Congress Politics - The One Sided Inappropriate Interpretation of Hindutva

Individuals and ideologies, unable to understand the heart and mind of India, have either always considered ideas and words like Hindu, Hindutva, national and nationalism in public discourse as absolutely taboo and untouchable or have given one-sided-inappropriate interpretation of it. It is not at all that Congress President Rahul Gandhi has presented a completely new, original and thought-provoking discussion by distinguishing Hindu and Hindutva. We must keep in mind the fact that the wailing gestures of those who are clapping on hearing his statement can be a sign of not only energy, enthusiasm and support, but also of burden, annoyance or compulsion. The truth lies in the fact that his statement of "handing over power to Hindutvaists by ousting them from power" is a changed and new form of the familiar Congress politics of appeasement which has been going on for years.

Those who have even a minimal understanding of Hindu Dharm and philosophy know that 'Hindu' and 'Hindutva' are not separate from each other, but synonymous. So much as soul and body, thought and behaviour or character and conduct, so much as woman and femininity, maternal and motherhood, paternal and paternity, person and personality etc.

 

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that "Hindutva is a way of life, it cannot be limited to a belief or a system of worship." But Congress and all its politicians are probably unwilling to accept that they can't keep displaying their ingenuity! No one can become a leader or a carrier of defection by repeating the worn out slogans, phrases, accusations and allegations! To become a vehicle of change, one has to take lessons from the mistakes of the past, improve the present, and decide the direction of the future. But it is not surprising that the Congress’ young president, surrounded by all the senior leaders and courtiers, filled with fragmented and half-conscious Indians, has been a part of the decades-old pseudo-secularist, leftist, intellectual traditions of thought by carrying forward appeasement as a well-thought-out policy and shield. Only the followers find themselves safe. Those who disagree, see only their own interests and political future in keeping silent after watching the plight of the slain veterans.

Common and enlightened people who consider the role of opposition in democracy as important will surely remember that just a few days ago, Salman Khurshid has compared Hindutva to Boko-Haram and ISIS, Rashid Alvi calls those who say 'Jai Shri Ram' as 'nocturnal' and 'demons' , Shashi Tharoor has expressed the apprehension of India becoming a 'Hindu-Pakistan', it is a different matter that even after his statement of 2018 and Prime Minister Modi in 2019, even after getting a comprehensive mandate from the people of India. Both mechanisms remain the same! Rather, there is often an undeclared rivalry between all the Congress stalwarts considered to be enlightened over such exaggerated statements that intensify polarization on communal lines. By issuing such statements, every other leader keeps on trying to prove himself as a bigger and secular leader in the eyes of his leadership and community.

Mani Shankar Aiyar, after advocating to consider Akbar-Babur-Humayun-Jahangir-Shahjahan-Aurangzeb more Indian than Maharana Pratap, even a few days ago said that "after 2014 we are slaves of America". The question is, after being snatched from power, to this extent, by issuing a statement by losing discretion and balance, will the global image of the country not be harmed and hurt? And it is also not that such statements are a by-product of politics of passion or polarization, but at the policy level also, the Congress in its last term had proposed to bring 'Communal Violence Bill', in which the majority of its own country should be protected. Advocating for second-class citizenship, he had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that 'Lord Ram is a fictional character'. Congress leaders had devised a failed plot to blame the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack on Hindus, even after failing in that, they kept on tossing words and rhetoric like ‘Bhagwa Aatank’ in public discourse. Its leaders do not refrain from slaughtering a calf of an innocent cow to prove themselves as 'true secular', their performance reaches to the extent that they even organize a 'beef' co-banquet in Kerala. They do not find anything unreasonable in joining hands with the Islamic forces responsible for the exodus of Hindus from the Kashmir-Valley and announcing the re-implementation of Article 370 if voted to power. They are proud of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement that "Muslims have the first right on national resources". They have been repeating this statement like verses that after the 'Batla House Encounter'. Their famous and powerful leader of the country kept on weeping and shed tears throughout the night. In conclusion, it can be said that Congress-leader Rahul Gandhi's statement in the 'Mahangai Hatao Maha-rally' did not come spontaneously, it has been given a thought, not a momentary one, but an integral part of the party's long and well-thought-out policy and tradition and the expansion of future strategy and planning. In fact, the new song and false propaganda of alleged and artificial distinction between 'Hindu and Hindutva' is the familiar-old Congress 'game' that has been going on for decades to garner votes of gullible Hindus and appease minorities.

It is noteworthy that such statements do not give any evidence of Hindu society or Hindutva being conservative, aggressive or expansionist. They have mastered the art of being completely silent on the violent attacks on Hindus in Pakistan-Bangladesh-Afghanistan. They are not bothered by the fact that even in independent India, the majority were forced to migrate from the valley and some other areas. They deliberately ignore the historical fact that the Hindu society not only assimilated the Shakas-Huns-Kushans-Yavans from outside, but also took along the Jains-Buddhists-Sikhs who came from the same origin to flourish independently. And also protected the distinct identity, system of worship and places of worship of a very small number of Jews and Zoroastrians. Even with Islam and Christianity, Hindu society has always kept the spirit of cooperation and coordination on its part.

In fact, Hindu or Hindutva, its entire philosophy rests on co-existence. That material-consciousness sees in everyone the holy light of the same universal being. A hindu wishes for the welfare of all beings. There lies the victory of righteousness and the decay of adharma. The emphasis is on cooperation and harmony instead of conflict. Hindutva is not a political idea but a lifestyle or cultural concept. From ants to mountains, from earth to sky, from vegetation to all beings and animals, it is concerned. The concerns of Hindutva are the concerns of the world-humanity and the pastoral world. Where life and the world have been considered so comprehensively and minutely, it is possible to have aggression and tolerance towards a different sect! The essence of Hindutva mottoes like 'एकं सत्य, विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति', 'आत्मवत सर्वभूतेषु', 'नेति-नेति', 'यत पिंडे, तत् ब्रह्माण्डे', 'सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मम्' is simple that the different paths move towards the same God. And whatever distinction and difference there is, it is the result of vision-illusion and ignorance. Rather, the ultimate goal of Hindutva is the progressive development and expansion of the philosophy and consciousness of that omnipresent being, pervading in the every particle, by erasing all separation. And that is why he has considered expansion as a synonym for life and narrowness as synonymous with death.

Rather, keeping in mind the Sangh-Parivar, leaders like Khurshid-Alvi-Tharoor-Iyer-Owaisi, including the Congress-leadership, keep issuing absurd statements on 'Hindutva' every other day. Its Chief and Sarsanghchalak, Mohan Bhagwat himself has said “Hindu Rashtra is not a political concept. Any person in India or in the whole world who considers himself to be the child of Mother India, who respects the culture of India, who remembers his Indian ancestors, is a Hindu in our eyes. We believe that one who does not call himself a Hindu, calls himself by some other name, is also a Hindu."

Is there any sense of distance, aggression, leniency, or unacceptability present in the above definition? To end with, if a Hindu is a body, then Hindutva is its basic and natural quality and dharma, and finding a difference between the two is utter stupidity or pure politics.