merely a religious name! When one says Hindutva, it is not a religion. One can say Hinduness. It shows the Hindu nature. When you say Greatness, it means state of being great. Likewise, when one says Hindutva, it means state of Hindus, which includes nature, etc., of Hindus.Even while admitting that religion is the most important aspect, we have to say Hindutva includes non-religious factors as well.
I will give an example. Generally we all speak about superstition. Here, let us skip the question whether superstition is good or bad, whether it is beneficial or not. If a cat crosses one’s path, it is considered a bad omen. Not only in Kerala or Tamil Nadu, people everywhere in Bharat believe in it. But do our Vedas and Upanishads contain any mention about it? So, the superstition has absolutely nothing todo with religion. However, the superstition being prevalent all over Bharat, it is common to all Hindus. Is this belief of Hindutva part of Hinduism? Never! It is alien to Hinduism.
The inspiration and source of the Sangh’s Rashtratva is Swami Vivekananda. In comparison, neither Gandhiji nor Savarkar has put forth this proposition. Every nation has a soul, which forms the foundation of that nation’s message. And, as every nation has a message to deliver, all are relevant
Now let us take another practice prevalent in Bharat, which has nothing to do with superstition. There is a practice in which, while weighing or measuring a commodity, adding a bit more to the weighed or measure quantity. In Ernakulam, they call it waash. There is no compulsion that waash should be given. If you buy some groundnuts from a trader in Tamil Nadu, he will add a few more groundnut seeds to the quantity bought. If he refuses to give the additional seeds we don’t have any legal right to claim it. But we find even the illiterate and blind following this practice. In Tamil Nadu, this practice is called kosara; it is kosaru in Kannada and Telugu; jumga in Uttar Pradesh; in Bengal, it is howaa. And this practice is prevalent everywhere in Bharat. Is there any scripture which sanctions this practice? Is it said in the DurgaSaptashati? Has it been mentioned in the RamCharitamas of GoswamiTulasidas? Can one find it in the Bhagavat Gita? The answer will be an emphatic no! Then what is the basis of this practice? The practice has been in vogue from time immemorial and continues even now. So, this is Hindutva. This practice is not followed outside Bharat. Is it a part of religion? No! Hence, it is not Hinduism.
After bathing a child, to protect it from evil eye, a black mark is applied on its cheek. This practice also is prevalent all over Bharat in different names. It is known as thidouna in Hindi. In Goa, it is galgott. Supposing someone asks in which scripture this practice has been prescribed, there will not be any answer. However, it is part of Hindu life. It is for this reason our Supreme Court had to say that Hindutva is not a religion but a way of life. It is not that Hindutva is not a religion for the reason that the Supreme Court has said so. On the contrary, the Supreme Court had to say it because it has never been a religion. Then, what is meant by Hindutva is the general nature of Hindus. It is not Hinduism.
In fact, by Hinduism we mean Hindu religions. In my opinion, to translate Hinduism as Hindu religion is not correct. We must always use plural and say Hindu religions. There is no single Hindu religion. Hinduism is a conglomeration of different religions. However, Hindutva includes even things that are irreligious. Even Charvaka is part of Hindutva. And hence Jawaharlal Nehru in his Autobiography said, “No one in India will have the courage to claim that irreligious Charvaka is not a Hindu.”
So, Hindutva is not Hinduism. If Hindutva is called Hinduness there will be less confusion. While talking, rather than using Sanskrit word for one and English word for the other, we must use the words Hinduism and Hinduness. Or else, say Hindu religions and Hindutva.
So, is it that those who think that Bharatiyas do not have a common nature feel that Hindutva should be opposed? Or, is it that they say sobecause of their ignorance?
Bharat has a common nature is an incontrovertible truth. And Bharat’s common nature is Bharatiyatva. However, when we say Bharatiyatva, the root word is Bharat. Bharat is a land. Is it not the name–popular name–of the people instrumental in the evolution of this common nature Hindu? So, when it comes to the name of the people, that common nature is called Hindutva. At the same time, when thinking in terms of the land where these people grew, matured and prospered, then it is Bharatiyatva. So, in fact, Bharatiyatva and Hindutva are one and the same. Let me give a good example of it. Bharat is also known as India. Dr S Radhakrishnan has given the name, ‘Indian Philosophy,’ to his book on six systems of Bharatiya Darshana. And the name given to its Malayalam translation is ‘Bharatiya Darshanam’. Now the question is—will any Muslim or Christian living in India claim Bharatiya Darshana as his own heritage? So, when it comes to the question of who among the people living in Bharat will come forward to claim Bharatiya Darshana as their own heritage, only non-Christian, non-Muslim people – Hindus – will do so!
So, in fact, both are one. If the origin of the word Hindutva can be traced to the society, the root of the word Bharatiyatva can be traced to the geographical unit, Bharat. Now, coming to your question, we cannot be sure why they are saying so. Is it because of ignorance, or intentionally, or due to lack of pride, we can’t say. May be, it is because of ignorance. However, even after realising the fact, if they feel that Hindutva is communal, it is bad and parochial, and hence should be shun, and for that reason they accept Bharatiyatva, that approach is not correct. It is not appropriate to accept one after rejecting the other.
Now-a-days we find a peculiar type of inferiority complex among the people. For instance, wefind youngsters, who, after their marriage, instead of introducing their spouses in their own language, introducing them, saying in English, “This is my wife.” The wife, on her part, instead using her own language, will says,”He is my Hus!” It is because they feel it is below dignity to speak in their own language. Likewise, if it is because of some mental reservation to utter the word Hindutva someone is avoiding the words Bharatiyata and Hindutva, it must be either because of his inferiority complex or lack of courage!
What is meant by Hindu renaissance? What is its need?
Now-a-days renaissance has become a fashionable word, and we find even people, who do not know the meaning of the word, speaking about it, so much so that what is known in English as social reform has been made to mean renaissance! The actual meaning of the word renaissance is new awakening. Awakening has nothing to do with the external body. Both during sleep and wakefulness the body is the same. The qualities – wakefulness- not available during sleep belong to one’s conscience or anthakarana. So, renaissance has to be based on values. And the values followed by a country for eons, in real terms form the values of that country. Hence we find Swami Ranganathananda speaking about the Eternal Values for a Changing Society. Naturally, as everywhere else, in Bharat also, society undergoes changes and the dress, eating habits, lifestyle, etc. of the people often change, but not its core values. Hence, Sri Ram is still acceptable to us as an ideal. Sri Ram is not alive now. However, the ’Ramatv’ of Sri Ram, which never changes, is even now dear to us and remains part of our life. When, due to some reasons, these values fade, some great men or Gurus emerge and they wake us up saying, “Whatever you have seen in dreams, while sleeping, is not true. So, go, wash your face and come back.” And then we come to see the real world. Such waking up to the eternal values is what renaissance is all about. And it must be based on this criterion we have to evaluate whether all that go in the name of renaissance can be termed so or not.
For instance, with the advent of the British, their education system also was introduced here. And as a result of that education, we happened to forget some of our old traditions. The very purpose of introducing their education here was to create a class of people, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, opinions, morals and intellect. And if we also start ten such schools with the aim of destroying our values, how can we call it Renaissance? Through such an act we will be only creating a situation congenial for the destruction of our values, and that ultimately will result in ruining of our values! Here, let us remember, new institutions can be either beneficial or detrimental. Hospitals are beneficial. Allopathic medicines have their own benefit. So, we cannot say no to them. However, we accept these medicines not based on any values, but because of convenience! At the same time, renaissance can be based only on eternal values. It is a process of reawakening to the values.
In Savarkar’s concept of nationalism one cannot find any importance given to spiritualism as well as spiritual reference. But according to Swami Vivekananda, that is the most vital factor. If properly viewed, the real reason for neglecting the spiritual aspect seems to be their (Savarkar’s and Gandhiji’s) active involvement in politics
Let us, for instance, take Swami Dayanand Saraswathi. He did not know English. Then how we came to treat him as one of our renaissance leaders? Is it not based on values? The reason is he took us to the eternal values of the Vedas. This proves renaissance is nothing but waking up to the eternal values, and not reforms. Different types of reforms may take place in the society, and we are not opposed to it. On the other hand, from time to time, new arrangements are made to protect against the obliteration of the values. And that is renaissance!
Shtuti stipulates that Smriti should undergo changes from time to time, and is it not that what is really meant by renaissance?
Yes. Smriti will change according to Desha and Kala (place and time). Shruti constitute the principles, which are changeless. So, renaissance is based on what is changeless. There is an English word, revivalism. Revivalism cannot be equated with renaissance. Revivalism means bringing back former customs and practices. There is another word, revisionism! Let me explain it through an example: Think there is a coat, of which its owner is very fond of. When the coat becomes old and tattered, the owner patches it up with pieces of cloth. There is a very old Malayalam film ‘Kandam Becha Kottu’ (A patched up coat). Here, in our story, the owner of the worn out coat, unable to discard it because of emotional reasons, is compelled to get it patched up. This is what is meant by revisionism! It is the orthodox mentality that ‘old is gold’ and it should be retained under any circumstance that underlies revisionism!
Now, let us take up revivalism. It is nothing but mechanical and meaningless replication! Let us go back to the story of the patched up coat. Here the person buys the most modern piece of cloth, and showing the old worn out coat to the tailor, asks him to stitch a new coat with the new piece of cloth, which should exactly resemble the tattered one. And when the tailor stitched and brought the new coat, it had all the patches the old coat had! This is revivalism!
None of these is renaissance, because renaissance is value-based. Renaissance is all about how one applies the values. So, renaissance, revivalism and revisionism are totally different from one another, as cheese is from butter. Let me give an example of renaissance from our this year’s Republic-day Parade. This year, Ekalavya Formation, Brahmastra Formation, Pinaka Rocket Launchers, etc. were part of the display in the parade. Pinaka is Lord Shiva’s extirpating weapon, which gives the message that the weapon on display is capable of destroying everything. Nobody has fetched Pinaka from Lord Shiva’s abode in the Himalayas! This is what is meant by renaissance. At the same time, if somebody insists that the original Pinaka should be brought from Kailas, that is revivalism. The Brahmastra is capable to destroying the enemy completely. That is the speciality of our formation. In short, renaissance is based on our eternal values.
(The interview in Malayalam was translated by Shri U Gopal Maller )
Comments