The Sangh & The Hindu Rashtra

First Edition2015

Author:
Prabhakar Sinha

Prabhakar Sinha

Published By:
People's Union for Civil Liberties

Price : Rs. 30/Price : Rs. 20/(For students)

Author

PUCL
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties
Bihar State Unit, Patna

Printed at:
Kala Mudran,
Budhha Colony, Patna, Mob. : 9334330883

Contents
Page
Preface

v-vii

Chapter-I

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

01-17

Chapter-II

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

18-26

Chapter-III

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

27-33

Appendix
34-38

The RSS ( Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh or the Sangh)

was founded in 1925 in reaction against the atrocities
committed on the Hindus in Malabar during the Khilafat
movement that the Indian National Congress had joined to
foster Hindu-Muslim unity. Hedgevar, the first Sar Sangh
Sanchalak had unambiguously stated that the purpose of RSS
was not to join the National Movement against the British but
to oppose the yavan -snakes (Muslims), who, reared on the
milk of non-cooperation, were provoking riots in the nation
with their poisonous hissing. This anti-Muslim feeling was
later developed by his successor Sar Sangh Sanchalak M.S.
Golwarkar into the concept of a Hindu Nation on which the
Muslims had no claim because they allegedly were not
indigenous but were invaders, quite overlooking the fact that
the Muslims living in the country in the twentieth century
were descendants of the Indians who had just changed their
religion and embraced Islam. The change of religion did
not make them either invaders or non-Indians just because
they had become non-Hindus. In fact, it is impossible today
to identify the descendants of the Muslims or any other group
of people who invaded India and settled down here.

The Sanghs anti-Muslim feeling was so overwhelming that

it did not see the British as enemies and took no part in the
National Movement for the countrys independence. In fact,
Golwarkar in his book We or Our Nationhood Defined has
categorically stated that the leaders of the National Movement
are traitors ( page 52 : 4th.edition,1947 ).To him only those
movements are truly National, that aim at re-building ,revitalising, and emancipating the Nation from the present
stupor. Prior to independence, the Sangh did not need to go
political, because its maintaining a safe distance from the
National Movement helped it pursue its communal agenda
unmolested by the British government, which found its role
hugely helpful in pursuing its policy of divide and rule leading
to Indias partition. The government of independent India,
specially after Mahatma Gandhis assassination, could not
allow it to pursue its divisive politics. The organization was
banned. The ban was lifted only after it accepted certain
conditions. However, it became clear to the Sangh that to make
its dream of a Hindu Rashtra come true, it needed political
power, and in 1951 the Jan Sangh was formed for that purpose.
The Jan Sangh merged with the Janta Party in 1977, and
following the split in the Janta Party in 1980 adopted the
present name the Bhartiya Janta Party ( BJP).It is the political
arm of the RSS and its goal is turning India into a Hindu
Rashtra.
The threat posed to our secular democracy by the champions
of a Hindu Rashtra should not be underestimated. They have
an energy and driving force for attaining their objective which
the others lack. With the attainment of independence, the
energy and driving force of other political parties generated

(v)

( vi )

Preface

by a deep commitment to the cause of freedom came to an

end. No other cause replaces it. But Sangh, on the other hand,
continues to be driven by its passion for its dream of a Hindu
Rashtra. It is this commitment and passion which did not break
their morale in 1984, and made them bounce back with 283
members in Lok Sabha in 2014 from a mere two in 1984.They
can be stopped only by the determined resistance of common
citizens like us. But that requires an understanding of the nature
and character of the opponents of our secular democracy and
an appreciation of the danger they pose. The booklet is a little
effort in that direction.
I am immensely thankful to Prof. Daisy Narain, President
Bihar PUCL, for the elegant production of the booklet and
relieving me of the stress and strain of its publication.

April, 2015

Prabhakar Sinha

(The author is the President of National PUCL)

( vii )

2]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

2.

But does the Sangh still think of a Hindu Rashtra in which

all citizens regardless of their religion would not enjoy
equal trust, respect and treatment ?
Yes. It continues to be hostile to the Muslims and the
Christians. It views the members of all other religions
as trustworthy and loyal Indians but not the Muslims and
the Christians.

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

3.

They openly state that all the Indians living in the country
should be Hindus. The President of their Dharm Jagaran
Samiti, Rajeshwar Singh has declared that by 31
December, 2021, there wont be a single Muslim or
Christian in the country. Mohan Bhagwat, the head of
the RSS also declared at a meeting of the organization
that by the time the young persons present would grow
old, there wont be a single Muslim or Christian in the
country. Their other leaders have been exhorting Hindu
women to produce four children each to correct what
they call demographic imbalance.

1. Sanghs Worldview and Politics

(1) What is Sanghs Hindu Rashtra ?
In Sanghs Hindu Rashtra, the Muslims and Christians have
either to become Hindus or accept to be second class citizens
without a citizens rights. M.S.Golwaker,the most revered Sar
Sanchalak of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), in his
famous book We or Our Nationhood Defined ( 1938) clearly
stated :
The non Hindu people in Hindustan must either adopt
the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and
revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the
glorification of the Hindu nation i.e. they must not only give
up their attitude of intolerance and ingratitude towards this
land and its age old traditions, but must also cultivate the
positive attitude of love and devotion instead; in one word
they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country
wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing,
deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment,
not even citizens rights (emphasis added )

What is the basis of this opinion about the Sanghs view ?

4.

What is the ground of their distrust of the Muslims and

the Christians ?
They contend that since Islam and Christianity had their
origin in a foreign land (Mecca in Saudi Arabia and
Jerusalem in (now ) Israel, the followers of these two
religions can never be loyal to Hindustan (India).

5.

How true is their belief that the Muslims and the

Christians cannot be loyal to India because their religions
originated in foreign countries ?

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[3

Fortunately, no civilized and enlightened country in

the world entertains such a baseless and narrow
notion about the loyalty of her citizens. If this
jaundiced view had been accepted by them, Indiansthe Hindus, the Muslims, the Christian, the Buddhists,
the Jains and all others - would have been hounded
out of the U.S.,U.K.,Australia, Germany,
France,Canada, Mauritius, West Indies, South Africa,
Fiji and other countries for being disloyal citizens, and
India would have turned into a country of Refugee of
persons of Indian origin..
6.

4]

bequeathing this fixation to its succeeding generations.

For it, the biggest hurdle in the path of Indias bright
future continues to be the presence of the Muslims and
the Christians in the country. It is this fixation and their
dream of a Hindu Rashtra, which is at the root of their
exhortation to the Hindu women to produce more
children to counter rise in the population of the
number of Muslims.
7.

Why do they fear the rise in the number of Muslims ?

They still insinuate that India will be partitioned again if
the number of Muslims rises considerably. Their
partition fixation has made them blind to the changes
which have taken place since Indias partition. The
Muslims who migrated to Pakistan are leading a
miserable life there. The Mujahirs (the Muslims who
migrated to Pakistan from areas not being part of Pakistan
like, U.P. Bihar etc.) are reduced to the status of an
outcast. About one lakh Bihari Muslims are still living
in camps in Bangla Desh hated by the Bangla Deshis for
their support to the Pakistani Armed Forces, which
committed butchery during Bangla Deshs struggle for
independence. Pakistan has washed its hands off them,
and refuses to accept them.

Why does the Sangh hold this view, which is suicidal for
a country whose people are exceptionally talented and
hard working, and are settled all over the world on account
of their merit and worth ?
The Sangh was formed in 1925 during the British rule,
when the Hindus and the Muslims were made to fight
each other by the British rulers to keep the Indians
divided. The British policy of divide and rule culminated
in the partition of the country and the communal riots
causing the death and displacement of lacs of people in
addition to other inhuman acts. While the Indian National
Congress saw the unity of the Hindus and Muslims
essential for ousting the British and gaining Indias
independence and tried to douse the fire of the fratricidal
conflict by trying to win their support, the Sanghs agenda
remained uniting the Hindus to fight the Muslims. Their
mindset and goal remain unchanged till date, and they
still continue to perceive our national interest in terms
of the Hindu versus Muslim conflict.
It is a typical case of fixation. The Sangh has been

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

The new generation of both the Hindus and the Muslims

in India have moved on and want to live in the present and
have a decent life, but they are not being left alone by the
elements in their respective communities who possess
a mindset of 1940s.
8.

Was there a difference between the approaches of the

Muslim League and the Sangh ?

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[5

Strictly speaking, the two organizations cannot be

compared, as the Muslim league was a full fledged
political party which the Sangh was not, but their views
in some respects are identical. Just as the Sangh
perceived the Muslims as enemies of the Hindus, the
Muslim League believed that the interest of the Muslims
could not remain safe in an India ruled by the Hindus.
They asserted that the Hindus and the Muslims were two
separate nationalities and could not remain in one Nation.
So, India should be partitioned to allow each of the
nationalities to have their respective nations. As a result
India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. Sangh also
believes that Hindus and Muslims are two nationalities
,but asserts that India belongs to Hindus while Muslims
are invaders and have no claim on it. They may stay here
but not on equal footing with the Hindus.
With organizations like the Sangh and the Hindu Maha Sabha
taking an anti-Muslim stance, the fear of the Muslims
that their future could not remain safe in an India with
80% or more Hindus cannot be said to be wholly
unfounded.
9.

Sangh admittedly is not a political party, then what is it?

It is not a political party but is a powerful political
organization.

10. What is the basis of the view that the Sangh is a political
organization ?
The Sangh and its affiliates campaign for the BJP at
elections, it deputes its members to the BJP to aid and
control that party, its members occupy the ministerial
posts including those of the Prime Minister and the Chief

6]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

Minister. A.B.Bajpayee,L.K.Advani and Narendra Modi

like thousands of others occupying political posts are
all RSS men. It openly influences the policy of the BJP
governments at the centre and states. In fact, it does
everything that a political party does. The only difference
is that unlike other political parties, it does not fight
election in its own name, but does it in the name of
Bhartiya Janta Party, which is the Jan Sangh in its new
Avtar, a political party it floated in 1951.
11. Then why does the Sangh deny that it is a political
party?
There is a historical reason for it. Ever since it was
formed in 1925, it kept aloof from the most important
political agenda of the people of India its
Independence. Its agenda was fighting the Muslims in
the name of protecting the Hindus. Its world view
remains unchanged, which determines its policies and
programme.
However, later on in 1951, the Bhartiya Jan Sangh was
formed to pursue the Sanghs agenda of turning India
into a Hindu Rashtra. The Jan Sangh merged with the Janta
Party in 1977 to fight the election to oust Indira Gandhi,
who had clamped the emergency in 1975. Following a
split in the Janta Party in 1980, the Bhartiya Janta Party
came into existence as the new Avtar of the Bhartiya Jan
Sangh.
There is a reason for the RSS (i.e. the Sangh )to call
itself a non- political organization. Whereas almost
all political parties float front organizations to pursue
their political agenda, the RSS is the only organization,

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[7

which is not floated by a political party but has itself

floated a political party to pursue its political agenda.
Thus, instead of the RSS being the BJP cats paw, it is
the BJP which is RSS cats paw.
12. The Sangh calls itself a cultural organization engaged in
character building,which produces patriotic Indians. How
true is the claim ?
It is not possible to give an answer to this question which
may be acceptable to all ,but each may be asked to apply
a test and come to his/her own conclusion. If in your
town, city or kasba, it is common knowledge that the
shop keepers who belong to the Sangh are men of
character, fairer and more honest in their dealing with
their customers and present a clear contrast with the
other shop keepers, and if the public servants and
professionals in different fields belonging to the RSS
stand out in sharp contrast to their counterparts, it has to
be accepted that RSS produces patriotic men with a high
moral character; but if their claim is only as real as the
BJPs claim to be a party with a difference, then their
claim is hollow and a smokescreen for concealing their
nefarious activities.
My experience has been that they are different in only
one respect, they are anti-Muslim and anti-Christian with
a divisive bent of mind, but in other respects ,they are as
good or as bad as the others.
13. What is the true character of the Sangh as an organization ?
The Sangh is a political organization with a stand on all

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

8]

political questions. Its unique feature (which

differentiates it from the other political parties) is its
hostility to the Muslims and the Christians of our country.
14. Is it not true that its topmost priority is the promotion
of Hindutva.?
There is no basis for such a claim. It has not taken a single
step for the reform of the Hindu religious institutions
which are centres of corruption of all kinds, Most of the
Mahanths of the Hindu Mathas are ignorant and addicted
to Bhang, Ganjaand worse. They use the property of
the Matha for personal purposes. They are not a required
to be educated or be knowledgeable about Hinduism.*In
sharp contrast, Christian priests are educated and are
engaged in social service, they live a simple life and own
no property. Even the Maulanas at Masjids live only on
the allowance they receive. They do not own the property
which belongs to the Waqf. The Sangh has never asked
for or would never ask for the reform of the Hindu
religious institutions, because it cannot afford to
antagonize the Mahanths, Sadhus etc. whose support it
needs for its political agenda. There is a quid pro quo
between the Sangh and the so called Sadhus. The Sangh
would not interfere with their fiefdom or ask for the
reform of the degenerate system of Hindu religious
institutions, and would continue to wink at their corrupt
ways in return for their support to its political agenda.
(* There are a few religious institutions to which the facts mentioned
above do not apply )

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[9

10 ]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

15. If the Sanghs agenda is not the promotion and protection

of Hindutva, why does it swear in its name?

Gandhi appeared to them as an insurmountable stumbling

block in their communal path, and a hated figure.

Just as it was not the agenda of the Muslim League to

reform Islam or its institutions, but exploit the religious
sentiment of the Muslims for its political agenda, the
Sangh exploits the religious sentiments of the Hindus
for attaining its political goal of a Hindu Rashtra.

18. What is the difference between being religious and being

communal ?

16. But the Sangh exhorts the Hindus to say with pride that
they are Hindus.
True, but they say nothing about the kind of Hindu one
should become to be proud of . To most of us, Mahatma
Gandhi was a symbol of what a devout Hindu should be,
but Nathuram Godse (reportedly a former RSS man )
and his associates killed him for being anti-Hindu. Even
today BJP M.P.s declare Godse to be a great patriot and
the Hindu Maha Sabha wants permission to install his
statue at public places.
They never tell the Hindus on their own whether a Hindu
should be proud of being a Hindu like Gandhi or
Nathuram Godse nor give an answer to this question
17. Why do the Hindu zealots hate Mahatma Gandhi ?
It is well neigh impossible to find a more devout and
ideal Hindu than Gandhi, but his was a Hinduism without
hostility to the members of the other religions or
religious communities. A Hinduism without
communalism, specially, without hostility to the
Muslims was anathema to the Hindu zealots, who were
communal and not religious. It is for this reason that

Being religious means following the tenets /teaching of

ones religion while being communal ( the sense in which
the word communal is used in India*) is being against
the members of other religions. Consequently,
communalism is destructive of religious values i.e.
religion itself. For example, Hinduism teaches us to be
kind,compassionate, forgiving, helpful, loving, with a
feeling of brotherhood for all (Vasudaiva kutumbkam),
to be just, etc., but communalism engenders in people
hatred and vengeance and instigates them to kill (men,
women and children), rape, loot and commit other
inhuman acts against the members of other communities.
All these heinous crimes are forbidden in Hinduism and
in most other religions.Thus,communalism is an antithesis of religiosity.
Mahatma Gandhis murder is the best example of this
antithesis He was a deeply religious man (he was a
devout Hindu), but was totally anti-communal. Since
he was a religious man, he had no feeling of animosity
against the Muslims, though he was the unhappiest
man due to Indias partition on account of them. The
Sangh, the Hindu Maha Sabha and the others of their
ilk like Godse had a right to strongly disapprove of his
stand and oppose him tooth and nail, but did religion
(Hinduism in this case) sanction his murder? It did
not. It was a case of a communal Hindu murdering
one of the most religious Hindu in history because his

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[ 11

religiosity had completely purged his soul of animosity

against all including the Muslims despite Indias
partition.
Mahatma Gandhis murder was the murder of
religiosity by communalism.
19. Who is responsible for Indias partition ? Nehru or
Jinnah ?
There is no unanimous opinion on this question . Most
Indians blame Jinnah for insisting on Indias partition,
but there is also an honest opinion that Nehru and most
of the top leaders of the Indian National Congress (except
Mahatma Gandhi, who chose not to remain in Delhi to
celebrate Independence and was in Calcutta trying to
douse the communal fire there) were so impatient to
come to power that they did not make a sincere effort to
come to a settlement with Jinnah, to prevent the partition
of India.
20. What is the truth ? Then who was responsible for Indias
partition ?
The truth is that it was communalism both of the Hindus
and the Muslims, which led to Indias partition. With the
RSS and the Hindu Maha Sabha declaring the Muslims
to be enemies of the Hindus, and declaring that the
Muslims and the Christians must cease to expect
anything in Hindu India, it must be held responsible for
making it impossible for Muslims to feel safe in a Hindu
dominated India. In his book published in 1938 the RSS
chief Golwarker categorically stated his firm position
on the fate and future of the Muslims and Christians in
an independent India in the following words :

12 ]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

in one word they must cease to be foreigners or may

stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu
nation claiming nothing, deserving not privileges, far
less any preferential treatment, not even citizens right
(complete quotation may be seen under question No.1).
Golwarker had expressed his admiration for Hitler for
solving the Jewish problem in the same book. It is true
that in 1938, the world was not aware that six million
Jews were mercilessly butchered under Hitlers policy
of solving the Jewish problem, but in 1946-47 the world
had full knowledge of the inhuman treatment of the Jews.
Could the Muslims be blamed for feeling terrorized by
the thought of living in an India with 80% Hindu
population with the Sangh and the Hindu Maha Sabha
breathing fire and brimstone against them? The Sangh
Parivar is trying to strike terror in the hearts of the
Hindus (who constitute 80 % of Indias population) even
today by telling them that the Muslims may reduce them
to a minority in not too distant future by producing more
children and exhorting the Hindu women to produce at
least four children to ward off this possibility.
Additionally, they are busy adding to the number of
Hindus by launching their Ghar Wapasi Abhiyan for
conversion of the Muslims and the Christians to the
Hindu fold).
If the Hindus, who constitute 80 % of Indias
population have reasons to feel unsafe due to a slight
rise in the population of the Muslims, it is natural for
the Muslims constituting less than 20% of Indias
population to fear living in a country engulfed in
horrendous communal clashes of 1940s and to feel

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[ 13

terror at the prospect of living in a Hindu dominated

India.In fact the activities of the Sangh Parivar and
the Hindu Maha Sabha and other organisations of
their ilk offer justification for the Muslims demand
for a safe haven for themselves in the form of a Muslim
nation .It is another matter that their terror made them
jump from the frying pan of undivided India (which
would have eventually cool down) to the fire in which
they continue to burn.
It is actually the communal Hindu organizations like the
RSS and the Hindu Maha Sabha whose aggressive
communalism led to Indias partition by striking terror
in the hearts of the Muslims at the prospect of living in
India under the threat of subjugation and violence.
Their aggressive communalism gladdened the heart of
the British rulers who had been following the policy of
divide and rule, and strengthened the case of the Muslim
league that the Muslims could not live safely under the
Hindus. They purposely branded the Indian National
Congress as a party of Hindus and Mahatma Gandhi
as a leader of Hindus. Had there been no RSS and the
Hindu Maha Sabha with their communal agenda,
(none of whom played any role in the freedom
struggle), India would have won independence and
remained undivided.
20. Is it possible for India to remain in peace despite the
communally charged atmosphere ?
The question contains two questions : (A ) whether
India can remain in peace despite continuous adding
of fuel to communal fire by the Hindu zealots and

14 ]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

(B) whether it is possible for India to remain in peace

forgetting the communal hostility and distrust.
(A) If the Sangh continues to pursue its communal
agenda of a Hindu Rashtra, there would be no peace
simply because the Muslims and the Christians are
numerically outnumbered. It is not in the nature of
man to surrender his honour and reconcile to
subjugation and injustice forever. The weaker side
chooses its strategy and weapon according to the
circumstances, and is not deterred by the thought
of victory being unattainable. Fighting against
injustice and dying for the cause itself becomes a
virtue worth any sacrifice.
Khudiram Bose, Bhagat Singh and the other martyrs
were fully aware that Indepedence was not round
the corner, but were not deterred.
The virtue of a cause is decided by those who make
sacrifices and not by their oppressors. The form that
the opposition to communal oppression would take is
unpredictable, but the fact that the country would not
remain in peace is quite predictable.
(B) As for addressing the second question,India can remain
in peace and attain great prosperity if Gandhis view of
India is accepted in all sincerity. He used the word
Ramrajya to reach and touch the hearts of the millions
of illiterate Indians, but made its secular meaning clear
in the following words :
Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that
Ramrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Ram is
another name for Khuda or God.I want Khudai Raj, which

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[ 15

is the same thing as the Kingdom of god on earth.

(February, 26 1947 )
However, this quotation does reveal his secular approach
but does not shed light on rights and status of the Indians
belonging to different religions and ethnicity. His view
in this respect is unambiguously expressed in the Harijan
of August 9,1942 in the following words :
Hindustan belongs to all those who are born and bred
here and who have no other country to look to.Therefore,
it belongs to Parsis, the Israelis, to Indian Christians,
Muslims, and other non-Hindus as much as to Hindus.
Free India will be no Hindu raj: it will be Indian raj based
not on the majority of any religious sect or community,
but on the representatives of the whole people without
distinction of religion.
No wonder the votaries of the Hindu Raj had him killed.
22. Is it possible now to have an emotionally integrated India
of all Indians, Hindus, Muslims and Christians, despite
the communal bitterness of the past decades or it is just
a mirage or utopia ?
South Africa under Nelson Mandela has shown that it is
not a mirage but an attainable goal. Probably, with the
exception of Jews under Hitler, no community was
treated more inhumanly than the black natives of South
Africa by the Dutch colonists known as Afrikaner. Nelson
Mandela himself spent 27 years in jail in inhuman
conditions, but when the native people of South Africa
came to power under him, they did not try to settle score
with their erstwhile cruel white rulers, and chose to live
in harmony with them despite the bleeding wounds of

16 ]

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

centuries. Today, the Afrikaners have no country other

than South Africa and continue to live in peace with their
former victims.
Our wounds, both of Hindus, Muslims and Christians
is nothing compared to the wounds of the natives of
South Africa. Their love for their motherland has
helped them overcome their bitterness. When the
communal leaders of India would love India more than
their communalism, they would overcome their
animosity and appreciate the value of emotional
integration of Indians of all hues, colours and religion.
But that is possible only if patriotism purges them of
communalism.
23. Are not the members of the Sangh Parivar patriots ?
They are the only patriots according to Golwarkars
definition For him, only those who strive for the
revitalizing Hindu Nation (not its independence )are
patriots, and all other Indians who fought the British
rulers for Indias independence and not for the Hindu
Nationare either traitors or mere simpletons,
misguided ignorant fools. Thus, Mahatma Gandhi,
Jawaharlal Nehru,Jai Prakash Narain, Subhash
Chandra Bose, Ballabh Bhai Patel, Rajendra
Prasad,Ram Manohar Lohia, Bhagat Singh,Chandra
Shekhar Azad, Khudiram Bose and all who fought for
Indias freedom are either traitors or fools.
Golworkar in his book We or Our Nationhood Defined
(1938) makes it quite clear in the follwing words :
We repeat; in Hindustan, the land of the Hindus, lives
and should live the Hindu Nationsatsfying all the five

Sanghs Worldview and Its Hindu Rashtra

[ 17

essential requirement of the scientific nation concept

of the modern world. Consequently, only those
movements are truly Nationalas aim at re-building,
re-vitalising, and emancipating from the present
stupor, the Hindu Nation. Those only are nationalist
patriots, who with the aspiration to glorify the Hindu
race and Nation next to their heart, are prompted into
activity and strive to achieve that goal.All others.posing
to be patriots and willfully indulging in a course of
action detrimental to the Hindu Nation are traitors and
enemies to the national cause, or to take a more
charitable view if unintentionally, and led into such a
course, a mere simpleton,misguided ignorant fools.
No wonder Gandhi,a devout Hindu sans the communal
virus appeared to them as their worst enemy.

CHAPTER II

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

24. Is there a difference between the Sanghs Hindutva and
Hinduism ?
Yes, there is a world of difference between the two.
25. In what respects the Sanghs Hindutva is different from
Hinduism ?
They are different in many respects. For example, in their
attitude to love, sex, man - woman relation, womens
sartorial freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of
expression including the freedom of artists to express
themselves, freedom of religious belief, freedom of
conversion and many more.
26. What is the difference in the Sanghs attitude to love
and that of Hinduism ?
In ancient Hindu society, love was neither a Sin nor a
matter of Shame. Lord Shiva finally yielded to Parvatis
boundless love and married her. Lord Krishna was not
held guilty of sin for his love for Radha nor for the love

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

[ 19

he received from sixteen thousand Gopis (young women

of a cow rearing caste). It might not have been literally
true, but the idea of this love extraordinary, has never
been found blameworthy by Hindus but is admired and
respected.
Most extraordinary is the saga of King Shantanus love
at first sight for Satyawati, the daughter of a fisherman.
Neither his status as the King nor his being a Kshatriya
stood in his way, and he unabashedly approached her
father for her hand in marriage. The request was refused
unless he pledged that Satyawatis son would succeed
him as King. The King could not accept the condition
which would have denied his son Devvrat of his rightful
claim to the throne. But so love sick did the King grow
that his health was shattered causing great concern. When
Devvrat learnt of the cause of his fathers incurable
agony, he approached Satyawatis father and promised
not to claim the throne if he consented to his daughters
marriage to his father. The astute fisherman expressed
the fear that at some point of time ,his son might claim
the throne as a rightful successor. Devvrat took no time
in taking a vow that he would remain unmarried for life
to ward off that possibility. It is from that day that Devvrat
was given the name Bhishma. His father Shantanu married
Satyawati and her sons succeeded to the throne. Both
Pandavas and Kauravas of Mahabharat were her grand
children.
So high was the esteem in which love was held in the
Hindu Society that a son in his youth sacrificed the
happiness of conjugal life for the love of his aged father.

20 ]

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

In sharp contrast, the Hindutva brigades raid parks,

restaurants, clubs, and other possible places to hunt
and humiliate young men and women suspected to be
lovers. To them, love is an unpardonable sin and the
Sangh has cast on them the burden of saving Hindus
and Hindutva by inflicting pain and shame on lovers.
27. What is the difference between their respective approaches
to sex?
Hinduism celebrates sex as natural and free from sin,
stigma or shame. In the temples of Lord Shiva, the
devotees revere and worship Shiva Linga in Yoni as
symbol of creativity. The worshippers experience deep
feeling of reverence and are completely transported to
an exalted state transcending their contemporary view
of sex and sex organs.
Unlike in Christianity and Islam, Hindu deities have their
female partners/consorts. Lord Vishnu has Laxmi as his
consort. The same is true of many others.
The carvings depicting sexual acts on the walls of Hindu
temples in India is an irrefutable proof of a healthy
attitude of a healthy society to sex. The temples at Konark
and Khajuraho with such carvings are no exception; such
carvings are found in different parts of the country.
They present the proof of the healthy outlook of the
Hindu society.
Vatsayans Kamsutra (a Treatise on Sex) written
between the 1st and 6th century A.D. is proof of an
enlightened society of which any society may be proud.

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

[ 21

Sangh does not accept this Hindu view of sex. It may

endorse what the deities did, but has a very conservative
and negative attitude to love and sex in the world in which
we live.
28. Is not the Sanghs Hindutvas attitude to man-woman
relationship the same as that of Hinduism ?
The ancient Hindu society judged the worth of a person
in totality and his/her sexual relationships did matter in
judging his/her qualities, virtue and worth. For example,
the most revered five women for Hindus (Panch Kanya)
are Kunti, Draupadi, Mandodari, Tara and Ahilya.Kunti
was the mother of Karn, Yudhishtir, Arjun and Bheem,
but none of them was the son of her husband Pandu. Their
real fathers were Surya, Dharmraj, Indra and Vayu (all
of them were gods) respectively. Draupadi had all the
five Pandavas as her husband while Mandodari and Tara
married Bivishan (the brother of her slain husband
Ravana) and Sugriva (the brother of her slain husband
Bali) respectively. Ahilya was deceived by Indra ,who
assumed the form of her husband and made love to her.
Instead of being considered desecrated she is revered as
one of the Panch Kanya. In fact, Hindus are enjoined to
remember them every morning since they are considered
Pratah Smaraniya (Worthy of being remembered every
morning).
The Sangh, which is so hostile to love, is no less hostile
to sexual freedom of women.
29. Does not Sanghs approach to womens attire conform
to the ancient Hindu view and practice ?

22 ]

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

No. The women in the ancient Hindu society dressed as

required by the climate and their sense of elegance. There
is no evidence to show that they were ordained to so
cover their bodies as not to tempt men to rape them. There
was no deliberate attempt to conceal their physical
beauty.
The Sanghs view is that women should wear dresses
which cover their bodies so well that they do not attract
men. In fact, many of them blame womens dresses for
their being raped.
30. Is not Sanghs approach to freedom of thought similar
to the approach of Hinduism ?
Absolutely not. In fact, they are the very opposite, totally
anti-thetical. The ancient Hindu society believed in
Shastrarth (Debate).Any philosophy, religious belief or
thought could be challenged and debated, and its validity
or otherwise depended on the outcome of the debate.
Ideas were not suppressed by force. Buddha challenged
Hinduism, but he was not physically attacked as was
Prophet Muhammad, who was forced to flee from
Mecca to Medina and take to arms to save himself and
to spread his message. In contrast, Charvak (an ancient
Indian atheist philosopher), who is believed to propagate
hedonism (love for pleasure), was not physically attacked.
It is popularly believed that he propagated the motto,
So long you live, live happily. Borrow and drink Ghee
i.e. if you do not have the means).Charvak was not
physically attacked.

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

[ 23

Adi Shankaracharya (8 century A.D.) moved from one

end of the country to the other to debate and defeat all
philosophers of other views to make them accept his
philosophy. He defeated all other philosophers and his
philosophy was accepted. The freedom of thought and
superiority of logic and knowledge were considered so
sacrosanct in the Hindu society that the contrary view
was readily accepted if it was convincing.
The Sanghs brigades vandalise art exhibitions and book
shops, burn books, force their withdrawal or get them
banned, disrupt meetings, beat up people who oppose
their ideas. This Hindutva is an enemy of Hiduism.
31. Does Sanghs approach to artistic freedom about nudity
conform to that of Hinduism ?
The Hindu society found nothing repugnant in the
carvings of sexual acts on the walls of a sacred place
like the walls of temples, but the moral brigade of Sangh
hounded out one of the greatest painters of India M.F
Hussain,who felt forced to flee to Quatar,renounce Indian
citizenship to become a citizen of that country at the age
of 90 plus, all because he had painted some goddesses in
nude. If they are allowed to have their way, they would
raze to the ground the temples at Konark, Khajuraho and
other places as the Taliban had done at Bamiyan in
Afganistan.
32. Does Sanghs Hindutva conform to Hinduisms approach
to religious conversion ?
Absolutely not. Though Hinduism does not believe in
conversion and does not provide for conversion of non

24 ]

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

Hindus to the Hindu fold, it does not use coercion as

a means to prevent the conversion of a Hindu to some
other religion. The conversion to Buddhism is the best
example of a liberal and enlightened approach of
Hinduism to conversion of its member to some other
religion. In fact, conversion of Hindus to Buddhism at
such a massive scale was catastrophic but was not resisted
by force. Hinduism believed in God and soul, but Buddha
remained silent when questioned about their existence.
Buddhism is considered an Atheist religion for that
reason. But Buddha was never physically attacked.
Instead, subsequently, he was adopted as an incarnation
of Vishnu by Hinduism.
In fact, there is no provision in Hinduism for converting
a Non-Hindu to it. There is a sound reason for it. Every
person is a Hindu by birth if his parents are Hindus. He/
she is born to a caste also. Just as nobodys caste can be
changed, nobodys religion can be changed.
In Hinduism,there are Mantras and elaborate rites for
all religious acts, but there is no Mantra or rites for
converting a Non- Hindu to a Hindu.
A Hindu also remains a Hindu even if he repudiates
Hinduism, does not believe in the existence of God and
conducts himself most unlike a Hindu. In this sense, it is
fundamentally different from Islam and Christianity.A
Muslim or Christian cannot remain a Muslim or Christian
if he /she does not believe in Allah or God or Christ and
repudiates his religion.
33. Then how does Sangh resorts to Ghar Wapasi of
Muslims and Christians and make them Hindus ?

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

[ 25

Just as its Hindutva with borrowed ideas and practices

of Islam and Christianity is very different from Hinduism
in many respects, its which Ghar Wapasi (i.e.
conversion of Non-Hindus to Hinduism) is also a slavish
imitation of Islamic and Christian belief and practice.
34. Is conversion resorted to by Muslims and Christians right
and justified ?
If it is done without resorting to foul means like coercion
or pandering to greed or exploitation of their
helplessness, it is justified from the point of view of their
religion. Both Christianity and Islam believe that their
respective religions lead to salvation of ones soul.
Historically, they took to conversion not for their own
benefit, but for the benefit of the persons converted.
Christian missionaries have made great sacrifices
working in Africa and other countries to accomplish
their mission.
Islam also has the same mission, but it also exploited
the power of sword and the State for conversion apart
from legitimate means.
35. If the Sanghs Hindutva is so different from Hinduism,
what values has it been propagating and why ?
It has been packaging Islamic values with the label of
Hindutva and selling it to the gullible Hindus to promote
its communal agenda. It is in Islam and Christianity that
sex is sinful. They believe that Adam and Eve committed
the Original sin in the Garden of Eden, which is at the
root of the suffering of mankind. It is in Islam that the
Quran contains the words of God, and is unquestionable.

26 ]

Sanghs Hindutva and Hinduism

Thus, anything at variance with the Quran is not open to

questioning and is unacceptable. It is again in Islam that
the work of art is looked at with great disapproval. It is in
Islamic law that men and women are not equal. Again, it
is in the Muslim societies that women are ordained to
keep themselves covered. Ghar Wapasi itself is an
imitation of Islamic practice. If one has a close look at
the behaviour pattern of the adherents of Hindutva,the
similarity with the Islamist would be crystal clear.
Thus, the Sanghs Hindutva in many respects is a blind
imitation of Islamic values and an anti-thesis of
Hinduism.

28 ]

CHAPTER-III

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

36.What would be Sanghs Hindu Rashtra like ?
It would be akin to the life in Pakistan , which is a Muslim
Rashtra (Islamic State). Pakistan was founded on the basis
of the fear of Muslims that they would not remain safe in
India under the rule of Hindus, who constituted more than
80 % of its population. The champions of the Hindu
Rashtra are hoping to achieve their goal of Hindu Rashtra
by creating the same fear in the minds of Hindus by raising
the bogey of Muslims outnumbering them and reducing
them to a minority. To keep this fear alive and growing,
they exhort Hindu women to produce four children each
.and have undertaken their Ghar Wapasi Abhiyan (the
campaign for converting Muslims and Christians to
Hinduism). They know full well that neither the Hindu
women would respond to their call nor a significant number
of Muslims and Christians would convert to Hinduism, but
resort to them in the hope the measures would reinforce
their design to create a fear psychosis in the minds of

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

Hindus. Their other tactics is to create a sense of

victimhood in the Hindu mind by hammering the point
that they are being discriminated against in their own land,
due the policy of appeasement (Tushtikaran) followed by
other political parties. Factually, the allegation of some
apparent favour done to the minorities in some cases may
be true; but it is a common and accepted practice in
democracies to do things to win the support of some class
or section of voters. Just as the Sangh uses the tool of
communalism to mobilize Hindus in its favour , some of
the others occasionally take measures not fully justified
to win the support of Muslims voters. But can any political
party dare to be anti-Hindu in a country with 80% of its
population being Hindu? But the Sangh Parivar and its
leaders, who have been admirers of Hitler , continue to
follow the dictum of his infamous Propagand a Minister
Goebbels repeat a lie hundered times it becomes true.
Though, it is dangerous to pander to the communal feeling
of either the minority or the majority, communalism of
the majority is more dangerous. History of Pakistan
presents its clinching evidence .
Sanghs Hindu Rashtra would deny equality to all citizens
thereby demolishing the very foundation of democracy.
Just as in Pakistan Hindus and Christian are second class
citizens, Muslims and Christians would be made second
class citizens in the Hindu Rashtra. When the minorities
have been taken care of , Hindutva would occupy the centre
stage of politics with competitive Hindutva becoming the
mainstay of politics (with ) each group trying to prove it
is more pure and true Hindu than the others. India will
have its Hindu counterpart of Al Quaeda, ISIS,Al Sabah,
Boko Haram, Taliban and the others of their ilk. Religion

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

[ 29

based politics will take the same course in India as it has

taken in the theocratic Islamic states . Sanghs Hindu
Rashtra would turn into a Kurukshetra (a battle field like
the battle field of the Maha Bharat) in which Hindus will
shed the blood of Hindus. as Muslims are shedding the
blood of Muslims in several Islamic countries.The same
cause produces the same effect. A Hindu Rashtra cannot
escape the inescapable fate of the religion based
(theocratic) politics as the Muslim Rashtras ( Islamic
States) are doing.
Democracy would be replaced by some kind of
dictatorship, which may masquerade as democracy. In
Pakistan, General Ayub Khan had tried to mask his
dictatorship with what he called Basic Democrary just as
King Mahindra of Nepal had tried to mask his absolute
monarchy with what he called Panchayati Raj (after
dispensing with a democratic government headed by B.P.
Koirala). In Sanghs Hindu Rashtra, those of the Hindus
who would be part of the ruling class will be first class
citizens , the rest of the Hindu population will be second
class citizens, the minorities will be third class citizens
and the Hindus not submitting to the authoritarian or
totalitarian rule will meet the fate that a dissenter meets
under such rule. Though in 21st century, it would not be
possible for the Hindu Rashtra to massacre the lacs
opposing the authoritarian rule as was possible for Hitler,
who tortured and killed all those Germans who were
opposed to his rule, they would meet a terrible fate. The
rest of the population would be dealt with by government
agencies as well as the Hindu Brigades more fearlessly
and ferociously than is being done by Bajrang Dal,Ram
Sene, Shiv Sena and other such outfits today.

30 ]

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

Women will not be free to dress as they like.They would

be enjoined to so dress themselves as not to attract mens
attention or to invite rape. To protect them, women would
not be permitted to work outside their homes at night or
late evenings. Victims of rape would be blamed for their
miserable plight. Love would be allowed only in the privacy
of four walls. Expression of love at public places would
be prohibited. What is being enforced by Sanghs vigilante
groups now would be enforced both by the State as well as
the vigilante outfits of the Sangh. Todays love jehad (a
misnomer for a love between a Hindu woman and a Muslim
man) would be replaced by a Jehad on love itself. The
government would prescribe a code of conduct in
conformity with the Sanghs idea of purity to regulate the
sexual relation of the people. Sex outside marriage would
be made punishable, live in relationship would a punishable
offence. Children not born of valid marriage would be
illegitimate and would be entitled to nothing but the shame
of their illegitimate birth.
There would be no freedom of thought and expression.
Presently, the vigilante groups of Sangh decide what
books are objectionable from their point of view and force
their withdrawal from the market by vandalizing
disributors outlet and the book shops and disrupting their
business. The publishers and distributors surrender to their
hooliganisn for fear of loss to their business.This is not a
rare phenomenon, but is a regular practice carried out by
Sanghs front organizations. Meetings where opinions
objectionable to Sangh are expressed would be attacked
by its brigades and disrupted. However, the other side of
the coin is that as is typical of a fascist organizations,
they act as if they have an absolute right to do and say

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

[ 31

anything about anyone .Thus, those who do not support it

at elections, are not Ramjadas ( i.e. children of Ram ),but
Haramjadas (bastards) or are Ram Virodhi (against Ram)
and consequently Rashtra Virodhi (traitors Ram,
Virodhi, Rashtra Virodhi). To them, those who were not
supporting Narendra Modi should go to Pakistan. These
are not rantings of whimsical persons but deep rooted
conviction of the members of the Sangh Parivar advised to
keep their feeling concealed till their dream of a Hindu
Rashtra is realized.
Their mindset is the same which causes not only burning
of books, vandalization of book shops and cinema halls,
disruption of meetings of opponents but also issuing of
Fatwas as was done against Rushdie and Tasleema Nasreen
and many others in theocratic Islamic States.
The culture of Shastrarth ( open debate ) would end. There
would be no more argumentative Indians, as those daring
to argue against the rulers of the Hindu Rashtra would be
punished as Rashtra Drohis. Debate is a serious threat
to authoritarian rule, and would be nipped in the bud by the
rulers, more so in a theocratic State armed with the
sanction of Dharma.
It is the philistine Hindu zealots who will be literary critics
and connoisseur of art and music. The ignoramus would
teach the world about the unique achievements of science
in ancient India showcasing a dead Ganesh coming to life
with an elephants head as a marvel of plastic surgery, a
Pushpak Viman used centuries before Christ, guided
missiles and anti-missiles freely used in Kurukshetra and
many more such wonders.

32 ]

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

Films, plays, music,painting and other forms of art will

be enjoined to remain within the bounds of national
interest, Hindu culture and Hindu morality. The Film
Censor Board constituted by the present government has
already given us the taste of what is to come. The morning
has already shown the day
History would be rewritten. Academic bodies dealing with
history is already being packed with persons who cannot
be considered historians. These pseudo-historians have
been propagating weird theories in the past would adorn
the academic institutions of historians.. There would be
more of the variety who claim that Taj Mahal and Qutub
Minar were built by some Hindu Kings. They were the
cranks of history. They would be our acknowledged
historians in the Hindu Rashtra.
Children would be brainwashed and regimented according
to the need of the Hindu Rashtra. What is already being
done in Saraswati Shishu Mandirs ( thousands of schools
running all over the country under Sanghs direction ) with
constraints would be done aggressively under the patronage
of their government. Schools would produce young men
with the mindset of Hindu Taliban (Talibans,meaning
students, are young men who were taught to be fanatic
Muslims and raised at the instance of the U.S. to fight the
Godless Russians occupying Afganistan). The idea of
brainwashing and regimentation of young men to form
fascist organisations to deal with their opponents has
always been dear to the RSS. Dr Moonje (who mentored
Hedgevar, the founder of the RSS) purposely went to Italy
to see for himself the educational institution which
produced Fascist young men and praised them when he

A Glimpse of Life in the Hindu Rashtra

[ 33

met the Fascist leader Mussolini.Despite, their

pronounced aversion for western culture and proclaimed
love for things Bharatiya ( Indian ) including dresses, they
felt no aversion for the Khaki Shorts and white half
shirts which the RSS adopted as their uniform and continue
to don them even today .They did not look at the dresses
of Ram Krishna, Shivaji, Maharana Pratrap and any other
Indian, but borrowed the dress, the Lathi and the martial
parade from their western role models-Nazi Hitler and
Fascist Mussolini. Just as Dr Moonje admired Mussolini,
Golwakar greatly admired Hitler one of the reasons for
the admiration being Hitlersfinal solution of the Jewish
problem (i.e. treating Jew citizens of Germany worse than
as animals and later killing them in millions.*
(Golwarkar admired Hitlers depriving the Jews of their
citizens rights and persecution, but could not have been
aware of their massacre in the concentration camps ).
The glimpse of the life in the Hindu Rashtra presented here
is not a figment of imagination , but is based on the belief
and practices of the Sangh Parivar to which all of us are a
witness.

Appendix
The idea and ideal of M.S.Golwarker, the moving spirit
behind the Hindu Rashtra in his own words :
The other Nation most in the eyes of the world today is
Germany.This Nation affords a very striking example,
Modern Germany srove, and has to a great extent achieved
what she strove for, to once again to bring under one sway
the whole of the, territory ,hereditarily possessed by the
Germans but which, as a result of political disputes, had
been portioned off as as different countries. Austria,for
example, was merely a province, on par with Prussia,
Bavaria and other principalities, which made the German
World Empire. Logically Austria should not be an
independent kingdom, but be one with the rest of Germany.
So also with those portions inhabited by Germans,which
had been included, after the war, in the new State of
Czechoslovakia. German pride in their fatherland for a
definite home country, for which the race has certain
traditional attachment as a necessary concomitant of the
true Nation concept, awoke and ran the risk of starting a
fresh World conflagaration, in order to establish one,
unparalleled, undispituted German Empire over all this

Appendix

[ 35

hereditary territory. This natural and logical aspiration

of Germany has almost been fulfilled and the great
importance of the country factor has been once again
vindicated even in the living present.Come we next to the
next ingresient of the Nation idea race, with which Culture
and language are inseparably connected, where Religion is
not the all absorbing force that it should be. German race
pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the
purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked her,
purging the country of the Semitic Races the Jews. Race
pride at its highest has been manifested here.Germany
has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for races,
and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be
assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for use
in Hindusthan to learn and profit by. (page 42 ,WE or
Our Nationhood Defined : 1947)
Thus, Golwarkar hero-worshipped Hitler and found a role
model in him for purging the Jew citizens of Germany. Six
million Jews were butchered in the most inhuman way at
his behest, but it made no difference to him. He might not
have known of the butchery at the time of writing the book
but was fully aware of his crimes subsequently, and
remained steadfast in his heroworship, as is clear from the
fourth edition published in 1947.His vision of a Hindu
Nation was identical with that of Hitlers vision of
Germany a nation of and for Germans only. Hitler treated
the Germans who stood in his way no better than he treated
the non-German. Today, he is a hated figure in Germany.
Golwarkar has adopted the notion of Nation from the West
and has based his vision of the Hindu Nation or a Hindu

36 ]

Appendix

Rashtra on it .To him, the Hindu Rashtra of his dream fulfills

all the five criteria of a nation. He writes :
In fine, the idea contained in the word Nation is a
compound of five distinct factors fused into one indissoluble
whole, The famous five Unities-Geographical, (country),
Racial (race), Religious (religion). Cultural (culture) and
Linguistic (language).
To Golwarlkar Indians (except the Muslim and Christians)
belonged to one race, one religion, one culture and one
language, and therefore, India was a Nation as was
Germany. Each of the claim is unfounded-a lie.The dark
skinned Schedule Tribes living in the forests of Bihar,
Orrissa, Chhattisgarh,Bengal etc., the inhabitants of
Nagaland, Meghalay, Mizoram with Mngoloid features ,the
people living in the Southern states and those living in the
Northern India ( Punjab, J & K,Gujarat, Maharashtra
,Haryana, Bihar, Bengal or Rajashan) do not belong to one
Race. In his blind hatred for the Muslims, he ignores the
fact that the Indians do not belong to one race. He also
ignores the fact that the converted Muslims of Maharashtra
and he himself belong to one and the same race. All Indians
who are native to a place belong to the same race regardless
of the difference in their respective religions.India is also
home to several religions.Apart from Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, Buddhism and Sikhism, there are other
religions to which several Schedule Tribes adhere.
Culturally also India is not uniform. Many of the ethnic
groups are culturally different from one another. Culturally
the inhabitants of the North East are different from the
inhabitants of Punjab,Haryana, Bihar, U.P.et.etc The
schedule Tribes are also culturally different from the others

Appendix

[ 37

living in their neighbourhood,These are obvious facts, yet

Golwarkars jaundiced eyes fail to notice the difference
and see them as culturally one. Most ridiculous is his
assertion that there is a Linguistic unity in the country.To
persuade the people to accept his absurdity, he tries to prove
his point of linguistic unity by stating that all the different
languages of India, have originated in Sanskrit,and
therefore, are one despite their differences. In his anxiety
to prove the existence of linguistic unity in the country ,he
propounds a laughable theory the common origin of all
Indian languaes in the following words :
The last,language, seems to present some difficulties, for
in this country every province has its own language.It
appears as if the Linguistic unity is wanting, and there are
not one but many Nations, separated from each other by
linguistic differences. But in fact that is not so.There is but
one language, Sanskrit, of which these many languages
are mere offshoots, the children of the mother language.
Saskrit,the dialect of the Gods,is common to all from the
Himalayas to the ocean in the South, from East to West
and all the modern sister languages are through it so much
inter-related as to be practically one.
Golwarkar flaunts his monumental ignorance with an
embarrassing arrogance. It is common knowledge that only
Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Bengali, Oriya,
Assamese, Nepali etc. have their origin in Sanskrit.The
language of the southern states namely, Tamil.Telugu,
Malyalam, Kanada and other Dravidian languages belong
to an entirely different family of languages.The languages
of the Schedule Tribes of Bihar, Bengal Orrissa, Jharkhand
etc. belong to a Munda family which is unrelated to

38 ]

Appendix

Sanskrit.The same is the case of the languages of the

inhabitants of Nagaland,Mizoram,Manipur,of the Lepcha
of Sikkim etc.They belong to yet another family of
languages, namely, Tibeto-Burmese which is unrelated to
Sanskrit. If Sanskrit words are found in them, it is due to
borrowing. Most of the Indian languages have borrowed
from English due to our interaction with the Englishmen.
Borrowing is a common feature of languages.
Golwarkar has founded the edifice of his Hindu Nation on
only one pillar out of five required as per his own
description. The fourone Race, one Religion, one culture
and one language-are missing. Only one out of the five
Unities, namely, territory, exists, and so does his notion of
a Hindu Nation (Hindu Rashtra) resting on it..But in the
name of five Unities required for a Nation, he has cursed
India with a number of Disunities which continue to plague
us.