DOES THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY MEAN
THAT HINDUTVA IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO INDIAN NATIONALISM?
Shrikant G. Talageri
FOREWORD TO BLOG: My first book was published in 1993
as "The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" with a
preface by Sita Ram Goel. It consisted of three sections, the first of
which dealt in three chapters with the political aspects of the theory. The
next two sections were purely academic. In order to also present only the
academic section by itself, the book was also published by Sita Ram Goel at the
same time minus the first section, as "The Aryan Invasion
Theory—A Reappraisal" with a different preface by Dr. S.R.Rao.
My subsequent books and blogs on the AIT/AMT have been purely academic, to the extent that most readers are not aware of the political chapters in my first book. It leads to the funny situation where many people often dismiss the whole debate as superfluous because according to them Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism is equivalent to Indian Nationalism (Hindutva Hi Rashtriyatva Hai) whether or not the AIT/AMT is true.
They are right: Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism is
equivalent to Indian Nationalism (Hindutva Hi Rashtriyatva Hai) whether or not
the AIT/AMT is true. In fact the purpose of my first three chapters
was to make this very point, and after making this point in great detail I
ended the third chapter with the following words:
"The Aryan invasion theory, therefore, stands bereft and shorn of all its Leftist corollaries.
But is the basic theory itself, namely, that groups of people, who may be called 'Aryans', entered India from outside, bringing along with them, if nothing else, at least the Sanskrit language (and therefore, the subsequent Indo-Aryan languages), at all valid? Did, indeed, any 'Aryans' ever invade, or even immigrate into India from outside? Shorn of its Leftist and anti-Hindu corollaries, this becomes a purely academic question with no present-day political implications.
This academic question will be dealt with in the next two sections of this book".
But the academic discussion is not superfluous: even apart from the misuse by anti-Hindu elements of the AIT, if the question of the Original Homeland of the language family which dominates four (Europe, North America, South America and Australia) of the six inhabited continents of the world and major parts of a fifth (Asia), and is very important in the sixth (Africa) as well, is not a fit subject for historical study, then history itself should be banned as an academic subject.
But since my political chapters in my first book may not be known to most of my readers, I am reproducing them in this article with a bare minimum of mainly punctuation corrections.
But let me also repeat what I wrote in the reprint of this book in 2003:
"If, in the course of elucidating these points (which I challenge anyone to refute) I have occasionally used avoidable and even, by hindsight, inappropriate turns of phrases (about certain individuals and political parties, or communities), well: 'The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit can lure it back to cancel half a line, nor all thy tears wash out a word of it'. But, then, I was examining only one side of the coin. I find it necessary, now, to examine the other:
I pointed out, in Chapter 2, how Islam and Christianity can lead to foreign affiliations. Well, today (at this time of writing), India is in the control of a regime which is umbilically affiliated to a foreign country: the U.S.A. All its socio-economic policies are devised for the benefit of that country, and all its political policies are harmonized with those of that country. as surely as the colonialist policies of the British East India Company were devised for the benefit of Great Britain and to the detriment of India and Indians. But this regime functions in the name of Hinduism, Hindutva, Indian Nationalism and Swadeshi with as ruthless an irony as the Pig-regime of George Orwell's Animal Farm functioned in the name of Animalism! As in Animal Farm, the regime is propped up by an army of countless slogan-shouting sheep, blindly faithful and hardworking horses, confused but compliant cows, and snarling dogs — all controlled by a range of 'Hindutva' organizations (the Squealers of this Animal Farm), which otherwise make threatening noises, when elections are far off, to keep restive cadres in line, but close ranks, every time an election approaches, and declare this to be a HINDU regime (and its opponents anti-Hindu). All the anti-poor, anti-middle class, pro-rich, pro-NRI and pro-American policies of this elitist regime (dominated by the representatives and agents of the elitist world: ex-royalty. big business, films, sports, fashion. etc. etc. and increasingly anti-poor and virulently anti-worker) cannot prevent the Hindu masses from being brought to heel (at the time of every elections) by a variety of familiar and no-less-effective-because-repeated tactics: by visions of bogies in neighboring countries, by the timely actions (Kargil, Godhra, and many more to come) of helpful 'enemies', by Issues (temples, riots, etc) which appear at the time of elections with as unfailing a regularity as they die out immediately afterwards all perfectly orchestrated by the Family with a Hundred Tongues — in the name of Hinduism and Hindutva.
Is this a Hindu government — under whose systematic supervision all aspects of Hindu culture and civilization arc being slowly and systematically wiped out and rampant Americanization is the norm, and under which only the most elitist or obscurantist aspects of the Hindu religion are promoted? Whose only Hindu philosophy is that of Charvaka (and America): ṛṇam kṛtvā ghṛtam pibet (repeated lowering of interest rates to actively discourage savings and promote the loan-and-credit culture)? Under whom casteist politics has reached new heights? Under whom the politics of vindictiveness (eg. persecution of news agencies exposing its corruption) is matched only by the politics of royal patronage (national awards for singers who record the Leader's poems)? Under whom corruption and bureaucratic interference has reached unmatched proportions? Under whom people (including Hindus) are thrown out of jobs, and employment avenues completely blocked out on a war footing? Clearly more foreign agency, anti-nationalism and injustice arc possible in India in the name of Hinduism and Hindutva than in the name of Islam and Christianity or Secularism and Leftism. And more dangerous since it is cloaked in the garb of Nationalism."
What I wrote in 1993 and qualified in 2003 stands even more sharply emphasized in 2021. Today Hinduism and India's heritage are under attack from forces which came to power in the name of Hindutva, and this is more dangerous than the attacks from openly anti-Hindu forces. When anti-Hindu forces attack Hinduism and Indian culture, major sections of conscious Hindus unite to oppose them. When forces which came to power in the name of Hindutva attack Hinduism and Indian culture, all the energies of those very same "conscious Hindus" get concentrated on defending, whitewashing, rationalizing, justifying and even glorifying these attacks! Hinduism and Indian culture are then doomed beyond rescue. I know I am making no friends by these statements, but then to an honest historian making friends is not and can never be the primary objective.
With that, let me reproduce the first three chapters (i.e. Section One) of my first book "The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" (1993) without further comment. Barring some verbal excesses and extremisms (it was my first book, and the chapters were written when I was 32 years old, raw and brash, and parts of it are rather "dated" today) I stand by my three chapters. For the record, I should state here that I am a kaṭṭar hindutvavādī (my definition of Hindutva is set out in my blog article "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism") and at the same time most of my best friends are Muslims and Christians who know my views and also know that my views are born out of logic and honesty and not out of narrow-mindedness or hatred.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER ONE
INDIA AS A "NATION IN THE MAKING"
The very first principle of Leftist propaganda is that India is not a nation but a conglomerate of nations. Every linguistic group, at least, constitutes a separate nation. In fact, India was never one nation at any point of time in its history. The British, in the course of their imperialistic drive, conquered various nations and kingdoms in a certain area; and the entire area over which they ruled came to acquire a sense of unity inspired only by a common slavery under them. This common slavery led to a common freedom movement. When the British left, the entire area, ruled over by them, was divided into two major parts, India and Pakistan, each, and especially the former, consisting of many nations within itself.
The Hindu Nationalist principle, on the other hand, is that India has always been one nation since ancient times, and Hinduism has been the bond linking different parts of India to each other and binding the whole nation together.
THE LEFTIST MOTIVES
The main aim of this "multinational India" theory is to sow the seeds for the eventual breakup of India into its "constituent nations". The Leftists had played this same game in 1947 at the time of the partition of India.
The rationale behind this is that if India breaks up into small "nations", these would be easier for the Leftists to gobble up one by one. If Bengal and Kerala, for example, had become independent countries in 1947, today they would have been full-fledged, communist kingdoms. The fact that this strategy failed to pay dividends in 1947, and that, far from gobbling up Pakistan, the Leftists were ruthlessly wiped out there, is no deterrent. It has, if anything, increased the ardor of Leftists in aligning with the forces of Islamic imperialism against Hindu Nationalism.
The deeper reason behind the Leftist sponsorship of the "multinational India" theory is that hatred and contempt for one's own nation, culture, historical ethos and identity is a fundamental feature of the Leftist mental make-up. In India, this is manifested in a psychopathic hatred and contempt for Hinduism, Hindu Nationalism and Hindu culture.
If it is accepted that India is, and always was, one nation, an elucidation of the nature of this "one nationhood" will naturally follow. And it will be found that the one bond binding India together is its Hindu religion and culture. The main aim of the "multinational India" theory is, therefore, to deny the real, ancient, bond which binds the different parts of India together into one nation; and to replace it with an artificial, recent, bond of "composite" nationhood, which, by its very nature, would be a fragile one, unable to hold the nation together. This theory of India's recent and "composite" nationhood, has the full support of the "secular" political leadership of India, for three reasons:
1. Indian "secularism" is basically a linear descendant of Leftist ideology, and derives its inspiration from Leftist terminology and thought categories, so that "secularism" boils down to anti-Hinduism.
2. The compulsions of India's vote-bank politics make it necessary to divide Hindu society into mutually antagonistic segments and, at the same time, to keep the Muslim vote-bank united. This can only be done by promoting the concept of a "composite" nation-hood. denying India's ancient Hindu Nationhood, and following a policy of "cynical 'secularism".
3. The post-1947 political leadership of India, of whom most present-day politicians are the organizational progeny, liked the idea that the history of India, as a nation, began with themselves, and that India was a "nation in the making"—a nation of their own making. The concept of a "composite" nation taking birth and shape under their own expert guidance, was a pleasing and flattering one.
IMPLICATIONS OF A RECENT "COMPOSITE" NATIONHOOD
By accepting that India became a nation under the British and the Congress, and that India's nationhood is not based on its Hindu identity, one destroys (as intended by the Leftists ) the raison d'être of India as a nation. Take, for example, Iran, Kashmir, and Tamil Nadu. Kashmir is geographically closer to Iran than to Tamil Nadu. The people of Kashmir and Iran are Muslims, while the people of Tamil Nadu are largely Hindus. The people of Kashmir and Iran both speak languages belonging to the Indo-European family, while the people of Tamil Nadu speak a language belonging to the Dravidian family. What is it, then, which can be taken to bind Kashmir more closely to Tamil Nadu than to Iran?
Take, again, China, Manipur and Gujarat. Manipur is geographically closer to China than to Gujarat. The people of Manipur and China belong to the Mongoloid race, while the people of Gujarat belong to the Caucasoid race. The people of Manipur and China both speak languages belonging to the Sino-Tibetan family, while the people of Gujarat speak a language belonging to the Indo-European family. What is it, then, which can be taken to bind Manipur more closely to Gujarat than to China?
What is the bond which binds Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, Manipur and Gujarat to each other more closely than to, say, Iran or China? Is it only the bond of a common slavery under the British, leading to a common freedom movement and subsequent common statehood? If so, it is obviously a flimsy bond, and one which is not likely to hold out against heavy odds. Today, the major part of India consists of one kingdom ruled by one government. (The word "kingdom" is used here instead of "state", since the word "state" could cause confusion, as the term is also used for individual states within the union.) But certain parts had broken away in 1947.
Why did those parts break away in 1947? And why are different parts of India trying to break away even now? The answer is simple. Those parts of India which broke away in 1947 had cut off their links with the religion, history, and culture of India, and established links with the religion, history, and culture of Arabia and West Asia. Today, also, we are being taught that India is a "nation in the making" and that the religion, history, and culture of Arabia and West Asia; the religion, history and culture of Palestine and Europe; and the religion, history and culture of India; are all equally "Indian". The bond which links the parts of India together, and keeps them distinct from other countries, is being denigrated, denied, or diluted; and bonds, which link parts of India, or sections of Indians, with other countries, are being encouraged and lauded.
Only a person, whose thinking faculties have been totally deranged by Leftist and secularist propaganda, will fail to perceive that this is the reason why India has become a happy hunting ground for the forces of disintegration.
NATION AND KINGDOM
The Leftist concept, of India being a recent and "composite" nation, banks upon the general ignorance of the common man as to what exactly constitutes a "nation". Therefore, it is necessary to first understand the difference between a "nation" and a "kingdom", and, then, to understand how India has always constituted one nation. A kingdom (i.e. a, more or less, sovereign state) is the area ruled over by a king, or in the modern sense, by a government of some kind. The borders of a kingdom constantly change, and can even disappear altogether. If we take an atlas mapping out a political map of the world 5030 years ago, and then compare it with similar political maps taken after a period of every ten years right up to the present day, we will find that no two world maps are identical.
The sentimental loyalties created by a kingdom are, therefore, of a temporary and illusive nature, even if these loyalties manage, at times, to reach extremely strong proportions. They are akin to the team-loyalties and partisan loyalties which are created among students of a school in which the students are divided into teams or "houses" for the purpose of the academic year, or among workers in a factory belonging to rival trade unions, or among residents of two neighboring buildings, or some other similar situation. A nation, on the other hand, is distinct from a kingdom. Balraj Madhok, in his book "Rationale of a Hindu State", gives several definitions of the term "nation", from which it is clear that geographical entity and consciousness of nationhood are the two basic ingredients of nationhood. The following two definitions of "nationhood" may be noted:
1. "....a common civilization which gives a sense of unity and distinction from all foreigners quite apart from the bond of the state" (Bluntschli).
2. "....a kind of fellow-feeling or mutual sympathy relating to a definite home country. It springs from a common heritage, whether of great achievement and glory or of disaster and suffering" (Prof. Hale Combe).
The description fits India to a T. India was always divided into different kingdoms, but these kingdoms had constantly been changing borders and names, and were never the basis of deep national feeling. But the people in different parts of India had always had a feeling of cultural oneness with the rest of India, and always had the subconscious urge to unite politically into one kingdom.
INDIA: A GEOGRAPHICAL ENTITY
To begin with, a glance at a geographical map of the world shows India standing out distinct from the rest of Asia. This was negatively admitted by Jinnah when he declared: "India is not one nation. It only looks that way on a map." It "looks that way on a map" because India is a distinct geographical entity, surrounded by mountain ranges in the north, and by oceans in the south. The mountainous regions in the north, and the islands in the south-east and south-west, constitute the peripheral areas of India.
According to geologists, India was originally separate from the rest of Asia, and part of a different continent. This continent, in the course of millions of years, slowly broke apart; perhaps parts of it got sunk in the ocean; and the part that today constitutes India moved northwards and got joined to Asia. This means that India has been geographically one unit, distinct from the rest of Asia, and the world, for millions of years.
CONSCIOUSNESS OF BEING ONE NATION
Right from ancient times, there was full consciousness, both among Indians as well as among foreigners, that India was one nation, irrespective of the changing borders of the kingdoms within The Viṣṇu Purāna states clearly:
uttaram yat samudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam,
varṣam tad Bhāratam nama, Bhāratī yatra santatiḥ
(*To the north of the oceans and the south of the Himalayas lies the land of Bharata, inhabited by Bharatis.*)
The entire land was therefore called Bhāratavarṣa and its inhabitants were collectively known as Bhāratī(ya)s from very ancient times, and this fact of being one nation and one people was always present in the consciousness of all Indians. This consciousness oozes out from every pore of the entire gamut of ancient Indian literature. As Sita Ram Goel points out: "Even a dry compendium on grammar, the Aṣtādhyāyī of Pāṇini, provides a nearly complete count of all the Janapadas in Ancient India".
Foreigners were no less definite in this regard. The ancient Iranians knew this country as "Hind" and its people as "Hindu". The Greeks pronounced the word "Hind" as "Indus" and the word "Hindu" as "Indoi". The Chinese referred to India and Indians as "Shintu". The medieval Arabs, Turks, and Europeans were also fully conscious of India being one distinct entity. The latter-day references by British Imperialists to India as a "subcontinent" in no way detracts from this awareness; in fact, it underlines this awareness and betrays an attempt at verbal jugglery.
India did not become one "nation" under the British, since it was always that. A large pan of India did, however, become one "kingdom" under them. But, then, even before the British, a large part of India had also become one kingdom under another foreign dynasty, the Mughals. In between these two sets of foreign rulers, a large part of India had become one kingdom under the Marathas, who had liberated it from the first of the two. Before this, a large part of India had become one kingdom under various dynasties like the Mauryas, the Guptas and others, in the historical period itself.
The Puranas provide the names of various other kings and dynasties which had made the whole, or a major part, of India into one kingdom. This urge for the entire nation to be one kingdom was always there in the national consciousness since ancient times. As explained in detail by Sita Ram Goel:
1. The whole of India was considered to be a cakravarti-kṣetra, and the aim of every king was to bring the whole of India into one kingdom (under himself, of course): and there was a well-established, and well-respected, code of conduct which governed this whole process.
2. The concept of Bhāratavarṣa as one nation was the basic inspiration behind this; hence these kings never felt the need or desire to step beyond the borders of India into foreign lands to enlarge their kingdoms.
3. Whenever the vulnerable borders of the nation, in the northwest, were in danger of foreign invasion, Indian kings from far and near the borders rushed, or felt the need to rush, to its defence.
CONSCIOUSNESS OF RELIGIO-CULTURAL IDENTITY
Behind all this was the clear consciousness that India was culturally one, and distinct from all other nations—a consciousness of a special Indian religio-cultural identity. This was manifested in the innumerable Hindu pilgrim-centres dotting the whole of India from north to south and east to west; in the consciousness of the whole of India being a "holy land" (a deva-nirmita bhūmī); and in the regular pilgrimages by Hindus from one corner of India to the other (regardless of the changing borders of the various kingdoms). No Hindu, on pilgrimage in another part of India, ever felt conscious of being in a foreign place. These Hindu pilgrim-centres range from Kailash and Mansarovar in the north, to Rameshwaram in the south; and from Hingalaj (in Sindh) in the west, to Parsuram Kund (in Arunachal Pradesh) in the east. The "seven holy cities" of Hinduism include Kanchipuram in the south, Dwarka in the west, and Ujjain in Central India. The twelve Jyotirlingas include Rameshwaram in Tamil Nadu, Srisailam in Andhra, Nasik in Maharashtra, Somnath in Gujarat, and Kashi (Varanasi) in Uttar Pradesh.
The seven holy rivers of Hinduism, indeed, seem to chart out the map of the holy land. Sindhu and the (now extinct) Sarasvati start in the Himalayas and move westwards and southwards into the western sea. Ganga and Yamuna also start in the Himalayas and move east-wards into the northeastern sea. Narmada starts in Central India and moves out into the western sea. Godavari starts in Western India, and moves out into the eastern sea. Kaveri winds its way through the south and moves out into the southern sea.
The Mahabharata in its Tirthayatra section of the Vanaparva, gives details of the pilgrimage undertaken by the Pandavas to numerous sacred mountains, rivers, lakes and shrines all over India. This concept of India as a holy land has persisted throughout the history of India down the ages. Jainism originated in the north-cast (in Bihar), but the majority of its followers are found in the western states (Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra), and the famous statues of Gomateshwara are found in the south (in Karnataka). More than a thousand years ago, Adi Shankaracharya, who was born in Kerala, established his four mathas in Badrinath in the north (UP.), Puri in the cast (Orissa), Dwarka in the west (Gujarat), and Shringeri in the south (Karnataka).
Guru Nanak was born in Punjab, but throughout his writings, he speaks of Hindustan and not of Punjab. Guru Gobind Singh appointed five disciples, calling them the panj pyare, and entrusting them with the task of ensuring that Hindu Dharma prevailed everywhere. These disciples were, respectively, from Punjab and Delhi in the north, Gujarat in the west, Orissa in the east, and Karnataka in the south. The four Takhts of Sikhism are at Nankana Sahib (Punjab, now in Pakistan), Amritsar (Punjab), Patna (Bihar), and Nanded (Maharashtra).
One could go on and on, giving instances of religious waves and movements which swept the nation from cast, west, north and south; and of saints and holy men who travelled, on pilgrimage, to every nook and corner of this holy land. The main point, however, is that this Hindu religious consciousness provides the only bond which has, from very ancient times, bound every part of India to every other part in a firm bond of unity and given to this country a distinct identity of its own; and at the same time prevented any part of India from being bound to any foreign land in a similar bond.
Denigrating, denying or diluting this bond, and advocating, instead, the "bond" of a nation, born in 1947, with a "composite" national identity consisting of an amalgam of the religions, cultures and histories of Arabia—West Asia, Palestine—Europe, and India, is nothing but a sinister conspiracy for the disintegration of India. The concept that India was not one nation in the past is, in fact, the formula for seeing to it that India ceases to be one nation in the future.
CHAPTER TWO
HINDUISM AS A "FOREIGN RELIGION"
The second principle of Leftist propaganda is that, whether or not India constitutes a "nation", no distinction can be made between Hinduism, on the one hand, and Islam and Christianity, on the other, using the criteria "Indian" and "Foreign". All three are equally foreign, since Hinduism was brought in by Aryan invaders, just as Islam was brought in by West Asian invaders (although, here, the Leftists will hasten to clarify that the Muslims were not really "invaders" of course), and Christianity was brought in by European invaders (and here, again, the Leftists will concur with, or at any rate, repeat, the Christian canard that it was not European invaders, but an "apostle" of Jesus Christ, who first introduced Christianity into India).
In this chapter, let us examine, once and for all, and in logical detail, the question of whether Hinduism is also a "foreign" religion, and likewise, whether Islam and Christianity can, in the alternative, be considered to be as "Indian" as Hinduism:
I. Hinduism had no founder, but every single holy man, seer and sage, and every single hero (or for that matter, villain) mentioned in every single ancient Hindu text and scripture is an Indian.
Islam was founded by Muhammad, an Arab. He was followed by four "pious" Khalifas (the first three of whom are not accepted by Shias), all of whom were Arabs. Then followed a long line of lesser Khalifas (not all of whom are accepted by all sections of Muslims, who indeed broke into different sects on the basis of the struggles for succession to the throne of Khalifa), not one of whom was an Indian. Christianity is based on the life of Jesus Christ, a Jew from Palestine. His twelve apostles were Palestinians and Romans. Christianity was founded by Paul, a Palestinian Jew and Roman citizen.
2. The sacred language of Hinduism is Sanskrit, which even the Aryan invasion theory cannot assign to any country other than India. The sacred language of Islam is Arabic, the language of Arabia.
Christianity, perhaps, has no such thing as a sacred language, but, if one were to be named, Hebrew (the original language of the Old Testament), or Aramaic (the language reportedly spoken by Jesus Christ), or Greek (the language which hosted the first Christian Bible, Old plus New Testament, and indeed, which gave the word "Bible"), or Latin (the liturgical language of the "Holy See", the Vatican City) would be better candidates for the post than any Indian language.
3. India is the holy land for Hindus. All Hindu pilgrim centres and holy places are situated in and around India.
Arabia is the holy land for Muslims. Their principal places of pilgrimage are Mecca and Medina in Arabia, followed by Jerusalem in Palestine (Israel), followed by a few others, notably Karbala in Iraq, all in West Asia. Palestine is the holy land for Christians. Their principal places of pilgrimage are Nazareth, Bethlehem and Jerusalem, all in Palestine. (If there are any places of pilgrimage for Islam or Christianity in India, it may be noted that: a) These are very minor ones as compared to the major ones in the West, more in the nature of local shrines; b) The persons commemorated by these shrines are almost invariably foreigners, or converted Indians who turned against their ancestral Indian society and culture.)
4. The sacred books of all the three religions claim to have the whole world as their stage. But, in reality, they are all geographically localized. The Hindu texts are centered in and around India. The Quran and Hadis are centered in and around Arabia and Palestine. The Bible is centered in and around Palestine and the Mediterranean region.
5. The heads of all Hindu religious sects are Indians. All Hindu religious centres are in India. All Hindu organizations (even those, like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, whose names suggest an international character) are based in India, and headed and controlled by Indians.
The ultimate heads of all Muslim sects are foreigners. The major Muslim religious centres are situated in foreign lands. There are many international Islamic organizations of different kinds, but all these are based in foreign countries, and headed and controlled by foreigners.
The ultimate heads of all Christian sects are foreigners — the Pope being a prime example. The major Christian religious centres, in the form of the headquarters of each sect, are in foreign countries — that of the Catholics in the Vatican city, and those of the various Orthodox and Protestant churches, and modern fundamentalist sects, in Europe and America. The innumerable international Christian organizations are based in foreign countries and headed and controlled by foreigners.
All these points are so obvious that anyone who says that Hinduism is as foreign to India as Islam or Christianity, deserves to have his head examined. The followers of both Islam and Christianity have full knowledge of and pride in the time and place of origin of their religions outside India, the early history of their religions outside India, the arrival of their religions into India (brought in by invaders and imperialists), and the manner in which their religions were established in India. On the other hand, until the Aryan invasion theory was mooted by the European imperialists, no Hindu had ever suspected that any foreign connection could be attributed to his religion. Even today, with the Aryan invasion theory being instilled into every Hindu brain right from childhood, no Hindu worth his salt would accept the contention that Hinduism is of foreign origin.
Even the strongest advocate of the Aryan invasion theory cannot, in all honesty, point out any specific spot outside India to which the origin of any, simply any, aspect of Hinduism could be attributed. Even if, for the purpose of this chapter, it is presumed that the "Aryans" came from outside India, and that they imposed the Hindu religion on local inhabitants (two questions which will be dealt with subsequently in this book), it will have to be admitted that there is no trace of any foreign connections in Hinduism, much less the consciousness, of any such connections, among Hindus—and least of all, any foreign loyalties, associable with such foreign connections.
The foreign nature of Islam and Christianity, as opposed to the Indian nature of Hinduism, is not restricted to the five basic points already mentioned. It has much deeper ramifications, both in respect of its effect on the attitudes and actions of the Muslim and Christian communities, in general, in India, as well as in respect of the Leftist and secularist response to these attitudes and actions. These can be examined, in brief, under four main headings.
FOREIGN ANCESTRY AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
For Indians, the various historical periods, each with its own events and personalities, are as follows:
I. The period of the Puranas and Epics.
2. The period from the age of the Buddha, through the ages of the Mauryas, Guptas and others, down to the mid-first millennium AD.
3. The early medieval period, after the arrival of Islamic invaders into India, but before Islam had become a major factor in the political arena.
4. The medieval period. representing the national struggle against Islamic imperialism.
5. The late medieval and early modem period, representing the various stages of resistance to European imperialism.
6. The relatively modem period representing the freedom movement against the British imperialists.
But, when Indians adopt Islam and Christianity, their very ancestors seem to change and their historical perspective gets transformed. History, for them, begins with Adam and Eve, the mythical first couple in both the Bible and the Quran. For Muslims in India, the various historical periods, each with its own events and personalities, are as follows:
I. The pre-Mohammedan (Biblical) period, as described in the Quran.
2. The period of the Prophet and his first four Khalifas.
3. The early period of Islam outside India.
4. The early medieval period of Islamic invasions of India.
5. The medieval period representing imperialistic rule in various parts of India.
6. The late medieval period of Islamic crusades within India, ending with the revolt of 1857.
7. The contemporary period representing the Pakistan movement, beginning with Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and upto 1947.
According to Islam, the Ummah (the world Muslim fraternity) is more important than the national fraternity (especially if it is not a Muslim one); hence the Indian Muslim today follows three streams of historical events—the events in Muslim India, the events in Pakistan, and the events in West Asia.
For Christians, the various historical periods, each with its own events and personalities, are as follows:
1. The period of the Old Testament.
2. The period of the New Testament.
3. The early historical period of Christianity in the days of the not-yet-Christian Roman Empire.
4. The period of the Holy Roman Empire.
5. The period of the Pope's supremacy and the Protestant revolt.
6. The period of Spanish and Portuguese conquests and proselytization by the sword.
7. The period of the British conquest of India and the planting of the missionary apparatus.
Islam requires that every Muslim invader and imperialist, right from Muhammad bin Qasim down to Ahmad Shah Abdali, be hailed as a hero; and every Muslim fanatic and iconoclast, from Muinuddin Chishti to Dudu Mian, be cherished as a saint.
Christianity requires that every "saint", "martyr" and missionary must be revered, including people like Francis Xavier, who, according to his own autobiography, and letters written by him, urged the king of Portugal to install the Inquisition in India, and personally supervised, with a "sense of great satisfaction" (in his own words), the slaughter of thousands of Indians, the destruction of Hindu temples and idols, and the persecution of Indians who refused to convert to Christianity.
The secularist and Leftist response, to this Muslim and Christian attitude, is to falsify the whole of Indian history, and to pollute the Indian historical perspective, by belittling the pre-Muslim period of Indian history and de-glorifying the national heroes who fought against the Islamic invaders and imperialists; and by whitewashing and glorifying the Islamic invaders and imperialists and the Muslim role during the freedom movement against the British. It will be noticed that while a similar process of whitewashing and glorification is extended to the religious arm of European imperialism in India (the "saints" and "martyrs"), it is not extended to the political arm of European imperialism in India, as in the case of Muslim heroes.
Thus, while the characterization of medieval conflict in India, as a conflict between Islamic imperialists and Indian nationalists, is denied on the ground that the Islamic imperialists had some Indian mercenaries on their side, the characterization of the freedom struggle as a conflict between European imperialists and Indian nationalists is insisted upon, in spite of the fact that the British Rule was maintained with an army of Indian stooges, so much so that in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the fingers which pressed the triggers were all Indian fingers. In fact, the European imperialists are painted even blacker than they were, in order to offset the blackness of the Islamic imperialists, and to brighten the image of the Congress, which has appropriated for itself the credit for having liberated India from the British. Thus, while the prolific evidence of deliberate destruction, by Islamic invaders and imperialists, of thousands of Hindu temples is denied, the announcement, repeated at the beginning of every part of the TV-serial, The Sword of Tipu Sultan, tells us that the British destroyed temples and mosques all over the country! The foreign nature of Islam and Christianity, thus, makes the converted Indians detach themselves from their real ancestors, attach themselves to the ancestors of their foreign proselytizers, and adopt an alien historical perspective; and this, in turn, leads to the Leftist and secularist falsification of Indian history and distortion of the Indian historical perspective.
FOREIGN LOYALTIES AND FOREIGN CAUSES
When Indians adopt Islam, they acquire foreign loyalties which take precedence over their Indian loyalties. The three loyalties acquired by them are:
I. Indian Muslim loyalties.
2. Pakistani loyalties.
3. Pan-Islamic loyalties.
In Islam, there is a specifically stated and elaborated concept of a religious world empire, and precedence of the ties of the world Muslim Ummah over national ties (especially when the nation is not an Islamic nation), and an elaborate procedure of bringing about that world empire by a process of continuous jihad, until every Dar-ul-Harb, or kafir state, is converted into a Dar-ul-Islam, or Islamic state.
The Indian Muslims' loyalty to Pakistan seems to catch the notice of the general Hindu public only on certain specific occasions, such as whenever there is a cricket match between India and Pakistan. Every cricket match so often ends in riots in various parts of the country due to the Muslim insistence on celebrating Pakistan's victory over India or protesting against India's victory over Pakistan. On one such occasion, there was a huge mock-funeral procession of an effigy of Syed Kirmani, then India's wicket keeper, for having caused Pakistan's defeat by some particularly difficult catches.
This loyalty to Pakistan is bold, open and shameless. In November, 1987, after cricket-riots took place in the Agripada and Kamathipura localities of Bombay, Nihal Ahmed, the leader of the opposition in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, sought to move an adjournment motion criticizing the government for "failure to protect the Muslims". This is what The Times of India (11.11.87) had to report: "Moving the resolution, Mr. Nihal Ahmed... pointed out that when Pakistan lost the match, crackers were burst but nobody tried to intervene. However, when crackers were burst when the Indian team was losing the match, communalists tried to intervene and create tension..."
The insolent logic behind the above attitude must be clearly understood. It is not the attitude of a few individuals here and there. It is the basic psyche of the Indian Muslims, to which there may be countless noble exceptions (Hamid Dalwai, M.C. Chagla, Abdul Hamid, Muzaffar Hussain, to name a few prominent ones). What the above attitude amounts to, in short, is: "Yes, we are loyal to Pakistan. So what? We Indian Muslims will be more loyal to Pakistan than to India. Our loyalty to Pakistan is more important than the Hindu loyalty to India. Our loyalty to Pakistan must be considered by every Hindu as being more important than his own loyalty to India. And any Hindu who refuses to concede the validity of the above points is a communalist who must be punished."
India's Leftist and secularist politicians and intellectuals are, of course, not communalists; and hence they fully concede the above points implicit in the general Muslim behavior—the secularist politicians, with an eye on the vote-bank, and the others out of "ideological" fervor. However, they have to indulge in quite a slippery trapeze act, since they have to
1. convince the Muslims that they concede the validity of the above points, and are willing to model all their policies keeping these points in mind; and
2. at the same time, convince the Hindus, who are ever-willing to be convinced, that the above points are a figment of the communal Hindu imagination.
Any event in any Muslim country gives Indian Muslims the right to take to the streets and start vicious riots, all over the country, in an orgy of loot, arson and vandalism (especially vandalism of Hindu temples, shops and houses situated near Muslim areas). The event may be the arson by an Australian tourist in the Al-Aqsa mosque in far-off Jerusalem, the temporary take-over by a group of Sunni extremists of the mosque in Mecca, the execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, or the death of Zia-ul-Haq in an aircrash.
The Leftist and secularist response to all these riots, as to every other riot started by Muslims, is the same: huge amounts of money are paid to the Muslim "victims" of the riots: action is demanded, and often taken, against police officials for "atrocities against Muslims"; conferences are held and reports published in which "Hindu communalists" are held ultimately responsible for the riots; and strident demands are made to offset the "Hindu character" of the police and paramilitary forces by large-scale recruitment of' Muslims.
Any and every foreign Muslim cause is, to Indian Muslims, more important than any Indian cause (as distinct from Indian Muslim cause). The story of the Khilafat Movement is a case in point. The whole sordid story may be read in detail in "The Tragic Story of Partition" by H.V. Sheshadri, and "Muslim Separatism: Causes and Consequences" by Sita Ram Goel, but the salient points may be noted here.
The Muslim leadership in India had been collaborating with the British imperialists ever since the formation of the Indian National Congress. But when the British tried to punish Turkey for waging war against them, the Indian Muslims turned against them. The Khilafat Movement was started in India, against the British and in support of the Khalifa of Turkey; and millions of Muslims, all over the country, were mobilized, on blatantly fundamentalist lines, to take up the "holy" cause.
This "cause", of the Turkish Khalifa, was not taken up by any section of Muslims outside India. The Indian Muslims who approached Arab and other Muslim leaders for their participation in the "cause", were rudely sent off with fleas in their ears. Halfway through, the Khilafat agitation was converted into a jihad against Hindus. Hundreds of Hindus were slaughtered, and thousands forcibly converted to Islam, in the Moplah belt of Kerala. There was a spate of riots all over the country. If the Khilafat agitation was ghastly and horrifying, the secularist response to it was a hundred times more ghastly and horrifying.
Mahatma Gandhi diverted the entire freedom movement in India to the cause of Khilafat. He declared that it was the "sacred duty" of every Hindu to participate in this "sacred cause"; and that, to him, the cause of Khilafat was more important than the cause of Indian Independence! And this at a time when the Khilafat leaders were openly proclaiming that the meanest and most sinful Muslim was superior to Mahatma Gandhi.
The Congress suppressed all reports about the atrocities perpetuated by the Moplahs against the Hindus, and Congress leaders condemned the British authorities for taking measures to quell the rioters. The Mahatma went out of his way to refer to the Moplah murderers as "my brave Moplahs", and expressed admiration for their religious fervor. After 1947, Moplah rioters were classified as freedom fighters and made eligible for pensions paid by the government of Independent India. And every year, to this very day, the Khilafat Movement is commemorated by a massive procession, in Bombay, in which many Leftists and secularists participate along with Muslims.
Rajiv Gandhi, just before he became the Prime Minister, had participated in this annual procession (as has practically every secularist politician), and throughout the route, his jeep was followed by crowds of fanatical Muslims chanting "Rajiv Gandhi, accept Islam and become a Muslim". Pictures and news of this procession were publicized all over the country, including the government controlled TV, in order to demonstrate secularist solidarity with all Pan-Islamic causes, old and new.
Incidentally, this was around the same time as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad sponsored the Gangajal Ekatmata Yajna Rathayatra, for national integration. This grand spectacle, covering all parts of the country and with participation by crores and crores of patriotic Indians, was totally blacked out by the official news media!
Today, it is the Palestinian issue which constitutes the major Pan-Islamic "cause" occupying Indian Muslim minds. To Indian Muslims and therefore, naturally also to Indian Leftists and secularists, the alleged occupation by Israel of Palestinian Arab land (actually the land rightfully belongs to the Jews) is a more important issue than the actual occupation of Indian land by China and Pakistan. While India has had diplomatic relations with China and Pakistan, and is constantly striving to establish friendly relations with these two countries leaving in cold storage the issue of Indian territories occupied by them, it did not have diplomatic relations with Israel until very recently, and was always ready to join, or even lead, the Islamic countries in condemning and isolating Israel. (The fact that India did establish relations with Israel is a testimony to the Big Brother's clout in the new world order, rather than to India's own sense of national interest or fair play.)
After every Indo-Pakistan war to date, India has emerged the victor. But in response to the Pakistani loyalties of India's Muslims, India's cowardly politicians have surrendered on the conference table what India's brave soldiers had won on the battlefield.
The foreign loyalties of Indian Christians are not so open and direct as in the case of Indian Muslims. The main reasons for this are:
1. Christian countries, today, do not, either individually or en bloc, function as "Christian" countries in the same way as Muslim countries function as "Islamic" countries; nor are fundamentalist Christian principles as much at the helm of affairs in Christian countries, as are fundamentalist Islamic principles in so many Muslim countries. Christian society at large, in the modem western world, has not retained the fundamentalist fervor of the medieval ages. There are no Christian causes agitating the Christian world as there is a never-ending supply of Islamic causes.
2. Christians in India are not as many in number as the Muslims. Nor are they so violence-prone as to adopt confrontationist stands in pursuance of foreign loyalties. They have not tasted blood, as the Muslims did in 1947, and do not have a ready-made candidate for their political loyalties, as the Muslims do in the form of Pakistan.
But the truth remains that foreign loyalties of Indian Christians are no less strong than those of Indian Muslims. Every Christian church, whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, and every Christian group or sect, is systematically organized in a hierarchical structure, with its headquarters situated in a foreign country (in Europe or in the USA). The Christian flock in India is more religious and devout than the dwindling Christian flock in the West, and more susceptible to the controls of its mentors abroad.
Till the end of the eighteenth century, the white man and the Christian churches were equal partners in Imperialism. But after the rise of Secularism in the modem West, the churches have lost their hold on the state, and Christianity is mainly meant for export to "third world" countries. The churches have been reduced from equal partners to employees. Thus while Indian Christians have religious loyalties towards the churches, these churches have political affiliations with Western governments. The Indian Christians, thus, have direct foreign religious loyalties and indirect foreign political affiliations.
The indirect affiliations are no less sinister, so far as India's integrity and security are concerned, as a study of the political situation in the tribal areas controlled by foreign missionaries (especially in the North-East, and in Bihar) will show. The Muslim tendency to take to the streets, in support of foreign Islamic causes, is often matched by the Christian tendency to take to the streets (though, usually, less violently) in support of foreign, and foreign controlled, missionaries and their activities.
Secularist pandering to foreign loyalties of Christians is of recent origin as compared to similar pandering to foreign loyalties of Muslims. While Muslims were being pandered to even before the days of the Khilafat agitation, similar indulgence was not shown to Indian Christians before 1947, because the Christians were, by and large, allied with the British. This, perhaps, explains why Mahatma Gandhi, who had nothing but praise for even the ugliest aspects of Islam, was forthright in his criticism of the unsavory aspects of Christianity.
After 1947, secularist politicians and intellectuals have more than made up for lost time, so far as pandering to the foreign loyalties of Christians is concerned. The flourishing conversion business carried on by foreign missionaries in every nook and corner of India (gaining separatist colors wherever possible), and the royal treatment given to the Pope, during his last visit to India, are two instances of which way the wind is blowing.
FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
The fact of there being Muslims and Christians in India, and their potential for functioning as fifth-columns, leads, naturally, to foreign interference. Every year, thousands of crores of rupees pour into India from Muslims as well as Christians abroad. This figure is not an exaggeration. When the question of foreign funds received by Muslim and Christian organizations was raised in the Lok Sabha, (as per the Organiser of 6.9.87): "according to figures provided by the government to the MPs... in 1984... Rs. 253.98 crores ...in 1986... Rs. 434.10 crores... P. Chidambaram, Minister of State for Home. admitted that the amounts mentioned are an underestimation of the foreign funds actually received."
The actual amounts received through several channels are several times the official figure. Consider the rise in amount, of the official figure itself, between 1984 and 1986, and one can imagine what the figure must have been for subsequent years.
The Muslim organizations receive their money from:
a. The oil-rich governments in West Asia.
b. International Islamic organizations like the World Islamic Bank.
c. Pakistani Intelligence agencies.
The Christian organizations receive their money from:
a. Western governments' contributions to missionary activities.
b. The Catholic and Protestant churches, as well as the fundamentalist Christian sects mushrooming in the West (especially the USA).
c. Contributions by the devout flock in Western countries.
d. Western intelligence agencies, and their front organizations, particularly the various foundations.
All these massive funds are received and utilized for the following purposes:
a. Proselytization and religious propaganda.
b. Building mosques and churches in every nook and corner of the country.
c. Buying up prime land in urban and rural areas.
d. Buying up politicians, pressmen, and government officials and setting up front organizations which masquerade as social service organizations, civil rights organizations, and so on.
e. Funding fundamentalist organizations, indoctrination activities and religious agitations.
f. Funding secessionist organizations and causes.
Need it be elaborated as to why we have continuous religious strife and turmoil in India?
The Leftist and secularist response to all this must be noted:
1. They turn a blind eye to both the funds as well as the activities carried on with these funds.
2. At the same time, they actually supplement the massive funds received by Muslim and Christian organizations from abroad, in three ways—indirect, covert, and direct
a. Indirect: They save Muslim and Christian organizations plenty of expenses by themselves taking on, in the name of "secularism", "national integration", "civil rights" etc., many of the activities which these organizations would otherwise have had to take up on a larger scale. These activities include defending, whitewashing, and even glorifying these organizations and their activities; maligning and persecuting Hindu organizations; blackening Hindu religion, culture and ethos; stirring up conflicts and enmities between different sections of Hindus, etc.
b. Covert: Secularist government policies effectively emasculate Hindu organizations financially by having different rules for the "minorities" and the "majority". Thus, for example, temple funds are controlled by the government (and even utilized for secularist activities), but mosque and church funds are not; various land-ceiling and other acts are applicable to Hindu temple properties but not to mosque or church properties; and various tax concessions and other monetary facilities, available for Muslim and Christian institutions, are not available for Hindu institutions.
c. Direct: The Central and State governments contribute directly, under various account headings, and in the form of prime land, to Muslim and Christian organizations. Thus, prime land is donated to Christian missionary organizations for "charitable" activities (for example, "Pawar hands over land to Teresa in City" screams a title in The Times of India, Bombay, of 13.12.88, and adds, "CM Sharad Pawar handed over a 9000 sq. m. plot at Borivali to Mother Teresa on a lease of 99 years for her missionaries of Charity") and funds are doled out under various pretexts: for repairing mosques (V.P. Singh's gift of 50 lakh rupees to the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid is a prominent example), for the development of Urdu, and so on.
However, foreign interference does not stop at pouring in thousands of crores of rupees annually for subversive activities. Christian governments in the West openly apply pressure on the Indian Government in the name of civil rights, human rights, and minority rights. Muslim countries do not bother to indulge in these subterfuges, and openly issue warnings to the Indian Government in the name of Islamic solidarity.
Similarly, international Muslim organizations, representing the powerful Islamic nations, and international Christian organizations, representing the powerful churches and fundamentalist sects, regularly hold meetings and conferences, and issue publications in which master-plans and super-strategies for convening India into a Dar-al-Islam or Land of Christ, are openly discussed, and massive budgets allocated for the purpose.
FOREIGN CULTURE
Islam and Christianity create a process of cultural de-Indianization. The converts, unable to change their blood and their racial features, make do with changing as much of their culture as possible. So far as Islam is concerned, there is a very specific concept, central to the religion, which brands the culture of pre-Muslims everywhere as Jahiliya (darkness) which must undergo tabligh (cultural Islamization or Arabization). Christianity has become less blatant about it in recent years.
1. To begin with, Muslims adopt Arabic, Persian or even Turkish names. Similarly, Christians adopt Hebrew (Biblical) or European names.
2. Muslims liberally lace their speech with Arabic, Persian and Turkish words. Whenever they become the majority in any linguistic group (Kashmiri and Sindhi, for example), they drop the original Indian script and adopt the modified Arabic script; and they do the same thing whenever they reach sizable proportions among the speakers of any major language (Urdu, which is nothing but de-Indianized Hindi in the Arabic script, for example, and Punjabi as it is written in Pakistan).
Arabic and Persian replace Sanskrit, in their eyes, as their classical languages. Christians also tend to adopt English as their mother tongue whenever possible. The state language of Nagaland is English. Christians in Goa, though they now also promote their particular dialect of Konkani, in the Roman script, flaunt English or Portuguese as their co-mother tongues.
3. In matters of dress, Muslims try to identify, as far as possible, with the Muslims of West Asia, and Christians with the Christians of the West. The typical beard, fez-cap, and costume, as worn by most Muslim men, and the burqas, worn by most Muslim women, present a picture which could just as well belong to Iran or Morocco.
4. The religious music of Islam (if the wailing of the muezzin may be called that), is West Asian. Christian church music is European music. So far as secular (non-religious) music is concerned, Islam prohibits it; hence the music of Muslims in India is, by and large, Indian music, though there are some fundamentalist Muslims who consciously try to borrow from Arabic and Persian music.
In the case of Christians, however, European music and dance constitute their music and dance. The music may be anything from Western classical music to Western folk music to modern Western music. The moment a community becomes Christian, the guitar becomes a symbol of their musical identity. Only the language distinguishes the guitar-strumming "folk songs" of the Goan Christians from the guitar-strumming "folk songs" of Christian tribals in the Northeast. In dance also, the Indian Christian identifies with every form of Western dancing, from ballroom dances to folk dances (viz. Portuguese folk dances among Goan Christians) to modern Western dances.
5. Mosques are built in the architectural styles of West Asia, and churches in the architectural styles of Europe. As far as possible, Muslims and Christians, who can afford it, build their houses, and model their localities, in the style of houses and localities in West Asia and Europe, respectively.
Thus conversion to Islam and Christianity leads to a conscious and deliberate attempt to acquire the cultural trappings of the foreign centres of religious inspiration. This is not only in respect of names, languages and scripts, dress, music, dance, and architectural styles, but even in respect of aesthetic and philosophical concepts, and social manners and styles (from styles of greeting to styles of eating).
It must be remembered that, ultimately, every religion is rooted in the cultural and environmental ethos of its land of origin. If Hinduism .uses rice, coconuts, bananas and plantain leaves, areca nuts, tulsi leaves, turmeric etc. as the materials for its religious rituals, these are all Indian materials. It is inconceivable that a religion originating in, say, Finland, Mexico, or Australia, would have used those same materials in its religious rituals. This same rule applies to the entire range of customs and rituals, whether religious or secular (non-religious). If Islam visualized a Paradise with camels, date palms, cool springs and oases and if Christians of Northern Europe visualized a Santa Claus riding a reindeer-drawn sleigh across snowy slopes, these visualizations were rooted in the cultural ethos and natural environment of Arabia and northern Europe respectively.
When Indian Muslims and Christians identify with the cultural ethos of their respective religions, they are in fact ceasing to identify with the cultural ethos and natural environment of India, and identifying themselves with the cultural ethos and natural environment of West Asia and Palestine-Europe respectively.
If one finds different degrees of cultural lndianness still extant among different sections of Indian Muslims and Christians in different parts of India, it is not because of Islam and Christianity, but in spite of them. It is not that these Indian Muslims and Christians have adopted or continued to retain these aspects of Indian culture, but that they have not, as yet, completed the full process of cultural de-Indianization which seems to follow as a natural corollary of their religious identity. In the case of Muslims. there are many fundamentalist organizations propagating, and in some areas, enforcing, tabligh; and this cultural de-Indianization is an accelerating process.
Some sections of Christians have made a conscious attempt to culturally Indianize certain aspects of their rituals and customs. However, these attempts have only served to highlight the fundamental nature of the cultural de-Indianization caused by conversion, since
1. These attempts are being made by a very small section of Christians, and are being resisted or ignored by the overwhelming majority;
2. These attempts cover only some superficial aspects of culture, leaving most of the other aspects untouched,
3. Almost all these attempts are very obviously a matter of strategy, intended solely to give a boost to further conversions. The Leftist and secularist response to this cultural de-Indianization has been very positive. Indian Leftists bear a bitter, almost psychopathic hatred towards Hinduism and Indian culture. Nothing could delight the Indian Leftists more than de-Hinduization and cultural de-Indianization of India. Very early, in the pre-1947 days, Leftist had planted a concept called "national integration based on a composite culture" into the ideological language of the nation. Since then, this concept has been causing havoc in the realm of indigenous Indian culture.
This concept, of "national integration based on a composite culture", constitutes the very life-blood of secularist "ideology". There are three stages of this concept
1. The first stage, the primary stage, is represented by the familiar "Hindu-Muslim-Isai" syndrome. According to this, the Arabic-West-Asian culture of Islam, the Palestinian-European culture of Christianity, and the Indian culture of Hinduism, represent the three components of our "composite" Indian culture. (The introduction of the "Sikh" as a fourth angle to this triangle, was a side-development, intended to firmly separate Sikhs from other Hindus, and bring them closer to Muslims. That this part of the conspiracy has been a roaring success needs no elaboration here). This first stage of the concept has been very effectively instilled into the mind of the average Hindu, through the medium of
a. Textbooks.
b. Entertainment media.
c. Political and intellectual propaganda.
Needless to say, it is only the Hindu mind which is sought to be influenced through these media. The average Muslim and Christian has his own sources of inspiration, in his religious indoctrination, and in the regular mosque, and church, congregations. The "Amar-Akbar-Anthony" brand of film propaganda has always been an indispensable feature of our Film industry. It has served to highlight this "composite" culture, by presenting stereotypes of blatantly West-Asianized Muslims and blatantly Europeanized Christians, insisting all the time on the "Indianness" of these stereotypes. This first stage is meant for the average man-on-the-street. This is not the place to give details of the various facets of this propaganda. since no Indian, whether or not he is willing to go along with it, can be unaware of it. Even the Mahabharata, on TV, began every part by flashing the name in three scripts: Indian, English and Arabic.
2. Then we come to the second stage. According to this, the West Asian culture of Islam is the best representative of the Pan-Indian culture.
yahan hamara Taj Mahal hai, our Kutub.Minara hai
dur hato ai duniyawalo Hindustan hamara hai
This was the catchy refrain in the popular patriotic film song from the pre-partition film Kismat. In this second stage, the "Amar" aspect of the "composite" culture is slowly diluted and downgraded, and the "Akbar" aspect is glorified and upgraded; hence, the propaganda must, necessarily, be more subtle than the "Amar-Akbar-Anthony" brand of propaganda.
When two persons meet, in a Hindi film, and one is a Hindu and the other a Muslim, they do not greet one another with namaste or Ram Ram: nor does one say namaste and the other assalam 'aleykum (nor in fact, do they refrain altogether from formal greetings); both greet each other with adab arz hai or assalam 'aleykum. When a Hindu, in a Hindi film, is faced with some great affliction, he starts doing the rounds, turn by turn, of a temple, a mosque, and a church, but a Muslim or Christian is never shown finding it necessary to approach other shrines. These are just two of many examples—each subtle by itself, perhaps not even consciously noticed in spite of their repeated occurrence—which, in the cumulative effect, serve to create the intended psychological environment.
The entertainment media have played no mean role in carrying on this brand of propaganda. The calculated glorification of Urdu, of Lucknow tehzib, of the Mughals, of gazals and qawwalis, etc., and the subtle ridicule of Sanskritized Hindi, has been a basic feature of the Hindi film industry. Again, this is not the place to give details of the various facets of this propaganda, which is a subject in itself.
3. The third stage is the final stage. This is the highest and most refined stage of all. At this stage, every aspect of India's mainstream culture, which existed in India prior to the arrival of Islamic culture from West Asia, represents "communalism".
Thus, it is perfectly secular for Indian politicians to don fez caps, visit mosques, perform namāz to clicking cameras, etc. But it is "communal", for them to visit temples, or bow down before Hindu holy men, or to wave ārtīs or break coconuts while inaugurating a function, since the customs of visiting temples, bowing before holy men, waving ārtīs, and breaking coconuts, all existed in India before the arrival of Islam from West Asia.
This last, and ultimate stage of "secularism" and "national integration based on a composite culture", can be fully comprehended only by the ideologically most advanced sections of Indians — the Leftists.
When the Ramayana was being shown as a serial on TV, Leftist and progressive artists, led by doughty warriors like A.K. Hangal and Dina Pathak, organized a march in Bombay to protest against this "communal" act of Doordarshan (Rama being a pre-Islamic Indian hero, any serial on him would obviously be a "communal" one). Addressing a rally at the conclusion of the march, Dina Pathak bitterly castigated Doordarshan for showing another "communal" item on its network—a report of the archaeological discovery, by Dr. S.R. Rao, of the remains of ancient Dwarka, under the sea, off the coast of Gujarat (Dwarka, having sunk under the sea long before the birth of Islam, any report on it would obviously be a "communal" one). Need we say more?
CHAPTER THREE
HINDUISM AS AN "ARYAN" RELIGION AND THE "ARYANS" AS FOREIGNERS
The third principle of Leftist propaganda is that, whether or not Hinduism can be shown to be a "foreign" religion, the Aryans were certainly foreign invaders; and Hinduism was their religion, which they forcibly imposed on the indigenous Dravidians.
Based on this, the Leftists have two pieces of advice to give—the first, to a section of Hindus, and the second, to Hindus as a whole:
1. The "Dravidians" (that is, the people speaking Dravidian languages today; as well as the lower castes and tribals among the Aryan-language speakers, who were also originally "Dravidians") must reject this legacy of a religion imposed upon them by their enemies.
2. Hindus must stop carping at the proselytization activities of Islam and Christianity, and harping on the tolerance of Hinduism.
For the purpose of this chapter, let us put aside the question of whether any "Aryans" did or did not invade India (which question will be dealt with in the third section of this book), and let us examine whether, as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, Hinduism is an "Aryan" religion.
Hinduism has generally been accepted, by protagonists of the theory, as a fusion of the "Aryan" and the "Dravidian" religions. Suniti Kumar Chatterji has listed some of the features of Hinduism, which are supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin (mainly "Dravidian", sometimes "Austric").
As a study of the material, presented therein, will show, almost every aspect of Hinduism as we know it today, certainly every feature central to the religion, is supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. The "Aryans" are supposed to be "worshippers of the elements" (fire, air, water, sky). The ritual worship of fire, in the form of yajñas, is supposed to be the "Aryan" form of worship.
1. The entire system of idol-worship, which today forms the very essence of popular Hinduism, is supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin.
Thus, the worship of consecrated idols is of "pre-Aryan" origin, whether of
a. the lingam; or
b. "rude blocks of stone" with eyes painted on them; or
c. roughly, or finely, carved, or cast, images of stone, metal or some other material.
The concept of gṛhadevatās and grāmadevatās (family deities and village deities) is of "pre-Aryan" origin. The entire process of idol-worship is of "pre-Aryan" origin:
a. treating the idols as living beings; bathing, dressing and feeding them, putting them to sleep, etc.;
b. performing pūjā by offering flowers, water, and fruits, bananas, coconuts, clothes and ornaments to the idols;
c. performing āratī by waving lights in front of the idols;
d. performing music and dance before the idols;
e. partaking of prasād, of food offered to the idols. The entire system of idol-temples and pilgrim-centres, with sacred tanks and bathing-ghats, and of temple festivals, with palanquins and chariots, is of "pre-Aryan" origin.
2. The use of sandalpaste, turmeric, and vermilion (sindūr), for smearing on the idols, and on the foreheads of worshippers, is of "pre-Aryan" origin. From this, it follows that two very fundamental outward symbols of Hinduism today, are also of "pre-Aryan" origin:
a. The tilak marks (of whatever material) on the forehead.
b. The sacred saffron colour, and, by implication, also the saffron flag.
3. The idea of soul, and the concept of transmigration of souls, and rebirth, is supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. This concept forms a very fundamental aspect of Hindu philosophy, and is the one concept accepted by all the schools of Hindu philosophy (except the carvaka and other nastika schools of thought), including the Buddhist and the Jain schools of thought.
4. The enumeration of the days by the phases of the moon, the tithis, is also supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. The importance of the pañcāṅga (the annual calendar based on the tithis), in ritualistic Hinduism, can never be underestimated.
5. Zoomorphic aspects of Hinduism are also supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. These cover:
a. The worship of certain animals, birds and reptiles;
b. The concept of God coming down to earth in the form of zoomorphic avatāras (Narasiṁha, Kūrma, Matsya, Varāha; and, incidentally, the very concept of God coming down to earth in the form of avatāras is itself of "pre-Aryan" origin).
c. The concept of every God and Goddess having a "vehicle" (Viṣṇu's Garuḍa, Ganeśa's mouse, Kārtikeya's peacock, Śiva's bull, Durgā's lion, etc).
6. Of all the Hindu Gods and Goddesses, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, and Śiva constitute the trinity. From another angle, Śiva, Viṣṇu, and Śakti (the Mother Goddess, also called Umā , Durgā, Ambā, Pārvatī, etc) constitute a trinity, since all Hindu sects are broadly classified into Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, and Śākta. Gaṇeśa is the God whom it is considered necessary to invoke before any other God. Kṛṣṇa is probably the single most popular God among the Hindu masses. Of these, Brahmā — the only God who is very little worshipped, having hardly one or two known temples devoted to him in the whole of India — is presumably the only "Aryan" God. All the others are supposed to be either wholly or partially "Dravidian". Śiva, Śakti, Gaṇeśa, are all supposed to be wholly "Dravidian". Viṣṇu is "partly Aryan, a form of the Sun God, and partly at least the deity is of Dravidian affinity as a Sky-God whose colour was of the blue sky. (cf. Tamil vin 'sky' and the Middle IA or Prakrit form of Viṣṇu, which was Vinhu, Venhu)" (HCIP, p. 160). Kṛṣṇa also "represents, partly at least, a Dravidian God of Youth, who has later been identified with Visnu as an incarnation of his" (HCIP, p. 161). Kārtikeya and Hanumān are also of "pre-Aryan" origin.
7. The legends and stories in the Puranas represent the rich ethos of Hindu tradition. "Myths and legends of Gods and Heroes current among the Austrics and Dravidians, long antedating the period of Aryan advent in India (c. 1500 BC) survived the Aryan impact [...] (were) rendered into the Aryan languages... and it is these myths and legends of Gods, kings and sages, which we largely find in the Puranas [….] (these) can be properly understood as cases of rendering in the Aryan's language of pre-Aryan material" (HCIP, p. 165).
In addition to all the above, there are many minor mythological and philosophical concepts, and socio-religious rituals (for example, the concept of the "evil eye", and rituals for its removal) which are supposed to be of "pre-Aryan" origin. Hathayoga and Ayurveda are also supposed to be "pre-Aryan" in origin. To all this, one may add two more aspects, referred to in the previous chapter
1. Hinduism has several sacred cities and many sacred shrines, rivers, mountains, lakes and tanks, all of which are located in India. It is obvious that the "Aryans" could not have brought these along with them. Therefore, these must have been sacred to the "pre-Aryans" as well.
2. Hinduism uses a very wide range of materia botanica (coconuts, bananas, rice, sandalwood, turmeric, etc.), in its rituals and ceremonies, not one of which is alleged to have been brought in by the "Aryans" from outside. Therefore, these materials must have been used in those very rituals by the "pre-Aryans" as well.
After all this, how much remains, of Hinduism, which can be classified as "Aryan"? According to the Aryan invasion theory itself, Hinduism is practically a "pre-Aryan", and more specifically a "Dravidian", religion adopted by the "Aryans".
DRAVIDIANS: HINDUISM VS. ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY
A certain section of die-hard Leftists in the extreme south had decided, well before 1947, to make political and ideological capital out of the very first premise of the Aryan invasion theory, namely, that Aryans invaded India and drove the Dravidians south. Starting under the name "Justice Party", this section floated the "Dravida Kalagam" (DK), claiming to represent a movement of, by, and for, the "Dravidians", to liberate them from "Aryan dominance". This philosophy today constitutes the dominant political current in Tamil Nadu, with the DMK and the AIADMK, linear descendants of the DK, dominating the political scene. Hatred for Brahmins, Sanskrit, Hindi, and Hinduism, forms the main plank of this "Dravidian Movement". Moreover, this movement has always entered into an alliance with Islam and Christianity, and against Hinduism.
This political philosophy is now being propagated on a war footing, all over India, by a grand alliance of fundamentalist Islamic and Christian forces, and rabid Leftists of every kind. "Dravidians" all over India arc being exhorted to throw off the shackles of "Aryan imperialism" as represented by Hinduism, and to align with Islam and Christianity. The term, "Dravidian", is supposed to include all tribals, and all Aryan-language speaking "lower" castes!
It is true that there has been exploitation and oppression of certain sections of Hindus by certain other sections of Hindus, but that really has little to do with Hinduism, and certainly nothing whatsoever to do with the "Aryan-Dravidian" question.
Let us, therefore, examine the contention that "Dravidians" (that is, sections of Hindus, branded as "Dravidians", in opposition to other sections, branded as "Aryans") must reject Hinduism, as an "Aryan" imposition on them, and align with Islam and Christianity, since their greater affinity lies with Islam and Christianity.
Firstly, it has already been demonstrated that, as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, almost all the fundamental features of Hinduism are supposed to be "pre-Aryan" (and specifically "Dravidian"). So, even if there happen to be some other features of Hinduism which are "Aryan" (the "Aryan" features ultimately boil down to the Sanskrit language and the Vedic texts, Vedic rituals, and Vedic gods, sages and personalities), there is still no logical reason, whatsoever, why "Dravidians" should be expected to feel a greater affinity towards totally alien religions like Islam and Christianity, than towards Hinduism, or even towards the particular "Aryan" features of Hinduism.
Secondly, a study of the fundamental features which differentiate Hinduism from Islam and Christianity, particularly features which arouse the animosity of Muslim and Christian theologians, proves very instructive. It shows that it is the "Dravidian" features of Hinduism, towards which the theologies of Islam and Christianity harbor the greatest hatred.
The differences between Hinduism, on the one hand, and Islam and Christianity, on the other, fall into three categories:
1. Geography-based differences.
2. Social-system-based differences.
3. Religious-concept-based differences.
Geography-based differences
These have been elaborated in the previous chapter. It is inconceivable that any genuine "Dravidian" movement should consider itself closer to Islam and Christianity, than to Hinduism, on any of the points which constitute the geography-based differences. The reason why Hindu Nationalists identify with Hinduism, rather than with Islam and Christianity, and why anti-national elements (like the Leftists) identify with Islam and Christianity rather than with Hinduism, is precisely because Hinduism is Indian, and Islam and Christianity are foreign.
The "Aryan" elements in Hinduism (the Sanskrit language and the Vedic texts) fall in this category. Muslim and Christian theologians may well resent the Vedic texts, as they would resent the religious texts of any religion other than their own, including each other's religious texts; but the Vedic texts are not the objects of their strongest religious ire. The Sanskrit language also, although they (especially the Muslims, who have a foreign "sacred language" of their own) might resent it being considered a sacred language, is not a major object of their religious ire.
There is no reason at all why any "Dravidian" movement should resent the Vedic texts or the Sanskrit language. The Vedic texts are just Hindu texts from the northwest, just as there are various other Hindu texts from various other parts of India (including Tamil texts from Tamil Nadu). Their importance lies in their being the oldest Hindu texts extant, and in their being in the oldest extant form of Sanskrit, the sacred language of Hinduism. If the sole objection of the "Dravidian" movement to Hinduism is that Sanskrit (another Indian language) is the sacred language of Hinduism ( a religion, which, as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, is practically a "Dravidian" one), this unreasonable objection totally exposes the movement.
Social-system-based differences
The basic difference, in this category, lies in the Indian caste-system which is not found in Islam and Christianity outside India. The caste system (whatever may have been its original form, and whatever role it may be alleged to have played in preserving Hindu society through the vicissitudes of foreign invasions) is, in its nastier aspects, the bane of Hinduism and Indian society. This system, however, is a social system, and is not really a central aspect of Hinduism, although vested interests down the centuries have strived, with great success, to identify it with Hinduism.
It is a feature, of Hindu society, which every genuine Hindu, and Hindu Nationalist organization (like the RSS), has sought to wipe out, or at least, to neutralize; and which every Leftist and secularist politician and intellectual, and Muslim and Christian force, has tried to strengthen and perpetuate with the full, conscious or unconscious, cooperation of the vested interests among the various castes. That the Hindu who belongs to an oppressed section should resent his oppressors is natural. But that he should resent and turn against the religion, culture and national ethos of his oppressors, which also happen to be his own religion, culture and national ethos, is ridiculous. It is like a man, oppressed by his brother, resenting and turning against his own mother, who is also being oppressed by the brother, simply because she also happens to be the mother of his oppressor. The unsavory aspects of Islam and Christianity are intrinsic to those religions, since the very founders of the two religions (Muhammad and "St." Paul respectively) had instilled those aspects into them. However. Hinduism has no founder. Hinduism is not a religion in the same sense as Islam and Christianity. It is in fact the religious personification of India's cultural ethos, and any evils, introduced into it in the course of time by perverted persons or vested interests who may have happened to be Hindus. cannot be considered intrinsic to Hinduism.
And the caste system certainly does not have anything to do with any "Aryan-Dravidian" divide. Today Tamil Nadu is one of the states leading in atrocities on the lower castes and tribals, and the perpetrators of these atrocities also belong to castes which are considered hardcore "Dravidian" castes.
Muslim and Christian theologians have nothing against the caste system. To them, in fact, it is a treasury of weapons and tools—weapons to attack Hinduism, and tools to prise out sections of Hindus into their own folds. Only a knave would claim, and a fool believe, that Islam and Christianity are morally concerned about the injustices of the caste system. Caste prejudice is notoriously as strong among Christian converts as among their Hindu counterparts.
As for Islam, consider the attitude of Shah Waliullah (18th century), one of the very topmost interpreters of true Islam, as recorded by S.A.A. Rizwi in his, "Shah Wali-Allah and His Times", 1980: "The proselytization of Shah Wali-Allah only included the leaders of the Hindu community. The low class of the infidels, according to him, were to be left alone to work in the fields and for paying jiziya. They, like beasts of burden and agricultural livestock, were to be kept in abject misery and despair."
Religious-concept-based Differences
These are basically four in number:
a. Semitic exclusivism vs. Hindu universalism.
b. Semitic non-vegetarianism vs. Hindu vegetarianism
c. Semitic iconoclasm vs. Hindu idol-worship.
d. Semitic belief in single-life vs. Hindu belief in multiple lives.
a. Exclusivism vs. Universalism:
The basic difference between Semitic religions and Hinduism is that Semitic religions are exclusivist, while Hinduism is universalist.
Islam declares that there is only one God, Allah, represented by his Last (and greatest) prophet, Muhammad. Belief in Muhammad as the only spokesman of the only God, Allah, is the only path to salvation. All other paths lead to damnation.
Christianity declares that there is only one God — Jehovah — represented by his "only-begotten son" —Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of the only God, Jehovah, is the only path to salvation. All other paths lead to damnation.
Hinduism, on the other hand, allows that all paths if followed sincerely lead to salvation. (A full analysis of this contrast between Semitic religions and Hinduism is given by Ram Swarup in "Hinduism vis-a-vis Christianity and Islam", and by Sita Ram Goel in "Defence of Hindu Society".)
Islam and Christianity inherited their exclusivist base from their parent, Judaism. But they added a revolutionary new ingredient to it, viz. Proselytization: the sacred duty of thrusting "salvation" down the throat of every single human being unfortunate enough to be traversing any of the various "paths to damnation". The proselytizing zeal of Islam and Christianity, down the ages, has resulted in death and destruction for millions of people, hundreds of religions, cultures and civilizations, and a major part of the world's cultural heritage.
As per the Aryan invasion theory itself, universalism was a basic feature of the belief-system of both the "Aryans" as well as the "Dravidians". And the exclusivist Semitic zeal of Islam and Christianity has no respect for the religious concepts of any other section of humanity: neither "Aryan" nor "Dravidian" nor Sinitic, nor African, nor Red Indian, nor Australian aboriginal, nor pagan European, nor any other.
There is, therefore, no conceivable reason whatsoever why "Dravidians" should be expected to fed closer to Islam and Christianity on the basis of this very fundamental religious attitude (exclusivist vs. universalist), than to Hinduism. This fact will become very much clearer when we consider the next three religious concepts. These three concepts constitute those features of Hinduism which (and especially the last two) arouse the deepest hatred and ire of Semitic theologies, and all of them, as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, are very definitely "Dravidian" and equally definitely not "Aryan".
b. Non-Vegetarianism vs. Vegetarianism:
Non-vegetarianism is a basic feature of Semitic religions. While Christianity did not retain the Judaic system of ritualistic slaughter of animals, Islam not only retained it, but even made it compulsory. However, so far as vegetarianism is concerned, the concept is as alien to Christianity as it is to Judaism and Islam. Islam, in fact, specifically prohibits vegetarianism (Sahih Muslim, hadis 3236) along with celibacy and physical austerity. And both Islam and Christianity require that a convert from another religion be compelled to eat the flesh of the particular animal prohibited by his earlier religion, in order to set the seal on his conversion. (For this, also, Islam provides specific precedents, as, for example, an incident quoted from Tabqāt-i-ibn Sa'd by Ram Swarup in "Understanding Islam through Hadis" p. 191).
Hinduism, on the other hand (including its major sects like Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, and barring only some minor sects and cults) considers vegetarianism to be a major virtue.
The "Aryans", however, are supposed to have been non-vegetarians. The Leftists are never tired of declaring that the "Vedic Aryans" were meat-eaters and even beef-eaters. Vegetarianism was introduced as an ethical reform by Buddha and Mahavir, and has been an intrinsic part of Hindu ethics ever since. But as per the Aryan invasion theory itself, vegetarianism was an important concept among "pre-Aryan Dravidians".
The concept of vegetarianism has deeper connotations. It is based on a basic respect and reverence for all forms of life. Along with the zoomorphic aspects of Hinduism, and the concept of transmigration of souls into animals and plants, it represents a practical manifestation of the basic Hindu philosophy of Pantheism, which is anathema to Semitic religions. These religions believe in a man-centered creation, devoid of inherent divinity, with the plant and animal kingdoms, in fact the whole of nature, created by God for use and exploitation by man.
c. Iconoclasm vs. Idol-worship:
Iconoclasm is another basic feature of Islam and Christianity. In both religions (as in Judaism) Polytheism and idol-worship constitute the most cardinal of sins: any and every sin can be forgiven by God (i.e. Allah or Jehovah) but not these two. Idol-worship constitutes the most blatant form of Polytheism, so far as Semitic religions are concerned, and (in spite of the Catholic icons of Jesus, Mary and various saints and angels, the Protestant Cross and the Muslim Kaaba, all of which are also idols of a kind) both Islam and Christianity extol iconoclasm and condemn idol-worship. And each of the two has an encyclopedic history of iconoclastic activities.
Hinduism, on the other hand (and this includes Mahayana Buddhism and Jainism), is an unashamedly idol-worshipping religion. This includes also the Sikhism of the Gurus, although the present-day Semiticization brought about by "Sikh" scholars and extremists (earlier, under British directions, and now under Pakistani directions) would appear to indicate otherwise.
The "Aryans", however, are supposed to have been not only non-idol-worshippers, but actually against idol-worship. Witness the iconoclastic stance (which only just stops short of actual idol-breaking in the Semitic style) of certain sections of the Arya Samaj, today, which have allowed the Aryan invasion theorists to dictate their ideas of "Aryan" religion and culture. (In the popular TV serial, Buniyad, which relates the story of Hindu refugees from Pakistan, the Arya-Samajist heroine, Lajwanti, is full of praise for the beauties of Islam, but she frowns heavily on the hero, Haveliram, for being willing, in spite of his being a convert to the Arya Samaj, to attend a Satyanarayana Puja at his own parents' house).
As per the Aryan invasion theory itself, the entire system of idol-worship in Hinduism, in all its different dimensions, is "Dravidian" in origin.
d. Belief in Single Life vs. Belief in Multiple Lives:
Islam and Christianity believe in one single life, followed by a state of coma, until the Yaum-ul-Ākhir, the last day of Qayāmat, the Day of Judgement. On this day, God (Allah or Jehovah) will raise all the souls from their state of coma, and dispatch them either to an eternal heaven (to enjoy endless joys and pleasures forever) or an eternal hell (to suffer endless pain and tortures forever), depending upon the deeds of the soul during its one single life.
Hinduism, on the other hand, believes in transmigration of souls and repeated rebirth, each birth depending upon the sum total of deeds in previous lives, until each soul achieves liberation from the cycle of birth and death. There are different opinions, among different schools of Hindu philosophy, about the precise nature, procedure, mechanism, and other details of this repeated rebirth and ultimate liberation, but the basic concept is common to all schools of Hindu thought (including the Buddhist and Jain), except certain nāstika schools.
It is difficult to say which of the two prospects is more attractive: the prospect of an eternal heaven after a single life on this earth, or the prospect of ultimate liberation for all souls; and which is more frightening and terrible: the prospect of an eternal hell after a single life on this earth, or the prospect of repeated rebirths and indefinite number of lives on this earth.
Any comparison of the two concepts, however, is rendered superfluous by the fact that the Islamic-Christian concept is inextricably interwoven with the exclusivist concept: the only "sin" which ultimately leads to eternal hell is the "sin" of not being a believer; the soul of the believer, whatever be the magnitude of his sins, reaches eternal heaven.
However, the Vedic Aryans are not supposed to have had any particular or strong beliefs about life after death and certainly no ideas of rebirth. As per the Aryan invasion theory itself, belief in transmigration of souls and rebirth is "Dravidian" and "Austric" in origin.
In short, those features of Hinduism (most notably idol-worship, zoomorphy, vegetarianism, rebirth and transmigration, ultimate liberation for all, etc.) which contrast most sharply with the most fundamental Semitic dogmas and which, therefore, arouse the most vitriolic and righteous ire of Islam and Christianity, are supposed to be specifically "Dravidian" and definitely "non-Aryan". What is one to make, therefore, of a "Dravidian" movement which aligns with Islam and Christianity against Hinduism, and whose activists go around breaking idols and desecrating Hindu temples; and, incidentally, whose ideologues brand all Brahmins, even Tamil Brahmins, as descendants of "Aryan imperialists", but perform Rāvaṇalīlā to counter the traditional Rāmlīlā of the north, and claim Rāvaṇa (whom every single ancient text is unanimous in describing as a Brahmin) as a Tamil hero who resisted "Aryan imperialism"?
Clearly, these "Dravidian" movements have nothing to do with any "Dravidians" or with anything "Dravidian". They are nothing but anti-Hindu Leftist "movements" functioning as fronts for Islamic and Christian fundamentalist forces.
THE "ARYANS" AS FOREIGNERS
Whether Hinduism is "foreign" or not, and whether Hinduism is "Aryan" or not, the last-ditch stand of anti-Hindu Leftist propagandists will be that the Aryans were certainly foreigners (assuming, that is, that they will be honest enough to admit themselves wrong on the two earlier counts). This is the common stand of those who are, deliberately or naturally, prone to half-baked reasoning. Syed Shahabuddin's Muslim India (27.3.89) declares: "They (Aryans) don't belong to India and hence, don't love India. They are foreigners, the enemy within. As Aryans, they are also India's first foreigners. If Muslims and Christians are foreigners, and must get out of India, as India's first foreigners, the Aryans are duty bound to get out first."
To begin with (leaving aside the mystery as to how Muslim India arrived at the conclusion that "Aryans", whoever they are in the present context, "don't love India"), let alone "Aryans" but even Muslims and Christians are not "foreigners" in India. Muslim and Christian fundamentalists may identify wholly with their foreign brethren, and some Muslims may even gloat at the idea that they are the descendants of Islamic heroes who "conquered and ruled" a land teeming with kafirs, but the fact remains that they are all Indians, as much as the Hindus (including any "Aryans"). At a certain point of time, their ancestors were the more helpless among the Hindus who were forcibly convened to Islam.
Secondly, who exactly are the Aryans in India today? As per the Aryan invasion theory itself, the overwhelming majority of people in India today are Dravidians, and there are no "pure Aryans" left. If one presumes, along with Hitler (who was after all, the high priest of the concept of the "pure Aryan race") that the "typical" German or Scandinavian, with blue eyes, blonde hair and extremely fair skin, constitutes the model of the "pure Aryan", how many communities are there in India today which can claim closer resemblance to Germans or Scandinavians than to other Indian communities in general?
Finally, in historic times there were invasions of India by Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans and Huns. Many of the invaders stayed in India and got integrated into the population. Today some anthropologist may manage to dig out material and claim that some community, or the other, constitutes the descendants of one, or the other, of those invaders. But who would treat such a claim, even if it were proved beyond any doubt, as the basis for branding that community as a "foreign" community?
Indian society and culture have been known for their capacity for synthesis and assimilation, and every single foreign community entering India, right from ancient times, has been completely absorbed into the Indian identity. This happened in the case of the Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans and Huns. And according to the Aryan invasion theory itself, this happened in the case of the "Aryans" as well. The point is not, therefore, that Muslims and Christians are "foreigners". The point is that Islam and Christianity are foreign, and this point has been dealt with in detail in the previous chapter. The point is that while Hinduism Indianizes foreigners, Islam and Christianity foreignize or de-Indianize Indians. Hindu nationalism has nothing to do with any childish, petty and ridiculous idea of dividing Indians into "outsiders" and "insiders" on the basis of whether or not their ancestors, actually or supposedly, came from outside. Hindu Nationalism believes only in identifying the de-Indianizing elements, as opposed to the Indianizing ones, and doing whatever has to be done in the matter.
Even if it is assumed that a group of people, called "Aryans", invaded, or immigrated into, India in ancient times, and (while in all other respects their submergence into the national Hindu identity was as total as that of the Scythians and Huns, etc.) contributed the Vedic heritage, and, immeasurably more important, the Sanskrit language (and, thereby, also the subsequent Indo-Aryan languages); even these two elements in Hinduism, allegedly imported by the incoming "Aryans" from outside, cannot be construed as de-Indianizing elements in any sense of the term, since (as pointed out, in detail, in the previous chapter) they have left no trace, if ever there was any, of any link, much less the consciousness of any link, much less any loyalties associated with such a link, to any place outside India.
The Aryan invasion theory, therefore, stands bereft and shorn of all its Leftist corollaries.
But is the basic theory itself, namely, that groups of people, who may be called "Aryans", entered India from outside, bringing along with them, if nothing else, at least the Sanskrit language (and therefore, the subsequent Indo-Aryan languages), at all valid? Did, indeed, any "Aryans" ever invade, or even immigrate into India from outside? Shorn of its Leftist and anti-Hindu corollaries, this becomes a purely academic question with no present-day political implications.
This academic question will be dealt with in the next two sections of this book.
बहुत सही लिखी है आपने। इन लोगों विशेषकर दक्षिण भारत में बहुत जहर फैला रखा है। एक व्यक्ति तो आज फेसबुक पर वैदिक सभ्यता की तुलना तालिबान से कर रहा था।
ReplyDeleteLack of "chauvinism" as you call it has led to Hinduism being the "bakra" target of all truly chauvinistic forces. I know carnivores prefer that herbivores remain herbivores and not defend themselves from them. It must be painful that all herbivores don't toe the line drawn by their self-declared enemies, right? Bear up with it, and take comfort in the childish article for which you have sent me the link.
ReplyDeleteNamaste Shrikant ji, I have been reading your book - The Rigveda and the Avesta - recently. The reference in the book to your reply to Michael Witzel's examination of your work, labeled TALAGERI 2001, contains a link which is unfortunately not working. If possible, could you please share it on another link since I really want to follow the arguments which took place between the two of you.
ReplyDeleteYes, my reply is generally missing on the internet. I have just found a word document of my reply to Witzel in 2001 on my computer, and will upload it today without checking it or making any corrections.
DeleteExcellent write-up. thanks for this article.
ReplyDeleteThis was very informative however I've a doubt- what about Nepal? it's more "Hindu" than India, uses vikrama shake(which originated in Ujjain), kannadigas worship saligrama stones of gandhaki river, pashupati temple has southern connections, yet it is not a part of India, I'm asking this because leftists say that just because we are all hindus doesn't mean we all belong to one country, that India is a country of countries rather than a nation of states. I'll be very thankful if you counter this Nepal argument!
ReplyDeleteSir, I've seen many people saying that Brahminism/Vaidik Hinduism entered South India recently after Buddhism and Jainism. Even though sangam age had vaidik deities and hindu gods, Sanskrit influence on Tamil was minimal,they had Tamil names and titles.
ReplyDeleteDevdutt and others also say that "Aryavarta" was defined as the areas North of the vindhya mountains in manusmriti as well as in early dharmashastras. How true are the above claims? Waiting for your answer...
"Vaidik Hinduism", "Tantrik Hinduism", "idol-worshiping Hinduism", and countless other forms of Hinduism are all different forms of Indian Hinduism. But foreign religions like Christianity, Islam and Marxism are not Indian in any sense: they are non-Indian and in effect function as anti-Indian. So I see no reason why advocates of any one kind of Hinduism can genuinely claim to feel closer to foreign anti-Indian religions and ideologies than to other kinds of Hinduism, and want to align with them. Clearly this is fake.
DeleteIf the Sangam age had Vaidik deities and Hindu gods, are Tamil nationalists now going to disclaim and reject the Sangam age culture, and do they instead consider Christianity, Islam or Marxism as "Tamil" religions?
Efforts to portray Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism as inimical religions, even if one can drum up historical individuals (kings, religious figures, writers) who are portrayed as representing one of these three against the other two, are futile. Christianity and Islam as a whole, and as part of their central ideology, slaughtered millions of Hindus, Pagans and each other. Sunnis slaughtered Shias, Catholics and Protestants slaughtered each other. And yet all of them form a united front against Indian=Hindu religions. When will Hindus-etc. learn?
Of course Aryavarta was defined as the areas North of the Vindhya mountains. So is Tamilnadu defined as an area south of Karnataka and Andhra. We are not talking of an Aryavarta religion or a Tamil religion, we are talking of Hinduism which included them all.
And who said Tamil names and titles instead of Sanskrit names and titles indicates non-Hindu identity? Pre-Christian Naga names and titles, Andamanese tribal names and titles, Santali names and titles, all are as Hindu as Sanskrit or Tamil names or titles. Sanskrit and Hinduism are not synonymous, Sanskrit is just one, even if the oldest recorded and richest, among Hindu languages.
When I read the linguistic case for AIT, I was frankly horrified ( please don't say I shouldn't be), I tried searching for rebuttals and was met with wishful explanations of pseudo-scholarly works, in fact I didn't even bother to read your blogs as I thought you too were one of those "bhang thandai" types that you mentioned in your recent blog, I actually read some "Illuapathy's" supposed rebuttal of your theory first and then your actual works, I must say your case has really opened my eyes, It might or might not be closer to the truth but you've my utmost respect for all the hardwork you've done because I believe you're sincere in what you're doing and I hope you stand vindicated at least by the end of this decade (too much optimism lol!)
ReplyDeleteHowever, although I'm a follower of Your OIT case, the North-South divide has really troubled my mind, after reading thousands of Dravidian opinions, I'm really, really confused. I've some questions regarding the age of North-South integration and the contribution of both towards "Hinduism" because apparently now namaste, Vishnu and Laskhmi etc all are "foreign influence" on the original Dravidian culture, (Christians and Muslims don't come in the picture), this is why I asked those questions about Sanskrit's introduction to South India
But I'll ask those questions once I get some free time and you are free to choose whether you want the burden of educating me in that regard or not.
Finally a big THANK YOU for all the wonderful work that you've done!
"namaste, Vishnu and Laskhmi etc all are "foreign influence" on the original Dravidian culture, (Christians and Muslims don't come in the picture), this is why I asked those questions about Sanskrit's introduction to South India"
DeleteAnything from a different area doesn't become "foreign". Is idli "foreign" to Uttar Pradesh because it came from the south? Everything in India moved from one area to another. Buddhism and Jainism originated in Bihar. Their spread and later presence in the South (Jain kingdoms in Tamilnadu, Gomateswara in Karnataka) is not because Jains invaded the South and imposed their culture in the South. Then why should the spread of Vedic culture in the south become a "foreign" thing or an "invasion"? In fact, Hinduism as we have it today is primarily a Dravidian religion with idol-worship and temple culture: the word "puja", signifying worshipping idols with flowers and aarti, is a Dravidian ritual which is today the central ritual in Hinduism (the word puj- occurs only once in the Rigveda, in a hymn by a composer with a Dravidian name, Irimbitha). Insisting that there should be nothing Sanskrit (namaste, etc.) in Tamil is like saying there should be nothing Dravidian in Hinduism. The Arya Samaj, which wants to remove all non-Vedic aspects from Hinduism is a case in point.
This kind of fundamentalism is reminiscent of present-day extremist Salafi Islamic fundamentalism. Do you know that Islamic extremists want Muslims to drop all Persian words (they are "haraam") from islamic usage and use only their Arabic equivalents. So no "Khuda haafiz", only "Allah haafiz". Believe it or not, the words "namaaz" and "roza" are "haraam" because they are Persian words: instead, use "salaat" and "saum". Note that the Persian word "namaaz" is related to Sanskrit "namas" from which you get "namaste"!
And Christians and Muslims do come into the picture. All Tamil separatist and anti-North, anti-Sanskrit forces are allied with Evangelists and Islamicists: to these Tamil Supremacists, Islam and Christianity are not "foreign"!
I am grateful for your appreciation, and am always willing to answer serious questions.