Society & Lifestyle
|Analysis||Share This Page|
Cry for a Hindu Nation – 3
|by V. Sundaram|
The need for the creation of a Hindu nation based on Sanatana Dharma was again and again stressed by Swami Vivekananda throughout his very brief life time. Jawaharlal Nehru preached the message of what I call 'secularism' which is only another name for Nehruism. Nehru dismissed the Hindus of India as a mere religious community without any cultural traditions going back to the dawn of history. While delivering a lecture at the Lucknow University in 1951, Nehru said: "The ideology of Hindu Dharma is completely out of tune with the present times and if it took root in India, it would smash the country to pieces."
Unlike Mahatma Gandhi who was not afraid of proclaiming from the house top that he was a devout Hindu and a staunch supporter of Sanatana Dharma, Nehru took special pride in announcing his Himalayan ignorance of Sanatana Dharma and Hindu culture from all public platforms. Dressed in brief mortal authority, Nehru's supercilious purblind audacity reached its acme when he wrote to Kailash Nath Katju in 1953: "In practice the individual Hindu is more intolerant and more narrow-minded than almost any person in any other country. "
Thus we have before us two alternate perceptions of our nation and nationhood one of Swami Vivekananda and other of Jawaharlal Nehru. Swami Vivekananda represented the time-defying sources and forces of truth; Jawaharlal Nehru represented the sources and forces of falsehood, fraud and ignorance. Swami Vivekananda says that Hindu Dharma is the quintessence of our national life, hold fast to it if you want your country to survive, or else you would be wiped out in three generations. Jawaharlal Nehru, a mere 50 years later, tells us that if the Hindu Dharma thrives, the country will smash to pieces. To quote the telling words of Abhas Chatterjee: "Swami Vivekananda says that Hindu culture is the life-current of our nation, Jawaharlal Nehru says it would injure the nation even to talk of Hindu culture. One was supremely proud of being a Hindu, the other so ashamed of it as to reject it as an accident of birth."
Obviously, both these perceptions cannot be right at the same time. The bounden duty that falls upon every patriotic Indian today is to ask the fundamental question: who is telling the truth, Swami Vivekananda or Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru? At any rate the mercenaries in the UPA Government, I hope, would not degenerate to the extent of dismissing Swami Vivekananda as communal and saffronized. To such puerile and petty men, I would like give this rejoinder: Vivekananda was not interested in becoming Prime Minister and starting a Vivekananda dynasty.
The greatest tragedy in our national life after 1947, much more disastrous than the invasion of India by Muslim Marauders like Timur in 1398, Babar in 1526, Nadir Shah in 1739 and Ahmed Shah Abdali in 1756-57, has been the invasion of Nehruvian secularism which started on August 15, 1947 and is still continuing unabated and unchallenged, clothed in the aura of official authority, now institutionalized into a Nehru family heirloom.
Nehru's viciously political concept of a geographical or composite nation, Nehruism or secularism, a pernicious anti-Hindu ideology, came to be lauded, acclaimed, promoted and propagated by most political parties and the mafia of mass media in India and abroad, under the name of secularism till it came to be treated as beyond reproach, beyond public debate and discussion. Nehru and his family used the might of their public offices for three generations to implant this poisonous weed of secularism in the Hindu psyche. This has led to some disastrous socio-political consequences.
The first implication was that Hindus being the largest community, it was latently and potentially dangerous for the other communities. Government of India and its agencies master-minded this propaganda. Secondly, since this community posed a potential threat to the other communities, the better it would be for the health of the nation if the Hindu community is check-mated on every issue affecting them. Nehru's own official pronouncements from time to time till his death in 1964 will bear out this fact. Thirdly, the good of the other communities was also automatically the national good because their participation constituted a crucial element of our nationhood. As Abhas Chatterjee succinctly puts it: "Hence the theory of Nehruism/secularism: Make the Hindu community as weak as you can, by creating internal divisions in it, by denigrating its culture, by inflicting insults upon it, and by whatever other means you can afford. All the right thinking and independent-spirited Indians in India and abroad have become fully aware of the vicious efforts that have been made by the Congress during the last 50 years to weaken the Hindus in pursuance of this theory."
Fourthly, in keeping with this new concept, a new idea called 'Sarva-Dharma-Samabava' was propagated. According to this concept, since our 'Nation' was constituted by an assemblage of several religious communities like Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. we should regard the ideology or religion of every community as India's national heritage and hold them all in equal respect. That is, we should yield the same place to the Quran and the Bible in our thinking as we do for the Baghavat Gita. We should have the same reverence for Mohammed and Jesus as we have for Lord Rama, Lord Krishna and Baghavan Buddha. Incidentally, all the Hindus of India know the reverence with which Lord Krishna and Lord Rama are treated by people of other religious faiths coming under the umbrella of 'Sarva-Dharma-Samabava'.
Fifthly, since the distinctiveness of the largest Hindu community was Sanatana Dharma, it was considered necessary by the Nehru family and the Congress party (in effect Government of India after August 15, 1947) to run down Sanatana Dharma as well for ensuring the good of other minority communities. A State-sponsored cult of denigrating the 'Sanatana Dharma' was promoted, directly or indirectly, by these and many other similar calumnies.
Finally, we were taught to look at the history of Bharatvarsha from a new angle of State-sponsored pseudo-secular vision. We were asked to regard Indian history as one of synthesis. To quote Abhas Chatterjee once again:
Let me look at Nehru's composite culture of 'secularism'. As per the Quran, the Hindus come under the category of 'Mushriks', whom that 'Holy' Book does not even grant the right to live!! The Quran does not permit its adherence to live peacefully as equal citizens with the 'Kafirs' in any country. Therefore, the concept of a composite nation combining Hindus and Muslims is false to its very core. But the affairs of our State have been conducted since 1947 entirely on the basis of this false perception of nationality. All our national weaknesses and problems today spring from this basic mis-belief if not mischief. This artificial vision of nationality on which our system is functioning is quite different from real nationality. The grave consequence of this basic dichotomy has been a complete evaporation of national inspiration in the country.
A nationalistic and patriotic Hindu of post-independent India has great difficulty in feeling himself to be a part of the imaginary nation for which the whole system is being operated. He is unable to identify himself emotionally with this imaginary, artificial, 'composite' national entity which the Indian State has been representing. An enormous gulf has been created between the 'Nation' and the 'State', between the national society and the ruling class. It is this gulf which is causing disintegration and decimation of the national society, disappearance of collective consciousness and sensitivity, debasement, debauchment and degeneration of social conscience. It is because of this politically motivated and criminally perpetrated hiatus between a false nation and a truly blood-sucking State that there is a continuous proliferation of selfishness, corruption and moral degradation in all walks of our national life today. The national society has been alienated from the State and the national will to face problems has all but vanished.
|More by : V. Sundaram|
|Views: 3470 Comments: 0|
|Top | Analysis|