Maharashtra has the background of Brahmnic rule under Peshwas. Shivaji established his state in parts of to-days’ Western Maharashtra in the 17th century and that was taken over from Shivaji’s clan by the Chitpavan Brahmins also known as Peshwas. The Peshwa rule was taken over by the English in 1818. The Peshwa rule or Peshwai is considered as horrible rule for the lower castes and specifically for the untouchable castes. It was the complete Brahmanic rule after many centuries of Muslim rule over many parts of the country; Maharashtra was one of them.
The Brahmins, thereafter, were reeling under the anti-British rage, but could not do much against it because of the support of people at large and specifically of the lower caste masses. The social revolutionaries like Jotirao Fuley, who criticised the Brahman hegemony bitterly, emerged during the English rule because Brahmins had lost the power to punish the lower castes. Fuley could get courage to oppose and expose the Brahmanic tyranny during bye gone Peshwa rule. He was impressed by the humane nature of British rule compared to the cruel nature of Peshwa-Brahmanic rule. He was against the slavery imposed by Brahmins on the Bahujan masses.
The enraged Brahmins were preparing to over throw the British rule. During later part of the 19th century they built courage to organise against the British rule. The root of today’s Hindu Nation moves lies in the Peshwa rule. It was the rule wherein Brahmins were ruling politically and socially. The caste system was strictly followed with its cruelty and hierarchy. The untouchability was practised with inhuman treatment to the castes which were dubbed as untouchables. In the capital city of Peshwas, Pune, the untouchables were not allowed to walk in the streets as their touch was considered polluting. They were compelled to tie a broom to their waists and an earthen pot in their neck. The broom to clear their footstep marks and pot for collecting their spitting so that it does not fall on the streets. Thus, they were treated worse than the slaves in the U.S. or the Western countries. These castes were Mahars (now mostly converted to Buddhism following Dr. B.R.Ambedkar’s call in 1956.) Mangs, Chambhars etc. The peasant castes such as Kunbis, Malis, Telis, Lohars, Sonars etc which form the majority population were termed as Shudras-lowly, somewhat upper than the untouchables. These castes, too, were treated as slaves. The term Shudra denotes slavery. Their duty was to serve the Brahmins. It is said horrid ‘Manu smriti’ was observed and practised by Peshwa rulers. All Brahmins were treated as ‘Bhudevas’- gods on the earth. This position and status of Brahmins came to end by the British rule. Brahmins lost their supreme position and prestige as they were no more the controllers, rulers of the society. British treated people according their laws. They observed the principle of equality before law which was grossly abused by the Peshwas. They used the law with gradation, hierarchy in the social status. Brahmin criminals were given the least or no punishment for the same crime where as non-Brahmin criminal was given cruellest punishment for the similar crime. Mahatma Jotirao Fuley who was a social revolutionary saw the difference between two rulers and he praised British rule and condemned Peshwa rule as the later was cruel, inhuman.
The Brahmins became secondary because of the British rule. They wanted to re-establish their past glory and status in the society. Because the Brahmins wanted their rule re-established they resorted to fierce agitations against the British rule. They could not directly talk of Peshwa rule because of changed times and as people tested the humane nature of British rule. Hence, the Brahmins gave the call of Hindu raj, Hindu nation. By Hindu they mean not only the Brahmins but all the people of various castes. It was not possible for Brahmins alone to over throw British rule, hence they tried to include people whom they were treating with contempt. The leaders of the anti-British rule movement and proponents of ‘Hindu Nation’ were, therefore, all the Marathi Brahmins. It will be clear from the thoughts and actions of the leaders who wanted creation of ‘Hindu nation’.
B. G. TILAK (1856-1920):
B. G. Tilak is generally known as the freedom fighter and one of the tallest leaders of the freedom movement. But that is half truth. He was also the foremost revivalist and pioneer of the idea of Hindu nation. Militant in political matters but was equally conservative in social matters. He was for maintaining the caste-Varna system and he was against the social reforms. He pleaded that social reforms will be looked after political independence. He wanted Brahmin supremacy to be intact and that is why he was in favour of caste system. He, therefore, opposed reservation of backward castes, the measure that was introduced by the Prince of Kolhapur state, Shahu Maharaja in 1902. He was so enraged by the measure that he threatened the prince of dire consequence including murder.(Rajarshi Shahu:Raja va Manus, – K.G.Suryavanshi, 1984, Pub. Thokal Prakashan, Pune)
Though, he could not give elaborate plan or scheme of Hindu Nation, but he had sown the seeds of it. As early as first decade of 20th century he tried to give hint of it.
He says, “Vedic religion, Bharat religion or Brahman religion or Hindu religion- whatever name you give to it, it was the dominant religion during Mahabharata period all over the country from the south to the north. Different kings were ruling different states but all of them were of one religion and if looked that way India was a big Hindu Nation. (Kesari, Pune, 30th May 1905), secondly, he says, “If we have to achieve the enlightened state it should be in keeping with the norms of Hindu Nation.” (Kesari, Pune, 12th January 1904)
On May 5, 1905, delivering a speech at Belari (Maharshtra) he said, “The first duty of an Indian Patriot is to ask if the people of India were one nation. The answer that came to the lips of everyone is that India was one nation…..There is no conflict between Vedantic ideals and patriotic ideals. (Mahratta, 7th May 1905).
His idea of Hindu nation included three things, viz. 1. Freedom from English rule, 2. Muslim baiting and 3. Maintenance of Caste-Varna model of society. He was in two minds while dealing with Muslims and English rulers. As a practical step he supported Muslims for gaining independence, but at the same time he was against Islam, Muslims because of his strong adherence to Vedic social model. His activities were not only political but also religiously and socially reactionary. His books ‘Geeta Rahasya’, ‘Orion’ and ‘Arctic Home in the Vedas’ give idea about his bend of mind. He had started Shivaji and Ganapati festivals, in Maharashtra in the late 20th century. Both these festivals caused Hindu-Muslim riots right from 1893. Tilak’s role, in a sense, was pioneer in sowing the seeds of Hindu-Muslim riots and antagonism based on religious differences.
V.D. SAVARKAR (1883-1966):
The most vigorous promoter of ‘Hindu Nation’ was V.D. Savarkar along with his brother Gajanan Savarkar, who had authored the book, ‘Rashtra Meemansa’ (Marathi) ‘Critique on nation’ (1934). Both were ardent followers of B.G. Tilak. V.D.Savarkar called Tilak as the greatest ‘guru’. Both of them belonged to the same sub-caste, the Chitpavan Brahmin. Savarkar and colleagues founded ‘Abhinav Bharat’ a militant Hindu secret society for achieving Hindu Rashtra in 1904. This organisation got publicity recently when a colonel from Indian army, Shrikant Purohit was found guilty of the bomb blast in Malegaon (2006), Maharashtra and many other places in the country. He also declared how he wanted to make India a Hindu nation.
Savarkar also was the founder of the Hindu Mahasabha, (1905) the political party, mainly for the Hindus. Through it campaign against Muslims was carried out vigorously. Mainly Maharashtrian Brahmins were its leaders and the followers. One of Savarkar’s slogans was, “Hinduise the nation and militarise the Hindus.” Obviously, the militancy was against the Muslims more than the English. The hate campaign was multifaceted; he was against Muslims, their language Urdu, Persian and their very way of living. These organisations were the precursors of the present Hindu nation organisations like RSS, Vishva Hindu Parishad. V.D. Savarkar’s elder brother Gajanan Savarkar was his staunch supporter. He had written the book ‘Rashtra Mimansa’ (Thoughts on Nation in Marathi language) in 1934. That book inspired M.S. Golwalkar, the second RSS-Supremo. He wrote the book ‘We or Our Nationhood Defined’ in the year 1939. Thus, it is obvious that Savarkar brothers were the pioneers of Hindu Nation concept. They outlined the theory of Hindu Nation which later on was developed by Golwalkar and adopted by RSS. RSS is the main vehicle now of Hindu Rashtra (nation) ideology and practice.
Birth of Hindu Nation? While Tilak gave beginning of Hindu Nation during Mahabharata period his staunch follower V.D. Savarkar gave more specific but different beginning period. He says, “The day not only the Arya kings but also the Hanumans, the Sugrivas and Bibhishanas of the south surrendered with devotion to the king Rama that was the birth date of Hindu Nation, thus, it was Rama who established the Hindu Rashtra when he captured Lanka of Ravana and became Aryan king.” (Hindutva, by- V.D. Savarkar, p. 14, 1947)
Elsewhere he says, Buddha kings could not destroy Varna system and later on that system has become such an attraction that later kings started taking pride in calling themselves adherents of Varna system; later on it became the chief identity of our nation.(Hindutva, p. 31-32)
Dr. K. B. Hedgewar, a Telegu Brahman, originally from Hyderabad, came to Maharashtra (then Vidarbha region) sometime in the late 19th century. He came into the contact of B. S. Munje, of Nagpur. He was a staunch Hinduist and follower of Tilak, Sawarkar. Hedgewar, it is said; was impressed by Shivaji’s life and character. Shivaji was hailed as the hero by the Hindu nationalists, including Tilak, Savarkar and Hedgewar, Golwalkar. Hedgewar joined Congress party at the instance of B S Munje, it is said. He remained in the Congress party but his bend of mind was somewhat different. There was a hidden anti-Gandhi thinking among Marathi Brahmins. Tilak’s brand of militancy was not found in Gandhi and the basic difference between Tilak and Gandhi was that the latter was not for the Brahmin dominated concept of society as Tilak. Gandhi also was not anti-Muslim as Tialak. Gandhi also was not in favour of Peshwa rule as Tilak and Maharashtrian Brahmins were as he could not comprehend the importance of Peshwa rule as Tilak or Savarkar were having. Gandhi also was not much inspired by Shivaji as were Tilak and Savarkar. Hedgewar being of the same view as Tilak and Savarkar he distanced himself from the Congress and Gandhi and was thinking anew. That was the time when he thought of Hindu organisation. There were many Hindu-Muslim riots during that period. He was instrumental in founding the RSS with the support of Nagpur Brahmins in the year 1925.
M. S. GOLWALKAR (1906-1973):
Expanded RSS to the Present Position
The second RSS chief, M.S.Golwalkar, was the main architect for expansion of the RSS. He has given meticulous details of Hindu nation needed for the organisation. RSS or its allied organisations refer to Golwalkar as Guru for guidance. For this, probably he was referred to as ‘Guruji’ (Teacher). He is having the greatest respect among the RSS combine and other Hinduist organisations, politicians. During his life time he toured extensively throughout the country round the year almost every year and expanded the RSS almost to the present position. He was both expansionist and aggressive in his thinking.
His book, “We or Our Nationhood Defined” (1939), is referred to as of prime importance for the guidance of followers of RSS Combine. In the “Preface” of the book he writes about the purpose and scope of the book.
He says, “I have throughout the work scrupulously stuck to one idea “Nation” and except where it was unavoidable have given no consideration to the lied concept, the “state”. Nation being a cultural unit and “state” a political one, the two concepts are clearly distinguishable.” Such is the scope of this book. I pray the reader to remember that this work aims only at analysing the “Nation” concept, applying it to our present day problems establishing the proposition that in this country, our “Nation” means, and independently of the question of majority always must mean the Hindu Nation and nought else” (Preface, p.2)
Nation Not State:
Golwalkar’s stress on “Nation” concept is found throu ghout in this book. He stresses, he is more for the Nation than State, the political entity.
He stresses, “We stand for national regeneration and not for that hap-hazard bundle of political rights-the state. (op cit p.3)
He says, “Do we strive to make our “nation” independent and glorious, or merely to create a “state” with certain political and economic powers centralised in other hands than those of our present rulers? Do we clearly perceive that the two concepts –the nation and the state- are distinctly different? If we do not, we are merely groping in the dark…” (p.3) He does not considered ‘nation above state’.
“We must also see what the nation idea should denote to us in our struggle for national regeneration. ‘Nation’ being a cultural unit, and ‘state’ a political one, the two concepts are clearly distinguishable, although there is certainly a good deal of mutual overlapping.’ (Prologue)
Even Hedgewar was not able to give the theory to the organisation as Golwalkar did. Under his stewardship the RSS has multiplied its activities in many fields. He was responsible for founding the ‘Bharatiy Jan Sangh’, in 1951 the political wing of the RSS- the former incarnation of today’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He was also responsible for founding many such organisations to spread the ideology of Hindu Nation. Bharatiya Majdoor Sangh, (workers trade union), Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Vanwasi Kalyan Ashram, Bajarang Dal etc. They were Golwalkar’s brain children. The expansion of RSS’ ideology through these organisations is spreading all over India and abroad. The Hindu Nation theory was, to some extent, outlined by Balarao Savarkar, brother of V. D. Savarkar. Golwalkar gave it a strong founding. RSS expanded leaps and bounds unlike Savarkar’s Hindu Mahasabha. Golawalkar used to tour extensively throughout India. This was possible because only Brahmin caste is the all India caste. Hindu nation theory was for maintaining the top most position of the Brahmins in the Caste bound social system of India and that is why he was welcomed all over the country by the Brahmins. He established RSS branches (shakhas) all over the country recruiting in nearly cent per cent Brahmins. The others who were induced in it were wealthy Banias or Vaishyas.
Claim of Indigenousness of Aryans
He asserts that Aryans means Hindus and they have not migrated from anywhere. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the freedom movement leader had written in his book ‘Arctic Home in the Vedas’ that Aryans have migrated from north pole and came to India. He has given many proofs for his theory. He asserts- “We Hindus have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over 8 or even 10 thousand years before the land was invaded by any foreign race.
Apart from any considerations of the Hindu i.e. Aryan race being indigenous or otherwise, of one thing we are certain, that the very first page of history records our existence as a progressive and highly civilised nation-the only nation on the then world, in this land, which, therefore, came to be known as Hindusthan, the land of the Hindus.
And after all what authority is there to prove our immigrant nature? The shady testimony of the Western scholars?” (p.6)
Golwalkar Counters Tilak
The then Congress leader, B.G.Tilak in his book, ‘Arctic Home in the Vedas’ has proved that “the abode of Aryan was near the arctic zone, the north pole” and he also said that we the Aryans have come from the North Pole area. Golwalkar not only countered Tilak but said that his knowledge was inadequate. These are his exact words, “But it may be said Lok. Tilak propounded the Arctic origin of the Aryans. Quite so. We may agree with him that originally the Aryans i.e. the Hindus lived in the region of the North Pole. But he was not aware that in ancient times, the North Pole and with it the Arctic zone was not where it is today. …. The North Pole is not stationary and quite long ago it was in that part of the world, which, we find, is called Bihar and Orissa at the present; that it moved north east to that position. If this be so, did we leave the Arctic Zone and come to Hindustahan or were we all along here and the Arctic Zone left us and moved away northwards in its zigzag march?….The Arctic Zone in the Vedas was verily in Hindusthan itself and that it was not the Hindus who migrated to that land but the Arctic Zone which emigrated and left the Hindus in Hindusthan. (We or Our Nationhood Defined, p.8)
This shows how Golwalkar falsified Tilak and gave the North Pole’s migration a turn as he liked. Can the Poles of the earth migrate in few thousand years? He has changed even the behaviour of earth’s poles for proving indigenous status of the Aryans. Migrant people boast of their achievements of occupying other territories but here is the opposite case. Falsification is one of the weapons adopted by the RSS – Hindu nationalists. This is quite a strange and ludicrous claim to prove indigenous status. (Eventually, he was holder of the Master of Science degree in Zoology.)
He says, ‘The Arctic Home in the Vedas was verily in Hindusthan itself and that it was not the Hindus who migrated to that land but the Arctic zone which emigrated and left the Hindus in Hindusthan. We Hindus came into this land from nowhere, but are indigenous children of the soil always, and natural masters of the country.’ (p. 8)
Not only, according to him, Aryans are indigenous but are masters of this country.
On the contrary he says, ‘Muslims were invaders. The great Empire of Vijayanagar, the illustrious Rana Pratap of Chitor fought the enemy to the last drop of their blood. Then came the glorious period of Hindu revival under the great Shivaji and the whole illustrious line of Hindu warriors, who over threw the Muslim domination right up to the Sindhu river and shattered the throne of the ‘Great Moghal’ the emblem of Muslim victory. (p.10)
We have almost forgotten our nation (p. 15)
According to him, five entities constitute the Nation.
- Country, 2. Race, 3. Religion, 4. Culture, and, 5. Language.
It is to be seen how Golwalkar gave importance to race and this is the inner view of the RSS and other Hindu nationalist bodies in India.
His views on race are as under.
“Race: It is superfluous to emphasise the importance of Racial Unity in the Nation idea. A race is a hereditary society having common customs, common language, and common memories of glory or disaster; in short it is the population with a common origin under one culture. Such a race is by far the important ingredient of a Nation. Even if there be people of foreign origin, they must have become assimilated in to the body of the mother race and inextricably fused into it. They should have become one with the original national race, not only in its economic and political life but also in its religion, culture and language for otherwise such foreign races may be considered, under certain circumstances, at best members of a common state for political purposes; but they can never form part and parcel of the National body.” (p.21)
Race is the body of the ‘Nation’ with its fall ‘nation’ ceases to exist. (p. 4). Eventually, in a book, ‘Rashtra Meemansa’ by G.D. Savarkar, (1934) elder brother of V. D. Savarkar from whose book has Golwalkar acknowledged as a chief source of inspiration have given five entities of a nation, but he has mentioned ; Caste’ instead of race. That means Hindu nationalists identified caste and race as synonymous.
Our race spirit is a child of our Religion and so with culture is but a product of our all comprehensive Religion, part of its body and not distinguished from it. (p. 22)
In this country, Hindusthan, the Hindu Race with its Hindu religion, Hindu culture and Hindu language (the natural family of Sanskrit and her off springs) complete the Nation concept ; that in fine, in Hindusthan exist and must need exist the ancient Hindu nation and not else but the Hindu Nation.
All those not belonging to the national i.e. Hindu race, Religion, Culture and Language, naturally fall out of the pale of real National life.’ (p. 43)
Language: Language being inextricably woven in the all-round life of a race is an ingredient of great importance in its nationality. Without it the Nation concept is incomplete. (p.27)
Those only are nationalists, 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 are traitors, enemies, or idiots. (p. 44)
In his book, ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ (1966) which has come after 27 years after ‘We.. ‘Book’, he is equally adherent to his ideology and also more aggressively. This book is widely read and quoted by the critics. His propagation of caste bound society as the Hindu nation is, it seems main thrust. Major part of the book deals with praising the caste model. There are references of calling other religions as inemical. Although, that looks apparent, but the main theme is maintaining the caste model, which is not given much thought to by the foreign and non-Hindu writers.
Social Status of Minorities
Golwalkar’s views on minorities given in his book “We or Our nationhood Defined” are well known. In that book he denies even the citizen’s rights to the minorities. He equates them with enemy or calls them enemy. But, his views about their social status in the scheme of Hindu social order are not known so widely. The social status of the minorities in the minds of Hindu nationalists can be gauged from the views of Golwalkar because they are not individual views, they represent viewpoint of the entire RSS combine.
Golwalkar has instilled a sort of arrogance in the RSS cadres. During his tenure as RSS chief the plan to murder Gandhi was hatched and he was one of the accused and the conspiracy to murder Gandhi was hatched jointly by Hindu nationalist organisations.
The detestation towards Muslim was infused among the RSS cadres mainly by Golwalkar and among Hindu Sabha cadres by V. D. Savarkar and wrote books and articles carrying that stream of thoughts. Golwalkar’s book, “We or our Nationhood Defined” and Savarkar’s book, “Hindutva” had a lasting impact on the cadres and even in day to day discussions in RSS daily Shakhas. Gandhi was also opposed in the Shakhas (daily gatherings) of the RSS and in their writings. Nathuram Godse, killer of Gandhi was follower both of Golwalkar and Savarkar. He was running/editing the journal named “Hindu Rashtra”
How Golwalkar attributes the lowest status to the minorities in his scheme of Hindu nation is evident from the following sermons he has given to the cadres in various parts of the country during his journey to spread the Hindu nation ideology.
i) Superiority of Brahmin peon over Non-Brahmin Officer:
In his book, “Vichar Navanit”, (Hindi translation of “Bunch of Thoughts”, p.135, Lokhit Prakashan, Rajendra Nagar, Lucknow-4, 1979) he has narrated the following story:
“There was an English officer somewhere in the South (India). His assistant officer was one Naidu. One day the English officer and his Brahmin peon were on their way to office. Assistant officer Naidu was coming from opposite direction. Naidu shook hands with the English officer. But, when he saw the Brahmin peon he took out his turban and fell flat into the feet of the peon – the Brahmin. Seeing this act of Naidu the English officer was aghast and asked Naidu, “You shook hands with me but fell flat on the feet of my peon. Why did you do so? Naidu replied, “Sir, you may be my superior officer but you are Mlenchha . He is peon but he is a person of our society whose class is being respected from many centuries. It is my duty to bow before him and respect him.”
Golwalkar comments, “That was the right thing the Deputy Collector had done. That shows how he was for superiority of Brahmin caste. Even if a Brahmin is inferior in ranking in administrative position, position in society is to be followed.
Prince of Wales (England) Untouchable?
ii) In a book, “Smriti Parijat” (in Hindi, Published by, Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, Dr. Hedgewar Bhavan, Mahal, Nagpur, 1986) his memoirs are collected. The memoir dated 1st February 1969 was told to the RSS cadre. According to Golwalkar, Prince of Wales (England) visited Nagpur city (date not mentioned) and he wanted to visit a Rama temple in Ramtek town near Nagpur. The Prince was taken to temple with his officials. The priest of the temple came to know about this visit. He was very old and was furious because a non-Hindu was visiting and thereby polluting the deity. When the staff of the Prince came closer to the temple the priest warned them not to walk further. The staff members said the Prince was the Emperor’s son. The priest said, “He may be Prince or Emperor himself but as he is “Mlenchha” (foreigner) he cannot enter the temple. He can take a look of deity from the spot where you are standing. The low caste people of our society take Drashan – look from that distance only. If you try to enter by force you will have to walk over my dead body.”
This shows how the Prince was treated as ‘Shudra’ (lower caste) or untouchable in the Hindu temple. Golwalkar supports this behaviour of the priest.
Golwalkar remarked, the Prince returned back seeing the determination of the priest. He praises the act of the priest as he maintained the purity of the deity without caring for the authority.” (Smriti Parijat, p.170).
There is a recent case of 1980s. When Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, wanted to enter the temple to take Darshan of the deity of Jagannath temple at Puri in Odisha; she was denied entry in to the temple and was forced to go back by the priest.
iii) Mlechhas below Shudras/lower castes:
In another memoir when he was touring Kerala (1969) he says, “We have committed a blunder by placing lower castes people below Christians and Muslims. In our four Varna division Mlenchhas were placed below Shudras.” He cites the example of a Professor of Sanskrit- Telang Shastri, (the name of college or year is not mentioned) who was serving in a college. Principal of the college was a Christian. Whenever the Principal used to come to the staff room the Sanskrit Professor used to leave the room. The Principal was upset by this insult. He asked the Professor why he behaved like that. The Professor replied, “See, you are a Mlenchha and in Hinduism you are lower than the lowest. I can sit with the Shudra but not with you – the Mlenchha” (op cit p.167-168).”
iv) Golwalkar was asked by the ex-minister of Madhya Pradesh, “did he want to dominate the Jan Sangha?” He replied, “I want to dominate the whole country.” (Hindu Sanghatan by-M.G. Vaidya p.13, pub. Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana, Dhantoli, Nagpur-440012, 1980)
v) “We, Hindus came into this land from nowhere, but are indigenous children of the soil always, from time immemorial and we are natural masters of the country.” (“We”…., M. S. Golwalkar, p.8)
vi) “Sangha is not only a form representing the Hindu Nation but is a model of Hindu Nation. It is because of this the whole land should belong to RSS. We should live here as masters and lead the happy and secure life.” (Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan, Bhag-1, p.108)
Those not subscribing to Hindu Nation are aliens:
Golwalkar asserts- “At the outset we must bear in mind that so far as ‘nation’ is concerned, all those, who fall outside the fivefold limits of that idea, can have no place in the national life, unless they abandon their differences, adopt the religion, culture and language of the Nation and completely merge themselves in the National Race. So long, however, as they maintain their racial, religious and cultural differences, they cannot but be only foreigners. “Further, he says, “Culturally, linguistically they must become one with the National race; they must adopt the past and entertain the aspirations for the future of the National Race; in short they must be “Naturalised” in the country by being assimilated in the Nation wholly.” (‘We…’p. 45-46)
This arrogance pertains not only to the minorities but, for those also who do not subscribe to the National race, its culture, religion, or language. He wants to tell to all others to shed aside all differences and merge in the so called National Race. It means the people should behave as the master race wants them to behave. In a way he is asking them to be slaves of Aryan race the Brahmins.
Brahmins as Gurus (Teachers) of the world?
Golwalkar says how Hindus i.e. Aryans are Gurus to the whole world. Says he, “There seems to be much evidence to show that Hindu culture had penetrated to the whole of the Southern archipelago, to Asia and probably America as well. ….all peoples followed Hindu religion and evolved Hindu culture and where any of these peoples had any doubt they came to Hindusthan, the cradle of Religion and Culture, to take their instructions. It is this fact which made the first and greatest law giver of the world-Manu, to lay down in his code, directing all the peoples of the world to come to Hindusthan to learn their duties at the holy feet of the “Eldest born” Brahmans of this land”. (“We or our Nationhood Defined …” p. 55-56)
Here, arrogance of Golwalkar or leaders of the Hindu nationalists is clearly seen. Among so called majority Hindu population of India Brahmans claim superiority over all other non-Brahman castes. Not only that they arrogantly say they will be the Gurus of the whole world. Is it because Hindu Gurus are establishing their centres world over in the garb of teaching Yoga or Samadhis or spirituality? Beware, peoples!!
Nagesh Chaudhari is editor of Marathi fortnightly, Bahujan Sangharsh, Nagpur