Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva

Hinduism vs. Hindutva―Oxism vs. Oxatva

"Hinduism vs. Hindutva" is an extremely popular topic in "intellectual" and "secular" discourse in India―actually since the mid-twentieth century, but more particularly since the beginning of this new millennium. Many who are (apparently) lovers of Hinduism (and simultaneously opponents of Hindutva) emphasize the "difference" between Hinduism and Hindutva. In fact the two are not just "different" they are supposed to be diametrically opposed to each other!

It is necessary to examine this question in some detail. We will do this under the following heads:

1. Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva.

2. The true agenda of the anti-C.A.A. "movement".

Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva

One vital question is: when these critics of Hindutva (and, presumably, admirers of Hinduism as contrasted with Hindutva) say "Hindutva is more like Christianity and Islam than like Hinduism", and sharply criticize and oppose Hindutva, are they then simultaneously acknowledging that Christianity and Islam are equally deserving of equally sharp criticism and opposition while Hinduism by contrast only deserves praise? Or do they actually mean that the followers of Christianity and Islam have a right to be and do whatever followers of Hindutva are accused of being and doing, but the followers of Hindutva do not have this same right―and that therefore both Hinduism and Hindutva are to be criticized while both Christianity and Islam are to be praised?

This always reminds me of the Aesop's fable about the lion and the four oxen. A lion came upon four oxen living in a field. He decided that they would provide him with food for a long time, and started prowling around the field to kill them. However, the four oxen, who had long and sharp horns, kept him at bay for weeks and weeks by adopting the following strategy: every time he made a run for them they stood in a formation with their tails together and facing all four directions and struck their horns at him from whichever direction he attacked them. The lion did not dare to approach them closely from any direction because of their unity and aggressiveness.

The fable has a sequel: the four oxen in the course of time developed personal differences and grievances and stopped even speaking to each other. Obviously adopting a united stand was out of the question as they kept away from each other, and the lion managed to finish them off one by one. The moral of the fable is that disunity leads to destruction. Very relevant for Hindus.

But there is another moral for us. Suppose there were other (leftist/secularist) animals, including other oxen, in other areas whose agenda was to brainwash oxen into following "oxism"―where it was supposedly the dharma of an ox to allow itself to be attacked and killed―as opposed to "oxatva" where oxen tried to unite to defend themselves against attackers and killers? Suppose the oxen separated from each other and refused to unite against and confront their attacker because they did not want to be untrue to their "dharma" of "oxism" by behaving aggressively like the lion in resisting his attacks? What if that was the reason the lion managed to finish off the oxen who were determinedly being true to their "dharma" as defined by others (other oxen and non-oxen)?

This business of people teaching their enemy religionists the "true essence" of their (enemy) religion is something incredibly incomprehensible. During the Ayodhya movement, we had any number of Ayodhya supporters―including many VHP leaders―telling Muslims that they should give up the site because "Allah does not accept prayers offered from a site stolen from others, i.e. other religions"!!!! Obviously the Muslims know their own religion better, and they know exactly what Allah and Mohammad would have wanted from them, better than these non-Muslim pontificators.

At the same time we had secularists (and even Muslims and Christians and leftists) advising Hindus to give up their claims to the site since even Rama himself would have disapproved of this attempt to take back his birthplace in order to replace a mosque-structure occupying the site with a Rama temple!! Of course, Hindus (unlike Muslims) are ever ready to be taught the "true essence" of their own religion by their enemies. But any Hinduism-follower (even if distinct from a Hindutva-follower) could read the Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, 115 to see what Rama would have said. Rama here tells Sita (Gita Press Gorakhpur translation): "You stand here won back (by me after conquering the enemy) on the field of battle. O blessed one! That which was worth doing (for me) through human effort has been accomplished by me. I have attained the reward of my indignation; nay, the wanton offence given to me (by your abduction) has been fully requited and the indignity offered to me as also the enemy (who did it) have been wiped out all at once by me. Today my manliness has been witnessed, today my exertion has become fruitful, today I have fulfilled my vow and today I am the master of myself once more..... What purpose will be served by the prowess, however great, of that petty-minded fellow who does not avenge by his might the insult suffered by him?" There is more―not all very palatable―but that is enough for the issue here about what Rama would have wanted or what Hinduism requires of "true Hindus". Rama, if we go by the Valmiki Ramayana, would have wanted the mosque destroyed and his honor restored―whether or not a temple was ultimately built on the spot!  Clearly Hindutva is true Hinduism, and we do not require our enemies to teach us the true essence of Hinduism.

It is time Hindu-haters decided once and for all whether, as per their own logic:

a) Hinduism and Hindutva are different from and even opposed to each other. Hinduism is good while Hindutva is bad. And therefore Christianity and Islam are also bad, since it is with these religions―rather than with Hinduism―that Hindutva, according to them, bears closer resemblance. And therefore it would be better for Christians and Muslims to give up their bad religions and become Hindus! OR

b) Hinduism and Hindutva are the same (even if both are, or any one of them in particular is, bad rather than good) and therefore all Hindus should also become Hindutvites if they want to be true Hindus!

Instead of arriving at the two above conclusions, their multi-point logic seems to be:

1) Hinduism is good while Hindutva is bad.

2) Hindutva is like Islam and Christianity rather than like Hinduism.

3) Nevertheless Islam and Christianity are good while Hinduism is bad.

4) Many things done by Muslims and Christians are good, whereas if the same things are done by Hindus they are bad.

5) Islam (and Muslims) and Christianity (and Christians) have the right to attack Hinduism (and Hindus), and when they do so it is good or at least excusable. But Hinduism (and Hindus) have no right to defend themselves from attacks by Islam (and Muslims) and Christianity (and Christians), and if they even try to do so it is bad and inexcusable.

We cannot expect the enemies of Hinduism (and Hindus) to shed their venomous hatred. It is time for Hindus to change their slave mentality, firmly refuse to accept any distinction (let alone opposition) between "oxism" (Hinduism) and "oxatva" (Hindutva) insisted upon by their enemies, and to firmly, forcefully and unapologetically decide that:

1) The enemies of Hinduism (and Hindus) have no right to set the criteria for deciding what is "true" Hinduism and what is not, or who is a "true" Hindu and who is not.

2) Hindutva is nothing but Hinduism which can defend itself from attack. In fact, Hindutva is Hinduism at its truest and best.

3) A "true" Hindu is not defined by his religious beliefs or practices: a theist, an agnostic and an atheist are all equally Hindu; a person practicing strict vegetarianism, principles of ahimsa, pure teetotalism, ultra-hygienic practices, and brahmacharya, is as Hindu as a tantric practicing bloodthirsty animal sacrifices with consumption of flesh and alcohol and gory sexual rituals in a cemetery at the midnight of amavasya (new moon), and both are as Hindu as a person who does not believe in any rituals or practices at all. A spiritualist and a materialist can both be "true" Hindus.

4) A Hindu is simply anyone following a religion or philosophy or ideology (including atheism) of Indian origin―or not following any particular religion or philosophy or ideology at all―as differing from a person following a religion or philosophy or ideology of foreign origin and with foreign affiliations and loyalties.

5) A true Hindu is one who stands up for Hinduism when it is under attack, especially from predator foreign religions and ideologies. And a "Hindu" by name, birth or claim, can be called non-Hindu or not being true to Hinduism only when he gangs up in any way with these predator foreign religions and ideologies against Hindus and Hinduism.

At the same time, it must be noted that the oxen paradigm (oxism and oxatva) is used here because it best explains the anti-Hindu strategy of trying to pitch Hinduism against Hindutva. But it in no way means that Muslims are lions and Hindus are oxen. While in the fable the two are indeed distinct animals of two different species with distinct natural characteristics (lions can kill and eat oxen, but oxen would never be able to kill and eat lions), in reality Muslims, Christians and Hindus are all members of the same human species, and Hindus are fully capable by nature of paying back Muslim or Christian aggression in the same coin, even if their religious ideology is different from the predator religious ideology of Islam or Christianity― without it bringing their religious identity or "trueness" into question. Hindus need not be "oxen who kill and eat lions", but they can be oxen who will be uncompromisingly unwilling to allow themselves to be killed and eaten by lions, and who will see to it that this message goes very clearly and unmistakably to those who think they are lions or that Hindus are oxen. As none other than Mahatma Gandhi himself wrote (and this is not a fake quotation): "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the Musalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward…. Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards".

That was an observation by Gandhi on the more undesirable fall-out of the otherwise commendable universalist, tolerant and respectful nature of Hinduism and Hindus: no-one should think that Hindus are also fools and they will perpetually take this observation as a canonical statement of the dogma that they must follow in order to show themselves to be "true" Hindus!    

What is the true mentality of these people (the openly declared mentality, declared by themselves, not some secret one being alleged by their critics) who want to teach Hindus the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva? I have already, in my article "Leftists and Rightists" pointed out that the very essence of Leftist ideology in India is pure, unbridled hatred for Hindus, Hinduism, India, Indian culture and India's ethos and identity. The slavering-at-the-mouth hatred is so venomous and vicious that it just explodes out of their every word and action. There are millions of examples that could be given, but they would (as I wrote elsewhere about the treacheries of India's "Hindutvavadi" politicians, though those are born out of Greed, not Hatred) fill an encyclopaedia, or several encyclopaedias. Just one recent pedestrian example which comes to mind (out of literally countless recent ones) is the hypocritical and pretentious leftist youtuber Dhruv Rathee who gleefully found "fun facts" in the recent incident of the vicious slaughter of the old sadhu in Palghar!

 

These leftists who want to define Hinduism for us are those who falsify, ignore, whitewash, defend, and even glorify the evil aspects of Islamic and Christian religion and history (the hatred for other religions and religionists preached in their texts and central ideology; their jihads, crusades, and inquisitions; the heinous, scandalous and barbaric acts of their central religious figures; the destruction of millions of religious structures of other religions; the extremist excesses of their theocratic states; the wiping out and replacements of the cultures and civilizations of entire nations and even continents; their slanderous academic misrepresentations of the tenets and the history of other religions (including the Pagan ones attacked and wiped out by them); their continuing organized multi-trillion-dollar onslaughts on other religions, etc.) while highlighting the smallest negative point in Hindu religion and history to blacken and condemn Hinduism and its religious and historic personalities.

This becomes hilarious sometimes: a communist friend (who goes berserk over every tiny ridiculous "intolerant" Hindu word or act) recently presented Imran Khan, the PM of Pakistan, to me as a model and beacon of great religious tolerance and secularism who should be emulated by communal Hindu public figures. He presented a "news report" which said that Imran Khan had sanctioned money for the repair of some Hindu temples! Remember similar claims for Aurangzeb?

Another amusing example is these leftists citing recent reports of blatantly and officially Islamic countries―which treat their religious minorities as slaves or people living there under sufferance―criticizing India's treatment of minorities in India, as an indictment of Indian/Hindu intolerance towards and persecution of minorities!

Another example is a tweet by the mentally disturbed "stand-up comedian" Kunal Kamra (who recently pushed himself into the limelight by trolling Arnab Goswami inside an aircraft) which presents as an ideal Gandhian patriot none other than Umar Khalid of JNU fame!!

These deep levels of seething hatred, boiling and bubbling within these leftists like a volcano constantly seeking outlet, represent a kind of mental sickness which is incurable. It cannot be defined, analyzed, explained or commented upon: "Sirf ehsaas hai ye, rooh se mehsoos karo".

According to these people, non-Hindus (and Hindu-haters in Hindu clothing) have the right to criticize, attack and try to destroy Hindus and Hinduism, but Hindus have no right to defend themselves, and stand out as criminals and sinners if they even try to do so―or even if they fail to militantly condemn other people who try to do so!

Just one example of the omnipotence and omnipresence of this hate-propaganda machine will suffice: the demolition of one mosque structure in Ayodhya on the 6^th of December 1992. This, probably the first non-Hindu religious structure deliberately demolished by Hindus in the whole of historical memory in order to make way for a Hindu temple, is today branded as one of the most atrocious and momentous acts in human history, easily comparable with the holocaust of Jews in Nazi Germany. This single demolition followed a 1400-year old long history of deliberate destruction and demolition of literally millions of temples all over India and their replacement by mosques (including in the last seven decades itself, countless temples in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir; and including in fact the very Hindu temple, as the Indian judiciary itself has now confirmed, which originally stood on the very spot occupied by the mosque-structure demolished on 6/12/1992), recorded in ruthless and gleeful detail by the Islamic historians themselves. And yet, this demolition of a single mosque structure was treated as something more cataclysmic than the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: from the day the demolition took place, it has been the subject of truly countless and endless newspaper headlines, books, articles, speeches, intellectual discussions, demonstrations and rallies (including maatam rallies), and endless rhetoric.            

The very next day after the demolition took place, the whole country – and in fact, the whole world – erupted and exploded in “shock”, “indignation” and “outrage”. Every other newspaper carried front page pictures of thousands of “outraged” secularists (including members of organized NGOs) demonstrating outside the offices of Hindu organizations held responsible for the demolition, holding up placards with slogans like “sharm se kaho ham Hindu hain” (say with shame that we are Hindus). The same secularists who insisted that the Islam which expressly authorizes the demolition of non-Islamic religious structures (unlike Hinduism which requires respect for all religious structures) is a “noble” religion, and that Hindus must forget (and even feel ashamed for remembering at all) the demolition of hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples, want Hindus to feel eternal “shame” for this single demolition of a demolished-temple-turned-into-a-mosque structure.

Most importantly, this cataclysmic event is now held fundamentally responsible – in fact, as the fundamental root cause – for every single Muslim riot, grievance, and terrorist act since that date (and, one assumes, retrospectively, for every invasion, conquest, massacre, temple-demolition, riot and terrorist act which took place in the last 1300 years before 6/12/1992 in anticipation of this horrific event). All this in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court (by a bench including a Muslim judge) has unanimously accepted that a Hindu temple stood below the Babri structure.

In such an atmosphere, where Hindus are eternally in the sinful role of Oliver Twist asking for more, the least that Hindus can do is reject, with the contempt it richly deserves, these attempts by Hindu-haters to define Hinduism and Hindutva.

II. The true agenda of the anti-C.A.A. "movement"

The recent issue of the C.A.A. (Citizenship Amendment Act 2020)―which was the headlines-hogging topic before the coronavirus tsunami swept everything else out of the picture―has brought out once more (for the umpteenth time) the true agenda of the powerful Hindu-hating forces.

To understand what exactly the opposition to the C.A.A. represents, and what is the real aim of these C.A.A. protesters, we must understand the situation in India in various stages of its history (and of its proposed future) in respect of religious identity:

1. The first stage: pre-C.E.:

AREA	IDENTITY
1. UNITED INDIA	HINDU

2. The second stage: 600 C.E. (a gradual process) till 1946:

AREA	IDENTITY
1. UNITED INDIA	HINDU + MUSLIM + CHRISTIAN

3. The third stage: post-1947:

AREA	IDENTITY
1. INDIA	HINDU + MUSLIM + CHRISTIAN
2. PAKISTAN+BANGLADESH	MUSLIM

It looks as if the division of United India into two accounts was done with Muslims getting one single account only for themselves, with the second account being a joint account of Muslims with Hindus and Christians!

However, this picture, unjust to Hindus though it should seem to any impartial observer (but strangely no-one seems to think so!), was made even more so in the fourth stage with the application of article 370.

4. The fourth stage: post-1954 (article 370):

AREA	IDENTITY
1a. KASHMIR 1b. THE REST OF INDIA	MUSLIM HINDU + MUSLIM + CHRISTIAN
2. PAKISTAN+BANGLADESH	MUSLIM

As per this dispensation, a Kashmiri Muslim could buy and own land in Kashmir as well as in the rest of India, while a non-Kashmiri person could buy and own land only in the rest of India but not in Kashmir!

The abrogation of article 370 only removed this greater injustice to Hindus, and merely changed the third stage back from 4 to 3, which was only slightly less unjust to Hindus.

But this incensed the Hindu-haters to such an extent that they have taken the pretext of the C.A.A. to demand the fifth stage!

Let us see how this is so: the third stage  was actually as follows:

AREA	IDENTITY
1. INDIA	HINDU + INDIAN-MUSLIM + CHRISTIAN
2. PAKISTAN+BANGLADESH	PAKISTANI-BANGLADESHI MUSLIM

When United India was divided in 1947, it was not on the demand of any section of Hindus: it was on the demand of all sections of Muslims. The Muslim League, with its Pakistan demand, won the Muslim vote in all parts of United India, including both the present-day Pakistan-Bangladesh as well as (and in fact more so) the present-day India.

But when the division was done, what actually happened (due to the half-baked attitude of both the Congress as well as the RSS-Hindu-Mahasabha―it was only Ambedkar who sounded the warning bells) was that while most Hindus (who had never asked for the division) were driven out of Pakistan (immediately) and Bangladesh (gradually), the majority of Muslims in the Indian areas (who had asked for the division) remained put in India.

Meanwhile, not all Hindus in Pakistan-Bangladesh were able to escape to India. Many remained there, perhaps still in hope that things would improve or simply because it was impossible and impractical and even unthinkable to leave all their ancestral properties and belongings and escape empty-handed to some unknown and unfamiliar area in the rest of India.

Their plight was known to all the politicians in India, and all the Prime Ministers of India―from Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh―are on record stating and promising that the persecuted (mainly Hindu) minorities in Pakistan-Bangladesh should feel freely entitled to escape to India and acquire Indian citizenship as and when it became necessary.

The C.A.A. (Citizenship Amendment Act 2020) has only fulfilled that promise, which was never kept before―and even the C.A.A. fulfils it in an unjustly partial manner: only those Pakistani-Bangladeshi non-Muslims who are in India from before 2014 are to be given citizenship!

[The irony of the politics involved in this whole "debate" must be noted: the CAA was opposed by the Congress, including the Punjab Congress dominated by Sikhs, and in fact even by the BJP ally, the Akali Dal, the party of Sikhs.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/afghan-sikhs-demand-probe-into-is-attack-say-tired-of-living-in-afghanistan/articleshow/74844486.cms

Now, one single attack on Sikhs in Afghanistan has led to the Punjab Chief Minister asking for the Sikhs in Afghanistan to be given refuge in India:

https://www.opindia.com/2020/03/punjab-cm-amarinder-singh-anti-caa-request-mea-rescue-sikhs-afghanistan-kabul-gurudwara-attack/

In short, when convenient, the Secularists condemn giving citizenship to Indian-religion minorities in the concerned countries who have already been in India since before 2014―which is all that the lame C.A.A. does. The same people, when convenient, ask for giving refuge (and surely later citizenship) to Indian-religion minorities who are even now in the concerned countries!]

Amazingly, the opponents of the C.A.A. (not including the protesters from the northeast, who have totally different objections) object on the incredible ground that this discriminates between Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslims and Pakistani-Bangladeshi non-Muslims! According to them the C.A.A. should provide similar citizenship to sections of Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslims as well!

With the abrogation of article 370 for Kashmir, and the reversion to the third stage, these opponents of the C.A.A. are actually demanding that the C.A.A. should be a kind of article 370 covering Pakistan and Bangladesh.

5. The fifth stage: demanded by the C.A.A. opponents

AREA	IDENTITY=CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
1. INDIA	HINDU + INDIAN-MUSLIM + CHRISTIAN + PAKISTANI-BANGLADESHI MUSLIM
2. PAKISTAN+BANGLADESH	PAKISTANI-BANGLADESHI MUSLIM

That is: while India's people have a direct right only to Indian citizenship, the Muslims of Pakistan-Bangladesh should be given a right to Indian citizenship as well if the non-Muslims of Pakistan-Bangladesh are to be given such a right! In short, the entire present population of Pakistan-Bangladesh should have a joint account in India, while only Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslims have the right to a single account in Pakistan-Bangladesh! The abrogation of article 370 avenged!

One Muslim friend had the following argument to make: in 1947, lakhs (or millions) of Muslims migrated to Pakistan. Today they are ill-treated and harassed as "Mohajirs" in Pakistan. If Hindus (etc.) being ill-treated in Pakistan are given a right to Indian citizenship, why should these Indian-area Muslims in Pakistan not be given a similar right?

This argument, with the typical double-standard logic of Islamist-Secularist discourse in India, ignores the distinction between (a) Pakistan(-Bangladesh)-area Hindus in Pakistan-Bangladesh and (b) Indian-area Muslims in Pakistan-Bangladesh:

(a) The Pakistan(-Bangladesh)-area Hindus in Pakistan had not asked for the partition of India: they were its victims―the trapped victims of a pact between Indian and Pakistani(-Bangladeshi) politicians, and they deserve a permanent right of migration to India and the acquirement of Indian citizenship to escape persecution.

(b) But the Indian-area Muslims in Pakistan are people who agitated, rioted and voted for the partition of India in pre-1947 elections and then migrated to their desired land. Saying they have a right to return to India and get Indian citizenship is like saying that if a man who fights for a division of his father's property into two parts between himself and his brother later decides to give up his part to someone else, then he has a right to come back and get a share in his brother's part of the property!

[All this, apart from the fact that:

1. The truncated C.A.A. bill, in any case, does not really give all the Pakistan(-Bangladesh)-area Hindus in Pakistan-Bangladesh the right to acquire Indian citizenship: only those who are already in India since before 2014, and the procedure is only speeded up.

Further, even individual Pakistani-Bangladeshi Muslims (not even necessarily Indian-area ones) can acquire Indian citizenship through normal procedures.

2. India is not in any case a dharamshala for anyone and everyone: no country in the world is a dharamshala, and no-one has the right to dictate that India should be one.]

This fifth stage is a clear forward movement towards:

6. The sixth stage: the unstated agenda for the future:

AREA	IDENTITY
1. UNITED INDIA	MUSLIM

A terrifying prospect indeed.

The future of the whole world, in any case, is bleak and terrifying at the moment. Let us not compound the future problems for India by confusing two different issues. The leftists are clear in their mind. While they cannot, at the moment, openly endorse the acts of China (though they can defend or condone them on the old familiar grounds of non-discrimination―as even the "minor" rapist of  Nirbhaya was militantly defended by them), they are busy trying to keep both agendas alive. See the following article by one of the most poisonously India-hating and Hindu-hating journalists of the day, Vidya Krishnan, which, even as it condemns the Indian government for whatever it is trying to do to mitigate the coronavirus menace, keeps the Hindu-hating agenda in sharp focus:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/03/india-coronavirus-covid19-narendra-modi/608896/

Note the very second paragraph:

"Throughout, another set of events were occurring here in India. Late last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist government introduced and passed a controversial new law, ostensibly in support of minorities in neighboring countries, that in fact openly discriminated against Muslims and undermined India’s secular foundations. Then, early this year, protests over that new law snowballed into a pogrom in which dozens of people—mostly Muslims—have been killed."

Indians should wake up before it is too late!

Hindutva simply means a Hinduism able to deal with attacks by enemies. A Hindutva-based polity will simply be a polity which, unlike the present Indian polity, defends Hinduism from Hindu-hating forces.

A Hindutva polity is beneficial to all Indians, not only to Hindus:

As I put it in my blog article "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism", itself an extract from my article published in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume published by Voice of India New Delhi fifteen years ago in 2005, the central plank of Hindutva ideology should be to provide security and protection to:

"lower caste people in remote villages from the dominant castes in their areas (read, for example, Nalini Singh’s 'Aankhon Dekhi―Booth-capturing viewed from a BSP field office' in the Times of India, 18/4/2004); any linguistic, religious, caste, or other minority in any area from the majority in that area; women from predator men; children from predator adults; aged people from ruthless youth; physically or mentally handicapped people from other, 'normal', people; inmates of prisons, orphanages, old age homes, mental asylums and boarding schools, workers in factories and offices, or even residents of ordinary homes, localities or villages, from their various tormentors; and the common man from injustice and insecurity, crime and oppression, hunger and want, diseases and natural disasters, ignorance and illiteracy, superstitions and oppressive traditions.

Providing protection, security and aid, to one and all, from all these things, is not a part of any 'liberalisation' or 'reform' agenda or program. But, it should be a very important and basic part of any Hindu Nationalist socio-economic agenda.

The primary concern of Hindu Nationalist socio-economic ideology should be to evolve an ideal model of economic development: one which benefits all sections of society, but which gives particular importance to the concerns and interests of the poorer, weaker and more vulnerable sections; and which does everything to encourage initiative and activity among all sections, but does not give unfair leeway to the rich and the powerful to loot the public, or to loot public funds.

To sum up: we must evolve a nationalist socio-economic ideology which will try to (1) make India a rich, prosperous, peaceful and happy nation; and (2) see that, basically, for every Indian, regardless of race, religion, caste, sex, profession, or any other mark of identity, India truly becomes a land 'where the mind is without fear, and the head is held high', in every sense of the term. The primary guiding principle should be sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu nirāmayah, sarve bhadrāṇi paśyantu, mā kaścid duhkha bhāg bhavet: 'may all be contented and happy, may all be free of pain and disease, may all ever see auspicious times, may no-one be unhappy'.

In short, it is time to evolve a Hindu Nationalist socio-economic ideology which will try to be a model and inspiration to the rest of the world, and to future generations of the human race; and which will take mankind as a whole further on the path 'from untruth to truth, from darkness to light, from death to immortality' and from animalism to divinity. True evolution is to be measured, not in terms of technological and material progress and development, which are taking place at a breakneck, and continually accelerating, pace, but are only converting humans into a more and more organised, powerful, sophisticated, technologically advanced and materially evolved species of ruthless, selfish, self-centred, cold-blooded and mechanical animal, but in terms of spiritual progress which will make humans more and more humane, considerate, thoughtful and compassionate  divine beings.

[To put it in a different way: tomorrow, if a race of aliens, infinitely superior in comparison to the most advanced section of earthlings of that time―as proportionately superior, in the sense of technologically advanced, materially rich and militarily powerful, as, say, the present-day Americans are in comparison to the present-day Andamanese people―were to arrive on earth (admittedly an extremely hypothetical situation), how would we expect to be treated by them? Would we respect them, as genuinely superior and advanced beings, only on the strength of their technology, material wealth and power, if it were accompanied by their treatment of us with the same ruthlessness with which man treats other animals, conquering humans treat conquered peoples, masters treat slaves, the pigs on Orwell’s 'Animal Farm' treated the other animals, Big Brother’s System treated the citizens in Orwell’s 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', or, indeed, Jehovah of the Old Testament treated mankind in general or the Jews in particular? Or would we respect them if they also proved to be spiritually advanced: infinitely more humane, considerate, thoughtful and compassionate than human beings?]"

No-one should be under any delusion. Starting with the anti-CAA agitation, the Leftist-orcestrated Islamicist-Evangelist-Maoist front has declared Open War against Hindus, Hinduism and India. A Fight to the Finish. 
If Hindus don't get it even now, their future, if any, is bleak and stark and terrifying, and it will be of their own making. And it is not the future of Hindus only, it is the future of all Indians. It is only in a Hindu-dominated India that even Muslims and Christians are free to follow their religious traditions, and live in relative peace and happiness in a genuinely secular (because Hindu-dominated) atmosphere. No Indian Muslim in his right senses would want to live in the kind of atmosphere prevailing in any Islamic country―whether Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or any other ―all Indian Muslims know in their minds that a Hindu India is better than an Islamic one for them to live in.

But Hindus should stop allowing Hindu-haters to set the agendas, and to embarrass them from openly declaring that India is a Hindu nation and should officially be a Hindu nation, where people of all religions will live with absolute freedom to practice their religions and will have full personal liberties and civil rights (not as defined by the Hindu-haters, needless to say), but that this Hindu nation will only promote Hinduism and Hindu culture (which means all cultures and religions originating in India) and will not allow non-Hindu religions to attack Hinduism or convert Hindus.

This is the bare minimum that we owe this soil.

If even this much cannot be done, we will reach a stage where India will become the Lebanon of a few decades earlier―a hotbed of Islamism and Evangelism (and also, in this case, Maoism)―and every Hindu will become a potential Swami Kalpavriksha Giri Maharaj.