Sangh’s Hindu Rashtra : A Threat to India and Indians


The Sangh was founded in 1925 with the declared aim of opposing the ‘yavan-snakes’ (i.e the Muslims) who ‘were spreading riots in the country.’ It declared with equal determination that it was not concerned with the independence movement. The Sangh kept its word and opposed the freedom struggle with determination. When independence appeared a possibility, Golwarkar dreamt of India as a Hindu Rashtra. His source of inspiration was Hitler. Hitler had stripped the Germans of Jewish origin of their citizenship and killed 25 lakh of them. Golwarkar admired Hitler for his ‘final solution of the Jewish problem.’

Golwakar believed that different races could not live together in peace and the Muslims were enemies. He envisaged India as a Hindu Rashtra not as a carbon copy of Hitler’s Germany but with some modifications. His solution was not the extermination of the minorities but their subjugation to the Hindu nation* . In effect, to let them live in India as second class citizens.

But he felt that first he had to prove that India fulfilled the criteria of a Hindu Nation’ (for which he chose the Hindi word Hindu Rashtra) . He asserted that India fulfilled all the five criteria of a Hindu nation as defined in the West. According to that notion, a nation should have (1)a territory (2) should be inhabited by a singel race (3) should have one religion (4) should have one culture and (5) one language.

According to him, India fulfilled all the five conditions of a Hindu Rashtra. He claimed it is inhabitated by one race, namely, the Hindu Race, has only one religion, Hinduism, has one culture and one language.
He excludes the minorities from the Hindu race due to their religions (Islam and Christianity). He excludes Islam and Christianity from the religions of India because they originated outside India. He excludes their culture also for the same reason. He admits that there is some difficulty in claiming that India has only one language, but he offers an ill informed solution to prove his point. He claims that since all Indian languages have their origin in Sanskrit, one may claim that India has a single language.

But does India really fulfill all the criteria of a nation /Rashtra? It doesn’t. He was totally wrong. In fact, India was never a nation as defined by the West and touted by a communal Golwarkar.

India certainly has a territory, but it is not inhabited by a single race. A race is determined by common blood (DNA) not religion. For example. Christianity and Islam are followed by Indians, Chinese, Black Africans and the White Europeans and Americans. Do they belong to one race, namely, the Christian Race? . The idea is idiotic. The Hindus, Muslims and Christians of India who converted to Islam or Christianity belong to the same race by descent (blood) to which his Hindu neighbours belong. Religion is not a basis for determining race. The basis is what one popularly calls blood or heredity.

Hindus of Dravidian stock or Magloid stock or the dark skinned STs may have the same religion but not the same race.Their DNAs are different.

Does India have a single religion? It is another absurdity touted by Golwarkar to push his sinister agenda. What is common between Buddhism and Sanatan Dharm? Buddhism does not believe in God or soul. It was born to repudiate Sanatan Dharm. The STs of India have their own religions. So, even if Islam and Christianity are excluded, India is a country with many religions.Golwarkar tells a lie to pursue his agenda.

Does India have a single culture? Culture is a way of life. Do Indians have a single way of life? Do the people of the South, North East, the STs and the people of Bengal, Punjab, Odisha and Maharashtra have a common way of life? No argument is needed to prove the absurdity of this false assertion.The difference in their way of life (i. e. culture) is much too obvious to need any prooving.

Golwarkar’s assertion that India can claim to have a single language is based on a laughable basis. He asserts that all Indian languages have a common source :Sanskrit . It is based on stupidity and ignorance or is a deliberate lie. The Indian languages have at least 4 different sources of origin . The languages of the North like Bengali, Marathi, Panjabi, Oriya, Hindi Assemese etc.have their origin in Saskrit. The Dravidian languages of the South have nothing to do with Sanskrit. They have an independent origin and history. The Sanskrit words found in them is like the English words found in the Indian languages. They have been borrowed from Sanskrit as English words have been borrowed by Indian languages from English. Such borrowings are a common phenomenon when the speakers of different languages come in a lasting contact. The languages like Santhali, Ho spoken by the dark skinned STs belong toAstroAsiatic family of languages. They have nothing to do with Sanskrit. In the same way, the languages of the North East like the languages of the Nagaland , Manipur, Mizoram, Lepcha of Sikkim belong to a family of languages close to Tibetan, Burman and Chinese. They have no connection with Sanskrit. Thus, India fails his test of a Hindu nation on each count.

Though Golwarkar claims to abhor our constitution and many other things due to their foreign origin, his idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra is itself borrowed from the West. His envisaged Hindu Rashtra is a carbon copy of Hitler’s Germany. Germany was predominantly inhabited by Germans having the same blood . Their religion was Christianity, they spoke the German language and they had not only a common blood but had the same way of life. Thus, Germany was a nation state i.e.a nation predominantly inhabited by one race, speaking one language, following one religion and having a common way of life ( culture). Jews did not fit in Hiter’s Germany as a nation state. His solution was to take away their right as a citizen, loot them and finally to exterminate them. There is nothing common in Germany and India, but Golwarkar insists that India is a nation state with the Muslims and Christians being incompatible as the Jews of Germany. Golwarkar’s solution is to make the minorities second class citizens.

Modi’s approach to the monorities is the same. His NRC and CAA were a step towards that goal. After succeeding in subjugation of the Muslims, he would target the Christians.

However, that would not be the end of the programme.The Hindus not speaking Hindi would be the next. In their heart, they recognise only the Hindi speaking Hindus as belonging to the Hindu race. The Hindus, who are not descendants of Aryans according to the Sanghis, would be the next target for subjugation. They would be the Hindus from the South and the North East.

Once they become powerful enough at the centre by following the divide and the rule, they would impose Hindi to block the entry of the non-Hindi speakers in positions of power and other lucrative jobs. The other steps for their subjugation would also follow.

India was and is a country. It is not a nation state. The difference is a matter of life and death for India and Indians. Unlike a nation state, a country is inhabited by different races, people following different religions, speaking different languages and following different ways of life. India even when it was under an emperor like Ashok or a mighty king like Auragzeb or the British remained a country embracing diversity. The foundation of Sangh’s Hindu Rashtra stands on the grave of that diversity. The Sangh is not only an enemy of the Muslims and Christians but of all who are different from them in language, cultural and religion. They are an enemy of diversity i. e. of the people with non-Aryan DNA, speaking languages other than Hindi, proudly following their own cultures and following any faith other than their brand of Hinduism. Gandhiji was assassinated for standing in the way of the Hindu Rashtra.

In fact, Hindu Rashtra is Sangh’ s design to change India from a country*/ State to a #Hindu nation state . .

1.*Country : A country should have a permanent population,a defined territory, a government and a capacity to enter into relations with other States.

It should be noted that it does not mention anything about the race, religion, language or culture of its inhabitants.

2. # Nation State :”A nation state is a state in which a great majority shares the same culture and is conscious of it. The nation state is an ideal in which cultural boundaries match up with political boundaries.

According to another definition” a nation state is a sovereign state of which most of subjects are united also by factors which defined a nation such as language or common descent. ”

3.Nation : A nation is a group of people who share the same culture but do not have sovereignty. Thus, the two nation theory advocated by Savarkar and the Muslims only meant that the Hindus and Muslims were two nations (not countries) . It was much later in 1940 that the Muslim League adopted the. two nation theory and demanded a separate sovereign State for the Muslims by partitioning India.

Prof Prabhakar Sinha is a political commentator




Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter


Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Join Our Newsletter

Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News