From: bhatnagr@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Raj Bhatnagar)
Subject: What is and isn't Hindutva (Was Re: Dr. Jayaraman's article)
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:50:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.173043.4756@crd.ge.com> srinivas@vision.crd.ge.com (Chukka Srinivas) writes:

>
>     1. What is the (Hindutva) meaning of "nation-based-state"?
>
>       1. What is the the 'ideological state as propogated by Islam'
>	  you are refering to? Can you be more specific.
>	  And in what way does it differ from the
>	  'nation-based-state' philosophy of Hindutva?
>
>       2. Are you implying that,
>	  If somebody is a "true" follower of Islamic religion,
>          it neccesarily implies that (s)he has no other choice
>	  but to demand for an "Islamic State"  and hence, muslims
>	  cannot be secular?
>
>	  
>       3. An more importantly, how RELEVANT is this question
>	  in modern India?
>	  (If you feel that it is so, you should be somehow
>	  implying that currently a majority of Indian muslims
>	  are engaged in the task of establishing an
>	  "Islamic State" in India? Do you think so?)
>
>
>-srinivas.


[Well, here is an attempt to answer some of the questions you raised
in your article. I hope it helps in clarifying my views.  This
answer has become very long and I will try to answer your
other questions some other time.  ---raj]


Culture and Civilization at all places and times have been LIVE and 
CONTINUOUS PROCESSES, bringing about transitions from one state to the
other in all facets of a society. These facets include the social value
systems, ways of worship, spiritual philosophies, political philosophies
economic principles, military mights, and ethics of 
trade etc. etc. It is only natural that all these facets should change
with time in any particular society.

The storehouse of knowledge and experiences gathered from all 
such state transitions from *India's past* is what we call the
*heritage* of India. This heritage forms the *Common Shared Past*
of all the Indians. All those who consider this to be their
*heritage* form the cultural entity that we call the *Indian Nation*.
(Examples of denials of this heritage are mentioned later in this article)
The political state called India is the political structure that 
this cultural entity *Indian Nation* wants to give to itself at 
this time. 

BJP/RSS insist on calling the cultural entity of *Indian Nation* as
the *Hindu Nation*. 

And "Hindutva" is merely the name of the principle which asserts
that Indian Political State must be nothing different from the 
political structure as desired and adopted solely by the cultural 
entity *Indian Nation* (Hindu Nation for BJP/RSS!). 

The principle of "Hindutva" does not depend on any particular faith,
spiritual philosophy and way of worship. Despite the efforts of Dr.
Jayaraman and other leftists, "faith" will never to become a part
of the principle of "hindutva" as stated above. This is because the
heritage of the *Indian Nation* (Hindu Nation for RSS/BJP) grants 
freedom to the individual 
for economic, social, and spiritual pursuits (I don't deny that there are
major faults like caste structure etc. but the system leaves enough
room for reforms to be implemented at any time and stage by not
insisting on sticking to any particular *revelation*). With such
freedoms to the individuals, I don't think there is any problem with
*Islam the religion* becoming a part of this Indian experience and 
heritage. Aferall, Judaism, Parsis, and numerous other ways of worships 
came to India from outside and became parts of India without any problem.
Leftists will do better to come and address the issue of the principle
of "Hindutva" instead of trying to erect a strawman in the color of
"faiths" and religions in the name of Hindutva and then attcking this
strawman.

But then, why is there a special situation wrt to Islam in India? The answer is
that Islam is not merely a way of worship or spiritual philosophy but 
something different - something which strives hard to integrate a particular
way of worship and a particular spiritual philosophy with the political 
structure that the society should give to itself. This ideological political
State sought by Islam denies the unlimited freedom to the individual to 
choose
his/her own way of worship without as is the case in *Indian Nation*.
(How often in india would you find husband and wife having
beliefs in different deities? I guess very common - at least from my
experiences in Northern and Western India).  And therefore, the State based
on Indian Nation will be inherently secular as long as secularism means
freedom to individual to shoose his/her way of worship.

A description of the ideological State as sought by Islam is quoted 
here from the book  "Rights of Non-Muslims in an Islamic State" written
by Dr. Samuel Shahid.


" " Concept of Islamic State
" "
" " "An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is 
" " thus radically different from a national state."
" " This statement made by Mawdudi lays the foundation for the political,
" " economic, social and religious system of Islamic countries. This
" " system intentionally discriminates between people according to their
" " religious afflliations.  Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar,
" " summarized the basic differences between Islamic and secular
" " states as follows:
" "
" "     l) An Islamic state is ideological. People in it are
" "         divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology
" "         and non-Muslims, who do not believe.
" "     2) Responsibility for policy and administration of
" "         such a state "should rest primarily with those who
" "         believe in the lslamic ideology." Non-Muslims,
" "         therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be
" "         entrusted with the responsibility of policy-making.
" "     3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish
" "         (i.e. discriminate) between Muslims and
" "         non-Muslims. However, Islamic law "Shari'a,"
" "         guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically
" "         stated rights beyond which they are not permitted
" "         to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do
" "         not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace
" "         Islam, they "become equal participants in all
" "         matters concerning the state and the government."

Therefore, a Muslim is not just one who worships in a specific way,
but also one who must strive to adopt the above political structure
for the society he/she lives in. 

And herein lies the main conflict in the nature of political 
States desired by the adherents of the Hindutva principle and 
Muslims holding the above views. On one side the political State
must be grounded in the cultural entity *Indian Nation* and on
the other it must be an ideological Islamic State in the above described
sense. 

Now I will invite my Leftist, Marxist, secular, pseudo-secular, and 
unconcerned friends to find a resolution to this conflict which is 
playing itself out in India. RJB was only the most recent battle of 
this war. Kashmir is witnesing another battle of this same war. Pakistan 
was another battle of this war. Refusal to sing Vande Mataram and Jan 
Gana man are other smaller battles of this same war. Carving out of 
Muslim majority districts in TN and Kerala were other battles of this 
same war. Preservation of separate laws is part of the same war. 
Objections to the lighting of candles or deepaks, and to the breaking 
of coconuts to launch ships is another battle of the same war.  
Objections to the use of Sanskrit subhashitanis on greeting cards mailed
by Govt. and public sector undertakings is yet another effort to oppose
the State getting grounded in *Indian Nation* and therefore another battle
of the same war.  This conflict is much wider than just the fanaticism
over my faith being superior to yours, as is conveniently assumed by
the leftists. 

You will certainly ask whether all Muslims of India believe
in the above Maududi-brand concept of Islamic state. My answer is
that only a small minority actively campaigns for such objectives
but the large majority plays the role of blind followers of this
small minority. A very small minority subscribing to the idea of 
nation based state, such as Abul Kalam Azad, Maulvi Zakaullah (pre 1947), 
and some others get easily drowned in the majority voice and 
sometimes just go along quietly becasue they can't oppose the 
vast majority.

The combined historical experience of India is the heritage of Indians.
I am nobody to stop some one who wants to disoociate him/herself from
the heritage of India and would like to be considered associated with
the heritage of people from Iran/Turkey/Arabia. Yes, they have all the
freedom to do it. But those who want to associate themselves with the
heritage of india have at least as much right. And both can also co-exist
in a political State as long as the vision of political State for the
two groups is not as radically different as is the case in India. And
hence the conflict. In my view the short term vote-gathering objectives
advanced in the name of secularism are not doing anything to resolve this
basic conflict. Leftists never seem to have addressed the question from
this aspect. And in the absence of any serious consdieration by any group
this conflict will be settled the way RJB/BM appears to be getting settled.
That is my view of how the future is going to unfold in India unless
some major changes take place.


---raj







Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian