December 20, 2014
I'm now going to comment on Hitarth Maru's alleged rebuttal of my condemnation of Savarkar.
He clearly did not bother to read my 3 booklets on Modi and my compilation on RSS. But he thought it fit to respond to my post (here) through a longish post. I've only read it now, and as promised, I'm responding on my blog.
CLAIM 1: THAT I MISUNDERSTAND HINDUTVA
I could also detect your understanding of Hindutva as a sort of a dogma/cult – like Islam or Christianity – with a messenger (eg. Savarkar / Golwalkar in this case) and which has to be followed as such. This is one of the most laughable and uninformed interpretations of Hindutva – which modeled itself on Hinduism and hence could not help but be open to debate, modification and challenges to ideas. There is no central book or central authority to follow but just the idea – that of a Hindu identity and a concept of nationalism.
FALSE. Hindutva is definitely a dogma with a fundamental common theme: that Hindus "own" India and others are "foreigners". It is mixes geography and SOME people's religion to make POLITICAL assertions that are inflammatory and divisive. It is an ideology, and for the RSS folk, a cult, with a specific set of REALLY stupid rituals. The shakha is a purest form of cult. Meets all criteria.
CLAIM 2: THAT HINDUTVA IS A UNIFYING CONCEPT
-> The term Hindutva, literally Hindu-ness, was meant for Hindu identity as a unifying identity transcending castewise (there goes your Brahminism argument), regional and sectarian differences within Hindu society. The term was coined by Savarkar as the title of his book Hindutva, written in prison and clandestinely published in 1924. Inspired by, surprise surprise, not Hitler or Nazis, but the doctrines of the Italian liberal nationalist Giuseppe Mazzini.
FALSE. Let me cite Savarkar's own definition: "In expounding the ideology of the Hindu movement, it is absolutely necessary to have a correct grasp of the meaning attached to these three terms. From the word 'Hindu' has been coined the word 'Hinduism' in English. It means the school or system of religions the Hindus follow. The second word 'Hindutva' is far more comprehensive and refers not only to the religious aspect of the Hindu people as the word 'Hinduism' does but comprehends even their cultural, linguistic, social and political aspects as well. It is more of less akin to 'Hindu polity' and its nearly exact translation would be 'Hinduness'. The third word 'Hindudom'means the Hindu people spoken of collectively. It is a collective name for the Hindu world, just as Islam denotes the Moslem world or Christiandom denotes the Christian world."
This does not define what Hinduism is. Savarkar was allegedly an atheist, anyway. When something is not defined, you look into the ACTIONS of the people involved. And RSS in particular was ENTIRELY led by Brahmins. Their interpretation (of Hinduism). therefore. is what matters. Now, there are massive confusions within the RSS re: caste. Some claim there should be no caste. But on average, this is a highly conservative view of Hinduism. There has not been any Dalit head leader of RSS. I've noted in my book on RSS that there is some change occurring in this area, now.
CLAIM 3: HINDUTVA PEOPLE TOOK PART IN THE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT
-> People who believed in the idea of Hindutva (described above) did take part in the freedom struggle. Eg. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar – here goes your second argument – by the way, how many years did Nehru spend in Andaman or even active freedom struggle or any other jails?), Madan lal Dhingra.
FALSE. To mix up Tilak and Savarkar would be a cause of major confusion. Let's not do that. Yes, there were SOME supporters of Hindu Mahasabha who participated in Congress. And Savarkar himself was involved in his early years in terrorist activities.
But the RSS view is VERY clear: a strong and direct support of the British. NOT one word against them. They were clearly against the Muslims. I've provided extensive evidence in my booklet on RSS. I've called RSS Angrezon ke pillay for good reason.
CLAIM 4: SAVARKAR'S APOLOGY IS COMPARABLE TO GANDHI'S SUPPORT FOR KHILAFAT MOVEMENT
-> If Savarkar's letter of 'apology' to the British was your way of discrediting him, then let me start with Gandhi's support to the Islamic fundamentalist 'Khilafat' movement which degenerated into anti-Hindu massacres in Kerala. Gandhi's advice (and Nehru's uninterest) to Hindus in Noakhali as well as in Pakistan was to leave them to fend for themselves.
IRRELEVANT. This is pure nonsense. There is no comparison. Plus I'm not talking about Gandhi. This is about Savarkar's abject cowardice.
CLAIM 5: GANDHI'S ADVICE TO THE JEWS
-> Gandhi's advise to Jews: "Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs… It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany… As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." Gandhi believed this act of "collective suicide", in response to the Holocaust, "would have been heroism"". (sources: Louis Fischer and George Orwell).
IRRELEVANT. How is this even relevant? I'm talking Savarkar. Stick to the point.
CLAIM 6: SAVARKAR WAS NOT A CLOSET NAZI
-> Was Mr. Savarkar a closet Nazi? Naah -> http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/…/fasc…/savarkarnazi.html
I assume by now you are looking towards Golwalkar with hopeful eyes, let me bust that too with a fine article from Dr. Elst -> http://www.indiafacts.co.in/guru-golwalkar-nazi/…
FALSE. HE WAS ABSOLUTELY A NAZI SUPPORTER. Savarkar was absolutely on the same page with Golwalkar's and other RSS leaders re: use of teh Nazi solution. Savarkar wrote:
“A nation is formed by a majority living therein. What did the Jews do in Germany? They being in minority were driven out from Germany" [cited in Maria Casolari, Hindutva’s foreign tie-up in the 1930s: Archival evidence, Economic and Political Weekly, January 22, 2000]
CLAIM 7: HINDUTVA IS NOT DIVISIVE
-> With regards to the "most divisive ideology", it's a load of hot air unless you are pointing towards imperialist ideologies that divide the world in "believers (Momin) vs unbelievers (Kuffar)", "Proletariat vs Bourgeoisie", "Christians vs Heathens". I guess you already know don't you? Read this -> http://voiceofdharma.org/books/pipp/ch4.htm
FALSE. There is repetitive distinction made between Hindus and Muslims in the Hindutva ideology. I won't even cite the hateful man Golwalkar. Just Savarkar will do:
"Hatred separates as well as unites.” (Referring to the “need” to hate Muslims) (V.D. Savarkar (1942). Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? Poona City: S.R. Date. Page 32)
“In a public speech in 1925, Savarkar said that Indians had to learn to eschew soft values like ‘humility, self-surrender and forgiveness’ and cultivate ‘sturdy habits of hatred, retaliation, vindictiveness’.”
There is nothing more DESPICABLE in India than the Hindutva mind.
CLAIMS 8: HINDUTVA HAS NOT KILLED INNOCENTS IN RIOTS
-> LOL … How does an ideology/thought decide how many people die in a riot? Again a load of hot air. May I also suggest you to cross-check your figures once and provide an official source (not PUCL/Communalism combat data whose bias is obvious)?
FALSE. The evidence I've cited is from JUDICIAL COMMISSION REPORTS. Hindutva (mainly RSS) has been implicated endless number of times but each time RSS disowns its own people (it doesn't keep membership records, for one – like a good (criminal) cult).
CLAIM 9: HINDUTVA DOESN'T PROMOTE POLITICAL MURDER
-> Hindutva does not mention political murders as a means to achieve its goal (again compare it with real divisive ideologies), and unless you want me to link Indira's emergency and Shahbano verdict (a direct consequence of starting with a separate Muslim personal law) to Nehru, I will let the repeated question of Gandhi's murder rest here. It was an act of an individual.
FALSE. The HATE-LADEN statements of Hindutva leaders that praise the MASSACRE of the Jews by Nazi Germany, the arms training to RSS members, the involvement in numerous massacres. the killing of Gandhi, etc. are all direct proof of the murderous Hindutva ideology.
I think this will do for now. There is more in Maru's post but I've got limited time, and he is a dogmatic Hindutva fanatic. He will not want to change. His mind is seeped in hatred for the Muslim and he will never change his mind about his EVIL "heroes".
I had not read his post earlier, but now that I've read most of it, I think I don't need to engage further with him.