The Emerging National Vision by Sita Ram Goel Part I

...Now, coming to the subject of today, that is, the Emerging National Vision, I feel that perhaps it is presumptuous on my part to speak about the National Vision before an audience from Bengal, particularly before an audience from this city of Calcutta. It was in this land of Bengal, it was in this city of Calcutta in the opening decades of this century that we obtained a clear picture of the National Vision. You have only to read the works of Bankim Chandra, Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo and listen to the songs of Rabindranath in order to know what the National Vision was, as also to understand what that Vision is likely to be when it is revived and reaffirmed. I have nothing to add to what these great men have written and expounded and what they have shown in their own lives. I am only a poor interpreter of their Vision as it should unfold, as it should emerge in the present situation.

The National Vision which was expounded by these great men rose to its heights, reached a high watermark, attained its acme in the Swadeshi Movement. The same imperialist forces, that is, Islamic Imperialism (or the residue of Islamic imperialism) and British imperialism had combined to partition Bengal, to partition a land which God had made one. But at that time, the conspiracy was frustrated. The game was defeated because the National Vision was very clear, very firm. In fact, the Swadeshi Movement was the beginning in real earnest of the National Struggle for Freedom which was earlier confined to some distinguished people meeting together and passing a number of resolutions. It was for the first time that India witnessed in the history of the freedom movement a mass mobilization of her people. The echoes of the Swadeshi Movement were heard far and wide, all over India, particularly in Maharashtra and the Punjab, as also the mantras that were given during the Swadeshi Movement - the mantra of Swadeshi, the mantra of Swarajya, the mantra of Vande Mataram which pulsated with all the aspirations of an awakened nation. That was a complete picture of the National Vision as it had to be.

But, unfortunately, in the hands of the latter-day leadership, in the later phases of the freedom struggle, that Vision got diluted. It was obscured by certain other visions. It lost its clarity and the result was the tragedy of partition. We know what happened and how the events unfolded. Bengal has suffered the most due to that tragedy. The wounds that Bengal has suffered and which have become running sores - well, I do not have to dwell on the subject. You know it all. I have only to point out, it is my painful duty to point out, that this land of Bengal which has suffered so much due to the loss of the National Vision has neglected that Vision to a greater extent than the rest of the country. It is, therefore, the duty of Bengal to resurrect that Vision, to recover that Vision, to reaffirm that Vision, and thus reclaim its lost leadership of India.

Bengal today feels neglected. But the fault is not of the rest of India. The fault lies with Bengal itself. Bengal has ignored its own Vision which it had once given to the whole of India and which, in turn, had given to Bengal the leadership of India. I need not go into details. You know what is happening in Bengal today. It is not only the perspective but also the personal character of its great men which is being questioned. As I read the various debates going on in the Bengali press, in Bengali novels and other wrtings, I am really pained. How can things go down to such a low level in a land which had once raised India to such great heights?

What was that National Vision which these great men gave us and which inspired India to launch such a great struggle for freedom? Remember the revolutionaries which India produced at the time. They were great men and women, those revolutionaries who mounted the gallows with the Gita in hand and with Vande Mataram on their lips. They were not like the latter-day revolutionaries. I can say with a full sense of responsibility that quite a few of the latter-day revolutionaries sound like ordinary criminals. The earlier revolutionaries were of a different character because their Vision was of a different character.

What was that Vision? In a way, it was nothing new. It was only a restatement in modern language, in a modern setting, of the ancient Vedic Vision as unfolded in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in the Jainagama, in the Tripitaka, in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, in the Puranas, in the Dhramashastras and in the latter-day poetry of saints and siddhas. We have had countless spokemen of that Vision throughout our history.

The first dimension of that Vision was that India was the land of Sanatana Dharma. That was the first and the foremost point of that Vision. In fact, Sri Aurobindo had said in his Uttarpara Speech that India would rise with the rise of Santana Dharma, that India would sink if Santana Dharma sank and that India would die if it were at all possible for Sanatana Dharma to die. This is not the occasion for me to talk about Sanatana Dharma. All I want to say is that Sanatana Dharma is a natural religion, that it is in harmony with the development of human nature, with the growth of human aspirations. It is not something artificial like Christianity and Islam. It is not a set of mechanical beliefs constructed by the outer mind of man and imposed upon its followers.

The second dimension of that Vision was that of a vast and variegated culture. According to adhara and adhikara, the various sections of our population, various segments of our society, various regions of our country, developed their own culture, developed their own art, developed their own literature. We have a vast literature - sacred, secular and scientific - which grew in different regions of this country, in different social and cultural surroundings. We have a lot of art, architecture, sculpture and music, etc. It is a vast fabric, this art and literature. But its spirit is the spirit of Sanatana Dharma. It is informed by Santana Dharma in all its details. That was the second dimension of that National Vision.

The third dimension of that Vision was that this great society, the society which we describe as Hindu Society today, was reared on the basis of spirituality, on the basis of Santana Dharma, on the basis of a great culture created by Sanatana Dharma. The Varnashrama Dharma which has shaped this great society has been corrupted today into a single English phrase - the Caste System which everybody is busy accusing of all sorts of crimes. But it was Varnashrama Dharma which created a complex social system that has survived till today with vitality and vigor, in spite of all vicissitudes of fortune, in spite of so many foreign invasions, throughout these countless ages. Varnashrama Dharma has been defended by all our great men in recent times. It was defended by Swami Dayananda, it was defended by Rishi Bankim Chandra, it was defended by Vivekananda, it was defended by Mahatma Gandhi, by Madan Moham Malaviya, by Lokmanya Tilak. All these great men have been unanimous that Varnashrama Dharma has saved Hindu society from destruction - the destruction which overtook so many societies outside India at the hands of Christianity, Islam and Communism. That was the third dimension of that National Vision.

The fourth dimension of that National Vision was that this great society, the Hindu society, had a history of its own - a history of how this society arose, how it developed, how it created a spirituality which was akin to the spirituality of many ancient nations like Greece, Rome, China, Egypt, Persia. We were told that the history of India was the history of the Hindu society, of Hindu culture, of Hindu spirituality, that it was the history of the Hindu nations and not the history of foreign invaders as we are being taught today. That was the fourth dimension of that National Vision.

And the last dimension which these great men stressed, which they affirmed again and again, was that this land of Bharatvarsha was one indivisible whole; that it was the cradle of Hindu society, of Hindu culture, of Hindu spirituality; that it was the homeland of the Hindu nation; and that other communities were welcome to live in this land provided they came to terms with Hindu society and Hindu culture. They did not think in terms of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hindustan and Bangladesh. Today Bharatvarsha stands divided into several units which are not only politically but also culturally hostile to each other and we seem to have become reconciled to that division. But the Vision that was given to us by our great men was that of Bharatvarsha as an indivisible whole, not only geographically but also culturally. That Vision rose before us during the Swadeshi Movement, in the first decade of the century.

There were some other visions also struggling for supremacy at the same time. Those other visions had an advantage on their side because of the educational system provided by the British, imposed on us by the British. This was the same educational system which we have in the country today. This educational system has been sponsoring and spreading the other visions of India.

There was the vision of Islamic imperialism. It said that India like pre-Islamic Arabia and pre-Islamic Persia and like so many other ancient lands conquered by Islam, was a land of darkness (or jahiliya). It said that India had to be brought to the 'light' of Islam, converted into a darul Islam.

Later on, another vision was provided by Christian imperialism. It also said that India was a land of darkness, of heathenism, of paganism, of unbelievers. It said that the 'light' of Christianity had to be brought to India, that India had to be converted into a land of Christ.

A third vision came to us in the shape of the white man's burden. This vision shared something of the crusading zeal of Islamic and Christian imperialism. But it spoke in the language of rationalism and humanism. It spoke in an enlightened language. It said that India was a land of poor, illiterate, down-trodden, exploited and emasculated human beings who had to be given bread, who had to be educated, who had to be given health, who had to be given some sort of self-confidence by the British mentors or by Western culture imported from this foreign country or that.

Later still, another imperialist vision came from the West in the shape of Communism. This vision said that India was a colnial and semi-colonial society, divided into exploiting and expoited classes, into the oppressors and the oppressd and that it was the duty of the Communist Party to liberate India from all this sloth and exploitation, this deadening of the forces of production. This was the fourth imperialist vision of India.

The cumulative effect of all these imperialist visions combining together has been rather serious, rather disastrous for us. Today, the vision that prevails, particularly among our ruling classes, amongst the Hindu intellectuals, amongst the Hindu elite, is quite the opposite of the National Vision provided by the Swadeshi Movement, provided by our great men.

Today we are told that Bharatvarsha is not one indivisible whole, that it is not one country. We are told that India is a subcontinent and that its division that has taken place into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hindustan and Bangladesh is the natural outcome of various nationalities struggling for their own pieces of homeland. As a result, India can no more be claimed as its own homeland by any particular society, least of all by the Hindu society.

Then we are told that the history of the subcontinent is not the history of the Hindu society, of the Hindu nation. This country is now regarded as some sort of a dharmashala into which all sorts of invaders have poured in from the West and the East and other directions. The history of India has become the history of foreign invaders. So when you look at the teaching of history in our universities, colleges and schools, you find that there is an ancient Hindu period, you find that there is a medieval Muslim period, and you find that there is a modern British period. Now we are also informed of a contemporary period, the post-independence period, with its own architect and father.

Next we are told that Indian society is not a homogeneous society. India, we are told, is multi-racial, multi-national, multi-linguistic and multi many other things. We are also told that Indian culture is not Hindu culture, that it is a composite culture made out of many cultures, indigenous and imported. It makes me laugh sometimes. When we talk of Indian music, we find that it is Hindu music. When we talk of Indian sculpture, we find that it is Hindu sculpture. When we talk of Indian architecture, we find that it is Hindu architecture except for a few minor details added by foreign invaders. Indian literature, almost ninety-nine percent of it, is Hindu literature. All this is Hindu heritage. It was the Hindus who created it, it is the Hindus who have sustained it. It is the Hindus who are still adding to it, elaborating it and expanding it. Yet, when it is pointed out that the culture of this country is Hindu culture and that the history of this culture is Hindu history, everyone seems to get annoyed. People who talk of Hindu culture are accused of being communalists.

But the strangest thing that has happened is that the religion of this country is no more Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma is now supposed to be some sort of a primitive superstition. Some people take up Vedanta and talk a lot about it. Some others take up the Gita and talk about the Gita. Some others take up and talk about other aspects of Sanatana Dharma, Yoga and so on. They acquire name and fame, write books and give lectures. But when it is pointed out that it was Sanatana Dharma which created all this spirituality, all this philosophy, all these laws, all this culture, not many people are prepared to accept it. A new religion has taken the place of Sanatana Dharma. This new religion is secularism.

We are now told that it will be through secularism that India will become a united nation, that there will be national integration on the basis of secularism. So we have a National Integration Council. It gives instructions to the Ministry of Education that the history of India should be rewritten so that the Muslim invaders of this country are not regarded as foreigners, so that Islamic imperialism is not regarded as something obnoxious, as something foreign, as something which came from outside. We are now required to accept Islam as an Indian religion, as a religion which must have as much pride of place in India as her own Sanatana Dharma. The logic has not yet been extended to the so-called British period of our history. But tomorrow there may be voices which demand that the British should not be regarded as invaders and injurers because, after all, they gave us English education, English literature, hospitals, schools, colleges, roads and all sorts of modern paraphernalia.

This is the state of things that is now prevailing in this country. The National Vision which had arises during the Swadeshi Movement, which had mobilized the masses in India and which had taken her ahead in the fight for freedom, is now more or less completely eclipsed. It is not so much eclipsed elsewhere in India as in Bengal or Kerala or in certain other parts where English education has spread faster than in other places. This is the situation that obtains today.

Let us take secularism. It is a concept which we have imported from modern Europe. The Christian Church had created a lot of bloodshed in Europe, 100 years wars and 200 years wars. A dark night had descended over Europe with the coming of Christianity. Humanism, rationalism, universalism and all other values which are known as human values had been buried under the dead-weight of Christianity. Some people in Europe started questioning the character of Christianity, particularly the stranglehold of the Church over the State. There was a revival of humanism, rationalism and universalism due to Europe's contact with India, China and some other great ancient civilizations. There was a struggle against the Christian Church and over a period of time the State was freed from its stranglehold. It was this struggle which gave birth to the concept of secularism in Europe. It was a very healthy concept, particularly for those countries which were suffering under the yoke of theocracy, under the inhuman theology of Christianity. This is still a very healthy concept for countries suffering under the Yoke of Islam.

But in India today people prescribe secularism to Hindu society which has never known any religious conflicts, which has never known any religious strife. Recently I was traveling in the Far East and met some Buddhist monks from China. I said to them: "Buddhism came to China from outside. But you had ancient religions of your own. You had Taoism. Did Buddhism come in conflict with Confucianism or Taoism?" They said: "No, never." There was not a single instance of conflict because Confucianism also came from the same deepest source of the Spirit, because Taoism also came from the same source from which Sanatana Dharma springs, from which Jainism springs, from which Vaishnavism springs. All these are different names of the same spiritual message for mankind. I also talked to some people in Japan in order to find out if Buddhism came in conflict with Shintoism which is their ancient religion. They also said, no, the two religions never came into conflict. The two religions are co-existing in mutual harmony till today. I met a taxi driver who was quite an intellignet man. He said:"I am both a Shintoist and a Buddhist." So also in ancient Greece, in ancient Rome, in the whole ancient world, all over Asia and Europe. The world had never known any religious wars before the rise of Christianity.

Religious wars started with the coming of Christianity. They became very, very bloody with the rise of Islam. But Euorpe had a wave of humanism, rationalism and universalism which broke the stranglehold of Christianity over the State. That is how the concept of secularism arose. As I have said, it was a very healthy concept in the context of Europe. As a result of it, European society has traveled so far. European science has developed. European technology has developed, and the social welfare system for the people of Europe has improved. All these things have ome out of the concept of secularism.

Hindu society, however, has always been a naturally secular society. Hindu society has never known any theocratic state. You take for instance any Hindu king. You will never find a bigot who favored this or that sect. Personally he may have belonged to Buddhism or Jainism or Vaishnavism or any other sect. But in his court, in his kingdom, all religions were equally welcome, all religions were equally patronized. In fact, it was the religious people who patronized the king raher than being patronized by him. It was not like the Archbishop of Canterbury who has to wait on the king of England, the king being the Defender of the Faith. The Hindu king had to go to rishis, munis and sadhus in order to seek their advice.

It is in such a land, in such a society that the concept of secularism has been imported from Europe. Not only that. The concept of secularism has also been turned against Hindu society. Today you know what secularism means. Whenever the word secularism is uttered you can sense anti-Hindu animus. Secularism in India today means denunciation of Hindu society, denunciation of Hindu culture, denunciation of Hindu history. It means denunciation of everything which is Hindu. The word 'Hindu' itself has become a dirty word. In the language of secularism, Muslims are a minority, Christians are a minority. But the Hindus are a 'brute' majority. This is the religion of secularism which is replacing Santana Dharma. This is the new vision, which has replaced the vision of Santana Dharma, the vision of a society and a culture and a history and other things based on Sanatana Dharma.

The excesses of this secularism, its anti-Hindu animus, have gradually led to a wide-spread feeling among the Hindus that there was something seriously wrong somewhere. The so called minorities have become more and more aggressive under the protection of this secularism. The Christian missionaries bring billions of dollars into the country from the Defense and the Intelligence and other departments of the governments in Western countries. They spend this mammoth finance for building missions and churches and for making converts. The 'light' of Christianity is being spread. So also Islam. Ever since petro-dollars have come into play, ever since the Arab nations have become rich, Islam in India which had got a little frightened after the partition in 1947, has re-acquired its old self-confidence of the Muslim League days. You have only to read the language press of Islam, particularly the Urdu press, to witness the wave of aggressive self-confidence on which Islamic imperialism is riding at present.

It is due to all these circumstances, due to this seeing through secularism, due to a renewed aggression from the old imperialist forces which were lying dormant for some time, the Hindu society has experienced some sort of reawakening, some sort of resurgence. We find that the Viswa Hindu Parishad is playing a leading role in consolidating this resurgence, in giving leadership to this resurgence. But I feel that this effort will not get completed, will not acquire a strong core unless the National Vision of the Swadeshi Movement days is recovered, resurrected, reaffirmed and reinterpreted in the new situation. This is what I am trying to do today in my own small measure.

The first thing we have to do to re-assert the National Vision is to proclaim to the whole world, without any fear or hesitation, that this ancient land, this Bharatvarsha is one indivisible whole and that we do not reognize its partition into Afghanistan, Pakistan, Hindustan and Bangladesh. It has often happened in the history of many countries that certain imperialist forces have encroached upon and then have run away with some parts of their lands. We must be vary clear in our minds that what are known as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh today are parts of the Hindu homeland and that we are going to reclaim them. We should say it fearlessly that the consolidation of Islamic imperialism, a thousand years of Islamic aggression against India, in the shape of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh is not going to be tolerated, that sooner or later, we shall undo the division of the motherland, and that we shall reclaim our brethren who have been alienated from us by Islamic imperialism.

Some of our people are now known as Muslims, some are known as Christians. All these are or own people. We have nothing against them. But we shall not tolerate imperialism surviving in this country in the form of Islam or in the form of Christianity. Islamic imperialism has been defeated and dispersed. There is no place for Islam in India today. We have to say it all in very clear terms.

The second thing which we should say very clearly and fearlessly is that the history of India is the history of Hindu society, of the Hindu nation, and that we do not recognize any Muslim or British period of this history. We do not recognize any age of Mamluks or Khaljis or Tughlaks or Lodis or Mughals. We shall instead read our history in terms of our own heroes, in terms of an age of Prithvi Raj Chauhan, an age of Rana Sanga, an age of Krishnadevaraya, an age of Rana Pratap, an age of Shivaji and so on. We shall not concede that there ever was a Muslim empire in India. We shall instead interpret that period as a long drwan out war of national resistance, of national liberation, in which Islamic imperialism was worsted. Similarly, we shall not recognize any British viceroys or governors-general except as imperialist intruders. The imperialist versions of Indian history which are being taught at pesent in our schools and colleges have to go.

Take the case of the so-called Muslim empire in India. Within a few years of its prophet's death, Islam had conquered large chunks of Asia and Africa. But it took 70 long years to put its first step in India, another 500 years to reach Delhi, and a few hundred years more to reach South India. Soon after, Islamic imperialism started retreating before a national struggle for liberation. It started folding up with the rise of Shivaji. So what we had was a long drawn out war, a prolonged national struggle aganst Islamic imperialism. This war, this national struggle should not be described as the Muslim conquest of India or as the Muslim period of Indian history.

The third thing which we have to proclaim in order to reaffirm the National Vision is that the national culture of India is Hindu culture, the culture of Sanatana Dharma. It is a vast and variegated culture. But at the same time it is a culture which is natural to mankind. There is nothing artificial about this culture, nothing which has been constructed by the outer mind of man, nothing which has been imposed by force as is the case with the cultures of Christianity and Islam and Communism. Any culture which is not prepared to come to terms with Hindu culture, the culture of Sanatana Dharma, has to go. There is no place for any alien culture to flourish on the soil of India in the name of 'minority rights'.

The fourth thing which we have to proclaim is that Hindu society is the national society in India. This is a vast society which has permitted endless expressions of human nature, which has sanctioned all types of social traditions. Today we are accused of neglecting our so-called tribals. This is an accusation which is made against us very often, But when you read Hindu history, you find that we never interfered with the life-style of any segment of our society. We wrote 40 Dhramashastras in order to accommodate the customs and traditions and institutions of various regions and communities. Then we wrote 4000 commentaries on the Dahrmashastras adapting them to different jatis, to different varnas, to different regions. So Hindu society is a vast and complex society. Any community which is not prepared to come to terms with Hindu society has no place in India any more. We shall not permit such alien communities to call themselves minorities and claim special rights and privileges.

Finally, we have to proclaim that the only religion which Hindu society recognizes, which has a place in Bharatvarsha, is the natural spirituality of Sanatana Dharma. It is a religion which accommodates all types of human aspirations incuding atheism, agnosticism, materialism. What it cannot accommodate is force and fraud practiced in the name of religion. Any religion which wants to flourish in India has to come to term with the spirituality of Sanatana Dharma. There is no place in India today for ideologies like Islam and Christianity which harbor imperialist ambitions.

This, then is the Emerging National Vision. The whole of Bharatvarsha is the Hindu homeland. The history of Bharatvarsha is the history of Hindu society. The national culture of Bharatvarsha is Hindu culture. And the national religion of India is Sanatana Dharma. This is the National Vision which we have to reaffirm.

There are certain implications of this affirmation which we should hold clearly before our minds. Unless we are clear in our minds, unless we are ideologically equipped, unless we acquire knowledge about ourselves as well as about the forces against which we have to fight, the contest will be decided to our disadvantage. Several ideological aggressions have been mounted against Hindu society, against Hindu culture, against Sanatana Dharma in the past as well as in the present. There is the ideological aggression from Christianity. There is the ideological aggression from Islam. There is the ideological aggression from Communism. We have taken a defensive posture against all these aggressions. This will not do.

Today in India, a Hindu has only one parichaya, only one name by which he is known. He is known as communalist. Islamic ideology, Christian ideology, Communist ideology - all of them have made such inroads that a Hindu is being called a communalist in his own homeland. This is the ninth or the tenth wonder of the world. I do not know how many wonders there are in the world at present. But this is surely the greatest wonder of the world. This has happened because Hindus in their ignorance have recognized Islam and Christianity as religions. This recognition has to be withdrawn. This is the first implication of the Emerging National Vision.

continued....

http://www.hinduunity.org