Social Equality And Hindu Consolidation: A Speech by

Shri. Balasaheb Deoras

A Word Please

The annual 'Vasant Vyakhyanamala' of Poona has a countrywide repute as a

platform for high level intellectual discussion on many a vital aspect of our life. Time
and again leading thinkers of the country have been pouring out their thoughts and
experiences from that platform. 1974 was its centenary year.

The 8th of May, was an important day in the lecture series of that year. The
speaker on that day was Shri Balasaheb Deoras, the Sarsanghachalak of Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh.'Social Equality and Hindu Consolidation' was the subject of
his speech. Both the speaker as well as the subject had aroused intense curiosity
among the intelligentsia of Poona.

As the following pages will bear out, Shri Balasaheb Deoras has analyzed the
multifaceted complicated problem of our social disparities in a most lucid and
dispassionate manner and offered constructive solutions. He has presented the
correct perspective of the past, the proper guidelines for the present and the right
vision for the future. After the speech, he also answered, in his inimitable disarming
style, the ticklish questions which were posed by the audience.

These living thoughts, coming from one who has selflessly dedicated himself
for over four decades to the cause of Hindu Consolidation, will undoubtedly prove a
beacon light for all those who are interested in building up a homogeneous and
glorious national life.

It is in the spirit of doing our humble best in disseminating these invaluable

thoughts that we are placing this publication in the hands of our thinking brethren in
the society.

Publishers
Suruchi Sahitya

Social Equality
And
Hindu Consolidation
  

The organisers of this program had suggested some topics for my speech.
Out of them, I have chosen the topic 'Social Equality and Hindu Consolidation', as it
has a very vital bearing on the future of our nation. Hindu consolidation is a must for
the welfare of the nation. Hence all aspects of it are important. Even among them,
the aspect of social equality being a delicate and currently relevant one, appealed to
me as one of great import. That is why I thought that I should not miss the
opportunity of expressing my views on it.

I do not claim to be one among the thinkers and scholars of the society. But I
have moved much amongst our people. That has given me many experiences and
ideas and also a peep into the feelings of the people. Keeping all of them in view, I
shall try to place before you what all of us might be feeling.

Who is a Hindu ?

While broaching this subject, the first question that naturally poses itself
before us is: "Who is a 'Hindu'?" Many definitions of the word 'Hindu' have been
forwarded but none of them appears to be perfect, since every one of them, however
carefully worded, suffers from the defect of being either 'too short (Avyapti) or 'too
much expansive' (Ativyapti) But can we deny the very existence of the Hindu society
just because it defies definition? Although the word cannot be defined, we all know
very well that the 'Hindu society' does exist. Also, all of us do have a definite and
common understanding as to who constitute this society.

Some years ago, the Government formulated the Hindu Code which was
approved by the Parliament. Pandit Nehru and Dr. Ambedkar were the main
architects of the Code. In order to make the Code applicable to the largest society in
this country, they had to perforce name it 'The Hindu Code', While defining its scope
of applicability they had to declare in the beginning that all except the Muslims, the
Christians, the Parsis and the Jews come under its purview and that it was
applicable to Sanatanis, Lingayats, Arya Samajists, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists and
even others who did not come under any of these categories. It was also made clear
that anyone seeking exemption from it will have to bear the onus of justifying such an
exemption. The only comprehensive term which could denote the people whom they
had in mind was 'Hindu'.

The Two-fold Basis

 We want to organize or consolidate all the Hindus. Organization does not
merely mean a crowd, a front or a meeting. Organization implies bringing and
keeping the people together and making them realize the purpose for their remaining
together. This is no easy task. We will have to furnish some basis for it. And some of
those basic factors of unity will have to be necessarily emotional in content; because
the constitution of the human mind is such. Therefore we start with our motherland.

'This is our motherland, we are its children and we have been living here for
the past thousands of years. During this long past, we have created in this land a
glorious history, and also contributed to world thought, culture and civilization. We
alone have been responsible both for its rise and for its fall. Therefore we, being the
children of this soil, must come together and live together. 'These realizations should
form the emotional basis of our unity. Even those who call themselves 'rational' will
have to accept such an emotional basis. There is nothing wrong in it. Even Stalin
had to remind his compatriots that they all belonged to a single, great nation, when
Russia faced a terrible ordeal during the Second World War. He had to invoke the
spirit of 'nationalism' and 'fatherland.' The necessity of such an emotional inspiration
is beyond controversy.

However, will this suffice? While actually working in the social field, we feel it
necessary that there should also be a practical manifestation of this basis. It is of
course essential that every one must emotionally feel that we are all one and that we
are all equal, but at the same time we should also be able to experience naturally
and always this oneness in our day-to-day life. So long as we do not have this living
experience alongside the emotional call, the basis of our unity will neither be robust
nor long-standing.

The Folly is Ours

Our history of the past hundreds of years tell us that just a handful of Muslims
and even fewer Englishmen could rule over us and could forcibly convert many of
our brethren to their religions. They also created controversies like 'Brahmin and
non-Brahmin', 'Savarna and Asprishya'. In this regard we cannot just blame the
foreigners and exonerate ourselves. What is the use of lamenting that it was
because of our contact with foreigners and their divisive machinations that our unity
was shattered? It was but inevitable that we should, sooner or later, come in to
contact with the foreign societies and their cultures. There could not for ever be a
Berlin Wall between them and us. It is only the diffident people afraid of the contacts
and thoughts of others that put up a wall around themselves. The greatness of any
system is proved only when it can hold its head high even while it is in contact with
others. When a system encloses itself in an impenetrable shell, it is only declaring its
own inferiority. Hence instead of blaming others for our short comings we should
introspect within ourselves and try to know which of our failings enabled the
foreigners to get the better of us. In this regard, Dr. Hedgewar, the founder of the
RSS, had a unique outlook. Whenever this topic arose, he used to say, "We cannot
escape our responsibility by simply blaming the Muslims and the Europeans for our
downfall. We must seek out our own failings." We have to admit that social inequality
amongst us has been a reason for our downfall. Fissiparous tendencies like caste
and sub-caste rivalries and untouchability have all been the manifestation of this
social inequality.

Discriminate!

For the Hindu Sanghatanists this is a delicate and difficult issue since we are
immensely proud of our Dharma and our Sanskriti. It is true that we have a lot of
things of which we can be justly proud. The philosophy and values of life of this land
have received the highest acclamation of the thinkers the world over as an
invaluable contribution to peace and progress of humanity itself. These values of life
have stood the test of time in the race of long drawn out onslaughts and amidst
historical and political upheavals. We all naturally feel that these eternal life-
principles should be preserved.

However, it is clear that even while cherishing this pride it would not do to
think that all that is old is gold.

Puraanamityev na saadhu sarvam.

Just because something is old, it need not necessarily be good or eternal or

gospel truth. Neither should we think that since we have been living all these years
on the basis of these old principles, we need not even think on new lines.

Taatasya koopoyamiti bruvaanaaha

Kshaaram jalam kaapurushaaha pibanti.

'My father and grandfather dug this well. The water was salty. But they drunk
it and lived on. Hence we shall also drink the same water'—such bigotism does
nobody any good. The saying speaks of such a person not as Satpurusha (good
person) but as Kaapurusha (coward). Such a way of thinking is wrong.
 The society is made up of various types of people. There will be some who
will jump at any new thing as good and ideal; some others react to any new thing
adversely and reject it outright as being useless and worthless. But those who have
taken up the mission of eradicating the social defects and reorganizing the society
should not take up either of these extreme attitudes. They have to adopt the attitude
of -

Santaha pareekshyaanyatarat bhajante.

They will have to discriminate, preserve and take up whatever is worthy and
feel not sorry for the dying out of things which are to die. The more our people adopt
this rational way of looking at things, sooner will the mission of Hindu Consolidation
and removal of illegality be fulfilled.

Reform in Keeping With Times

For instance, the Jews have, according to a book I read recently, reviewed
their religious texts and practices after every century or two and revalued them in the
contemporary context. Of course, the wordings of the religious texts could not be
changed, but fresh interpretations were placed on them in keeping with the times.
These they introduced in practice and made popular also. It means they
discriminated between what was eternal and what was changeable. I believe that in
our own country too similar rethinking and revaluation of our religious texts must
have been done in the olden times. Otherwise there is no reason why so many
different types of religious books—smritis—should have come into existence. See,
how many changes have taken place even in our gods and goddesses. The Indra,
Varuna, Agni and other gods have given place to Vishnu and Siva. There was at one
time conflict between Saivas and Vaishnavas, but Sri Sankaracharya established a
harmony between the two and ushered in the puja of the Panchaayatan. And now
Sivaratri and Shayani and Prabodhini Ekadasis are being observed in almost every
house. It means that even in olden times efforts were made from time to time to
establish harmony and bring in new interpretations, and that people were not
insistent about sticking to every word and syllable of all that is old.

A Common Human Weakness

There are many stories recounted in the ancient texts and Puranas. But do we
accept them all as literally true? For instance, it has been said in the Puranas that
the lunar and solar eclipses are a result of 'Raahu and Ketu swallowing the Moon
and the Sun'. But should we, in order to affirm our devotion to our old religious texts,
incorporate this story in the school text books to explain to the children why the
eclipses take 'place? We are bound to give intext books only what is scientific and
factual.

It is not peculiar to only Hindu society that religious texts are understood by
the letter, and the texts or stories therein believed in blind faith. In 1925, a thrilling
court case took place in America (`The trial that rocked the world', Readers' Digest,
July 1962)—a country believed to be most scientific in outlook. A teacher in one of
the states was placed in the dock. He was charged by a Christian citizen with
teaching the theory of evolution in contravention of the story of Genesis and Creation
of Man as told in the Bible. The teacher had taught in the light of the latest theory of
evolution. The court declared him guilty and he was punished. However today no
Christian gives credence to that story of evolution in the Bible; but still they have not
tried to destroy their faith in the Bible. This may appear strange, but has a great
lesson for us.

Spirit Eternal, Forms Ever New

Such problems are common to all countries. Solutions must be found for
them. Whenever I speak like this, some people say that these are things created by
God. It is their intention perhaps to impress upon us the idea that such things cannot
be changed or amended because they are created by God. But how far can this
argument stand? God Himself has declared. "Whenever Dharma declines I
reincarnate myself." However, the re-establishment of Dharma after its decline does
not mean that the old order will be re-established without any change whatsoever.
Nobody in our country, like Mohammed Paigambar, has ever said, "I am the last
Prophet." So it is but proper that we should rethink how far it is right to assert that
this is the Word of God and hence unchangeable. The re-establishment of Dharma
can only mean that the same eternal life principles will be preserved, while its
expressions and manifestations will change. And these changes we must be
prepared to welcome.

We should also be able to think clearly and without bias regarding the genesis
of the systems which came into vogue in those old days. There is no reason to think
that our ancestors had no insight into things and that they had set up the systems
arbitrarily or in ignorance. We must keep in mind the fact that the thinkers and
leaders of society of those times considered the needs of the society under those
conditions and laid down suitable norms to ensure its solidarityand progress. In case
those systems are unnecessary or no longer useful at present, we are free to reject
them. But it is necessary that we should also understand why a particular system
was introduced in a particular period of time.

Take for instance the Varna Vyavastha—it is said that there was no Varna
Vyavastha in olden times. Later on it was felt that some system was necessary to
ensure the proper and steady progress of society. The leaders of society at that time
thought that the society could progress only if four kinds of functions were properly
and efficiently executed. Hence the society was classified into four groups depending
upon the specific propensities and aptitudes of individuals and groups of individuals.
Thus, the Varna system was evolved. Any system entails classification. However,
this system did not envisage any differences in the status of the people belonging to
the different groups.Classification is one thing and class-discrimination is another.

According to some scholars, the classification in the beginning was also not
hereditary. But as time went on, it must have become increasingly difficult to
recognize and classify aptitudes in an extensive society, residing in such a vast
stretch of country and having no means of quick transport or communication. Under
such a situation, birth in a particular family must itself have been taken as the
indication of his aptitudes and as a basis for classifying a person or a group of
persons. That is how the growth of the Varna system must have taken place. But
even at that time there were no superiority or inferiority complexes. On the other
hand, the whole society was visualized as a single living entity, personified into a
magnificent figure with 'a thousand heads, a thousand eyes and a thousand feet'.
Such a glorious concept does not permit the perverse and ridiculous notion that the
thighs are superior to the feet, the hands are superior to the thighs or the head is
superior to the hands. The idea is that all these limbs are equally essential for the
proper functioning of society.

The sense of high and low that we witness today had no place in that concept
of one corporate living social entity. To imagine otherwise would be to do grave
injustice to those people. It was for this reason that the system was acceptable to
one and all. And it was because of its common acceptance that certain systems of
checks and balances were evolved to continue it from generation to generation. For
example the group endowed with the intellectual power was to embrace poverty. The
group with ruling power was denied wealth power. The power of state and of wealth
was not allowed to combine in the same group. So long as these checks and
balances were efficiently maintained, the system worked well. But defects crept in
the system when these checks and balances were ignored in course of time.

Defects are bound to creep into any system. It is well known that communism
aimed at the removal of all types of inequalities, particularly the 'classes'. But
Milovan Djilas (a top communist leader of Yugoslavia) in his famous book 'The New
Class' has written that a new class has come up in all communist countries. He had
to say this of the communist system within less than 50 years of its inception—a
system which was avowedly born to do away with all classes'. Human nature is such.
Vested interests develop in any system. The Varna system too was no exception to
this human weakness and as a result it became distorted and it collapsed. But none
can say that the originators of the system had any such perverse intentions in their
mind when they introduced it.

Limitations of Hereditary Aptitudes

Even though our ancestors classified the society on the basis of heredity, they
were aware of the limitations of the inherited talents. In our old religious literature
such expressions are scattered all over. They said,

Shudropi sheelasampanno gunavaan braahmano bhavet

Braahmanopi kriyaaheenaha shudraat pratyavaro bhavet.

'By his noble conduct a Shudra can become a Brahmana, and a Brahmana
becomes a Shudra without that rectitude.' Or

Jaatyaa braahrnana iti chef na.

'One cannot become a Brahmana because of birth alone.' Great sages like
Rishyashringa, Vishwamitra and Agastya stand as illustrious examples of people
who, though not born as Brahmins, becameBrahmins by their penance, virtues and
attainments.

It is said in the Puranas that Mahidas, the author of Aittareya Brahmana, who
became a Dwiia, was the son of a Sudra woman. Jabala, who had no father to be
named, was initiated into the Brahmin group by his Guru through the Upanayana
ceremony. These things were possible only because they had recognizedthe
limitations of the inherited talents and had made the system elastic and catholic in
outlook. Thus it was possible for the system to last for centuries.
 The changed situation

Today the situation has changed completely. The changed situation demands
changes in our way of thinking also in keeping with the times. Those were the days
when every student had to learn his lessons at the residence of his teacher. Then
the printing press had not been invented. The machine age had not set in. The
blacksmith's son, the jeweller's son or the weaver's son used to learn his trade by
observing his father at work. The home was his school. Hence, heredity and
environment cooperated with each other in teaching the individual his profession. But
now the printing press has come, education is imparted in educational institutions,
not in homes. The machine age has made the industries to be carried on in factories,
not in homes. Science has progressed, new inventions have been made. The whole
environment has changed.

It is now recognized by one and all that though heredity is important,

environment also has its effective role in shaping the human character.

Therefore, it is inconsistent with the demands of modern times to insist on the

hereditary varna and caste system.

Importance of Environment

Some people attach great importance to the differences arising out of natural
and hereditary factors. To an extent their contention is true. But to make these
differences into a science is simply ridiculous. It is definitely not to the credit of man if
he were to make efforts only to substantiate the hereditary disparities in individuals.
His efforts should be to study nature's processes and devise ways and means for
lessening these disparities and making them tolerable. Therein lays his greatness
and his courage. Keeping in mind the limited importance of heredity we should, by
changing the environment and imparting education and training and introducing
suitable systems, try to remove any hereditary defects and handicaps in any section
of the people. This is possible in the present times. The Japanese people were
considered to be dwarfish in stature. But after the Second World War, they came into
close contact with the Americans. Appreciable change took place in their eating and
drinking habits as also in their general style of living. As a result, their average height
has now increased.

Before the First and the Second World Wars, only certain groups of people in
our country and also other countries were termed martialraces. But during the two
wars total mobilization andconscription had to be resorted to in all the countries and
huge armies were raised. It was then observed that all these people fought better
than even the professional soldiers, better than even the standing armies. Nobody
accepts the notion of 'martial' or 'fighting' races any more. Hence it is now futile to try
to give heredity a philosophical basis.

In fact, circumstances have changed so much that even to say that Varna
Vyavastha and caste system, which could serve as a necessary basis for the proper
functioning of the society, exists is ridiculous. Perversion and confusion pervade the
atmosphere. Castes no doubt exist, but they have nothing to do with the preservation
of the social fabric. Caste is now confined only to marriage alliances. It exists only in
the form, the spirit having disappeared long ago. What exists now is not (Varna)
Vyavastha but only Avyavastha! Hence we should all put our heads together and
think out how to guide it—a system which has to die and is already dying a natural
death—along the correct path to its termination.

Hasten Slowly

There is in vogue a phrase Roti-Beti-Vyavahaar. In the olden days, even the

Roti-Vyavahaar, that is, partaking of food was restricted to within a caste. That
restriction has however broken down and nowadays people of all castes have
started partaking food with one another. The credit for such a change is shared by
English education, the Jhunka-Bhaakar Sangh, community dinners and social
workers taking to that task specifically, etc. RSS also deserves some credit on
account of its camps and other congregational programmes. This has subscribed
greatly to the easing of disparities among different castes. Inter caste marriages
have also begun taking place.

It can be said without reservation that if the Beti Vyavahaar, just like Roti-
Vyavahaar, also takes placein a greater measure, it will help to a very great extent in
wiping out caste-differences and bringing about homogeneity in the society. However
Beti-Vyavahaar—inter-caste marriages—are a more difficult proposition than inter-
caste dinners Keeping this in mind, and without making unseemly haste, all should
conduct themselves in a congenial manner. The reason is, as soon as the idea of
marriage comes up, the question of a good match naturally crops up. Any one
cannot marry indiscriminately any one else. It can be a good match if only the bride
and the groom can claim near equality in educational, economic and social
standards. This is possible only to the extent that residences are close together
encouraging the habit of close contact with one another.Residential colonies like the
LIC colony, the bank employee's colony, the railway workers colony and the
teacher's colony, coming up in good number nowadays, subscribe substantially
towards this end. Along with this, when their economic status also rises, irrespective
of caste differences, and education becomes universal, then such marriagesalso
become natural.Legislations, monetary temptations, propaganda tactics cannot bring
this about. That would be wrong. For, this is a delicate matter which cannot have a
rough and ready solution. Every one of us has to keep this in mind and subscribe his
mite towards bringing about the social transformation. The change-over may take
time, but it is bound to take place.

Root Out this Evil

Untouchability is a still more saddening and unfortunate aspect of our social

inequality. Some thinkers opine that it was non-existent in the olden times, but at
some stage during the passage of time, it gatecrashed into our social system and,
took root. Whatever be its origin, all of us consider that untouchability is a terrible
folly and it must, of necessity, be thrown out lock, stock and barrel. There are no two
opinions about it. Abraham Lincoln, who abolished slavery in America, said, "If
slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." Similarly it is for all of us to declare, "If
untouchability is not wrong, then nothing in the world is wrong!"

Every one of us must therefore aim at eradicating social inequality in each

and every form. We must clearly explain to the people at large how our society
became weak and disorganized on account of social inequalities. We must also
show them the way to get rid of them. It is necessary that every individual must make
his or her contribution in this effort. That would remove a stumbling block in the way
of Hindu Consolidation.

Success through Persuasion

In this task of bringing about social equality, we should be able to win over the
support and cooperation of various types of people. We should, for that purpose,
conduct our selves with restraint and grace. Then only we will be successful. There
are our religious leaders, saints, sages and scholars. They hold a sway over the
popular mind. Their cooperation in this task is essential. Sometimes we feel that they
are firmly attached to only the old customs and would not like to see them changed.
However, this should not make us mistake their good intentions.In other countries
toothere are religious teachers pinning their faith on ancient systems. Nevertheless
the people there do not ridicule them on that account. We too, with proper approach,
could plead with our religious leaders that they should, in their preaching's and
discourses, tell the people which facets of our Dharma are of eternal value and
which of them changeable according to the times, and that such an exposition on
their part would be more impressive and pervasive in its effect. We should also
submit to them that the responsibility of protecting the society is theirs and that it can
bedischarged only by their coming out of their ashrams and mutts and unreservedly
mixing in the society.

Though this appears as an uphill task, actually it is not so. Fortunately there
are already auspicious indications that our Dharma Gurus have started working in
this direction. Our late Sarsanghachalak Parama Poojaneeya Sri Guruji had brought
together on a common platform, under the auspices of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, all
the religious leaders to persuade them to this viewpoint. As a result, many saints and
religious leaders have commenced mixing amongst all sections of society. They
have given up their previous opposition to reconversion and have now come forward
to take back into their fold those brethren of ours who had been converted.

The enlightened section of our society has a great responsibility in this regard.
They should so think and act as will help achieve equality and at the same time not
give rise to bitterness in society. Those who suggest solutions to the problem should
also keep in mind the dangers that may result from such solutions.

Upaayam chintayan praagnaha apaayamapi chintayet.

We want equality only for the purpose of establishing in the society an

atmosphere of goodwill, harmony and mutual cooperation. Those that speak, write or
act without understanding this basic viewpoint will only harm the purpose they wish
to serve.

The Right Approach

Many times, some particular section of society is made the target of stinging
attack. It is highly improper to disgrace or to demoralize any part of our society.
Maintaining their morale, examples of new and better social behaviour should be
placed before them. Unfortunately there are still some people in our society who
believe in discrimination and are unable to grasp the right attitude. In the final
analysis, they are all a part and parcel of the Hindu society. It is not necessary that
we should pounce upon such people or tackle them the hard way. There are
certainly other ways of persuading and bringing them round.
 This was the way revered Dr. Hedgewar, the Founder of the Sangh, worked. I
had the good fortune in my young age to work under his guidance. In the beginning
stages, we had very interesting experiences. I was present in the first Sangh camp.
In that there were quite a number of mahaar (untouchable) brethren. At the time of
meals, some began hesitating to sit along with them. They had never before in their
life sat for meals with the mahaars. They placed their problem before Doctorji. But he
did not enforce the discipline of the camp and ask them to get out. Doctorji simply
said: "Our practice is to sit together. We shall sit accordingly." All of us sat together
for meals. Those few that were hesitant sat in a separate line. But, for the next meals
those very people came to Doctorji and apologized and sat with us of their own
accord. If Doctorji had taken disciplinary action against them at the very outset and
sent them out of the camp, they would not have been transformed.

A very instructive episode concerned my late friend, Sri Bachharaj Vyas. He

was a swayamsevak of the Sangh shakha of which I was the Karyavaha. Having
been born in a highly orthodox family, he would not come even to my house for
meals. When he first attended a Sangh camp, taking meals posed a problem for him.
He could not partake the meals prepared and served for all. When I placed this
problem before Doctorji, he did not quote any rule of the camp and prevent Sri
Bachharaj from attending the camp, since he was certain that the desiredreformation
would definitely take place in him. He knew Bachharaj was a man of great caliber
and utterly selfless at heart. He told me, "Let him come to the camp.We shall give
him the utensils and the ration; let him cook his own food." Thus it was for the first
year. The next year,Sri Bachharaj himself said to Doctorji, "I shall take meals with the
rest!"Thereafter, as he involved himself more and more in Sangh work, as you all
know, his behaviour underwent a metamorphic change in spite of his orthodox
background. He became a trusted worker of the Sangh and served as the Provincial
Organiser of the Sangh in Rajasthan.Later he even became the All India President of
the Bharatiya Jana Sangh.

Beware of This Game

Many a time, at the root of the internecine quarrels and violent conflicts in the
Hindu society lie political or personal rivalries. Election clashes, land and family
disputes also take up that vicious form. Further, the politician or the interested
person gives it the colour of conflict between two castes just to save his skin and
serve his political ends. At such times, unfortunately, many well-meaning persons
and even press correspondents, in their ignorance, are made pawns in this game. In
particular, pressmen in search of a scoop do not bother to obtain first-hand
knowledge of what happened but weave out a story with a single thread of
information and give it a sensational headline. When, clashes take place between
Hindus and Muslims they are reported as a clash between one community and
another, while even petty quarrels among the Hindus are magnified and reported in
an inciting fashion. This is certainly not desirable. We should all exercise the greatest
care and restraint in all our actions, if we are to lessen the social disparities.

Not Criticism but Cooperation

It is a fact that the backward or untouchable brethren of ours have borne quite
an amount of misery, insults and injustice all these centuries. That agony is there in
their hearts. We are also much pained at this sight. Now we have to find a way out of
this. All of us feel that onslaughts on them are wrong and that they should stop
forthwith. Therefore, the efforts of all of us, our talk, and our behaviour should be
such as to be conducive to the achievement of this goal. I appeal to the oppressed
brethren also to exercise this care and restraint. The faults and follies in our society
must certainly be criticized. But there are different ways of criticism. When foreigners
criticize us, it is with a senseof contempt. But when our own people criticize, it carries
an element of pain born out of affectionate concern. Otherwise, if we begin to drag
our quarrels of the past into the present we shall be only placing our future in
jeopardy. That will only hamper our progress towards equality and harmony. They
(the oppressed brethren) should feelthat they are also part and parcel of the same
society and shall live as such with the other members of society. If they stand up
shoulder to shoulder with others who have similar ideas and feelings, then the
combined efforts of both will make the task much easier and bring the goal much
nearer.

In the past, some eminent leaders of the oppressed communities have

severely criticized certain castes and certain religious texts. That was necessary at
that time. In order to draw the attention of the people to a certain point and rouse
public opinion, an individual may employ a biting language in the beginning stages.
But it is not necessary that such tirades should continue for ever. Now the times
have changed. The actual transformation has to take place now. As such the
responsibility is upon all of us to employ only such language as will help the process
of change.

The Self-respectful Way

 I believe that the 'backward' brethren of ours do not ask for the mercy of
anybody. They only desire an equal status with others and that too on their own
merits. Since they have been backward all these days, they only want that facilities
and opportunities should be provided to them to advance. This desire of theirs is
quite legitimate. And it is for them to decide how long these privileges should
continue. In the long run, however, they will have to compete with others and earn an
equal status only on the basis of merit. Perhaps, they also know this. It is for them to
think and strive and chalk out a time-bound plan of rising themselves up. A day has
to come when all of us will feel equal, equal in our worth and capacities.

The Real Basis of Equality

In spite of many drawbacks, the Hindus have their own specialties. They have
certain concepts and attitudes with regard to life. Thinkers the world over concede
that this society has established certain great and eternal values of life. If the Hindu
society, believing in such specialties and eternal values of life and following them in
practice, can stand up united, imbued with the spirit of social equality, then alone
those specialties will live on for ever and prove beneficial to the world at large also.
But unfortunately today the Hindu society is weak and disorganized. Dr. Ambedkar
felt very much pained that in this society which considers all human beings as
children of God, nay, as part and parcel of that Divinity Itself, there should be found a
sense of high and low. He also said that there could be no better basis for equality
than the basic faith in the existence of a common spark of divinity in all human
beings.

Adopt Constructive Outlook

The history of our society is a very long one. All these centuries there was
absolute freedom of thought and action. As a result, quite a good number of
thingswere written in our texts some of which could even be misinterpreted. IfNa
stree swaatantryamarhati(Woman is unworthy of freedom) is quoted to make it
appear that the woman was despised in this society, the saying Yatra naaryastu
poojyante, ramante Tatra devataaha (Where women are revered there the gods
rejoice) is also available to show that woman was held in the highest esteem. If one
wants to establish unity and harmony in the society, one has to think what are the
concepts which should be picked up from our religious texts and from our history,
which would be conducive to the removal of disparities and the consolidation of
Hindu society.
 May all of us feel that the Hindus must unite and that for their unity the basis
can only be social equality? With this conviction may all of us come forward to make
our society united and strong? This is my fervent appeal to one and all.

Christianity In India: A Retrospect : Dr. Shripati Shastri

Shripati Shastry {1935 -2010} was a professor of history in Pune university
and in his long association with sangh, was Akhil Bharatiya saha Bouddhik
Pramukh of Sangh in the end.

Shri. Shastri was born in Harihar village in the then Mysore state on June
19, 1935. He migrated to Pune, did PhD in constitutional history and joined
Nowrosjee Wadia college. He later became professor at University of Pune
and retired as head of history department.

Hindu - A Parliament of Religions

India is an ancient nation, perhaps the most ancient. Withstanding all the
shocks of cruel history, India has lived a long civilised life united by a
common culture which, for many centuries has been characterised by
remarkable continuity. During the course of this mighty, long history
numerous religious beliefs were propounded and numerous religious
practices were evolved in India. A large number of people hold the Vedas
as the source of their religion, they are Hindus. A considerable section of
our countrymen reject the Vedic authority but they are also Hindus.
Majorities of the people of this country are image-worshippers, yet they are
Hindus. Quite a few people like the Arya Samajis decry the wisdom of
image- worship but they are Hindus still. Those who call themselves as
agnostics are also Hindus. There is a school of thought propounded by an
ancient Indian sage, Charvaka by name, which refuses to believe in the
existence of God. They are pure materialists but they are Hindus. Hindu is
not the name of any form of worship but a confederation, or a parliament of
numerous religious practices sharing in common the love of this country, its
history and its cultural heritage. Christianity in India has not, yet federated
itself with it. I visualise a time, in the distant future when it will become a
sister federated unit. A Hindu does not visualise God as a Christian God or
a Muslim God or a Buddhist God or a Jain God. To a Hindu, God is God
pure and simple. A Hindu does not distinguish ideas of God as true and
false, adopting one particular idea as the standard for the whole human
race. He accepts the obvious fact that mankind seeks its goal of God at
various levels and in various directions. He feels sympathy with every stage
of the search and accepts all religious notions as facts.

Therefore, people professing various religions abound in this country and

as Hindus we take pride in this situation. If, tomorrow, one of our
countrymen wants to practice a particular religious faith and if there is no
scope for it, as a Hindu, I think India has grown the poorer for it. But never
did our fore-fathers believe that the religions that were greeted with
welcome would one day throw a mortal challenge to the unity, integrity and
happiness of this country.

Trauma of Partition

Remember the partition of India in 1947. It brought untold suffering and

unprecedented humiliation in its train. Men, women and children were given
a profuse blood bath when we were gloating over our bloodless revolution.
A glorious dream of independent, happy India, born out of love, goodwill
and brotherhood, a dream nurtured for generations was blown to pieces
because of religion. The work of Mahatma Gandhi and all the great patriots
of this country was destroyed in no time. Therefore, one must be extremely
careful in determining the place of religion vis-a-vis the nation.

Even after Independence the problem of religious minorities continues to

be one of the most vexing and intriguing problems of contemporary India.
The temperament of the people of the country, and the trauma of India's
partition contributed to the thinking of the Constituent Assembly on religious
minority groups. There are elaborate articles on "minority rights" ensuring
freedom of religious beliefs; in fact in no other constitution have the
minorities had it so good as in ours. One might even call India a paradise of
minorities. Yet, in no other country the religious groups have made such a
serious encroachment on the happy, harmonious national life as in India.

Christianity is a part of the problem under study. As a religion it is

associated with India for centuries and Christians are a religious minority
consisting of about 3% of the total population. They are numerically strong
in certain states such as Kerala and the North East India region. In such
states as Andhra and Tamilnadu their number is not negligible. So also in a
few small pockets like Goa, where they are not only influential but often
decisive.

The Background

In the beginning, the rulers of the East India Company did not show much
enthusiasm for missionary activity. The Company recognised that the
people of India were peculiarly sensitive in the matter of religion. In 1781,
evidence before a Committee of the Commons elicited the unanimous
opinion that "any interference with the religion of the natives would
eventually ensure the total destruction of the British Power". Gradually, a
policy of religious neutrality was evolved. But the Governors and Governors
General privately sympathised with and supported the Missionary activities
in India. The evangelical party in England was gaining ground and they
climaxed their efforts to win public support for "Christianising India". They
succeeded in their efforts and in July 1813, a clause was inserted in the
Charter Act by which Missionaries of all faiths were allowed to enter India.
Missionary exertions were recognised by the Legislature and it gave a
profound impetus to the movement.

The debate and the ultimate victory of the Party of Saints served to attract
other Western nations to pastures available in India for the missionary
work. The Charter Act of 1813 opened the gates of India for a perennial
influx of the holymen from Christendom. In 1813, for example,there were
six American Protestant Missions moving in India and in 1910 nearly 1800
American Protestant Agencies were working in India for propagating
Christianity. Since then there is an influx of missionaries and theirs was the
religion of the ruling class.

The missionaries were aware that certain elements in Christian preachings

- particularly its intolerance of non-Christian faiths - have proved disruptive
of India's cultural heritage; yet since their object was to make this heritage
subservient to Christianity they relished the situation. As a consequence
many Hindus felt quite justified in regarding Christianity as a political as
well as a religious weapon of the West.

  

Happy Gestures

During the pre-independence period certain prominent Christians of India

had stood against communal representation. Early in the twentieth century
Joseph Baptista, a prominent Christian leader in Bombay said, "I
thoroughly disapprove of separate electorate for Indian Christians in water-
tight compartments". He was wisest when he considered it best not to
alienate the sympathy of majority by clamouring for separate electorates.
He could stand up against the pressures of certain Muslim League leaders
and strongly refused to have anything to do with them on this proposal.
Bishop Azariah another leading Christian, opposed communal
representation and in 1928 he issued an appeal recommending the
abolition of all forms of communal representation. K.J.Paul of the Y.M.C.A.
movement advised : "We cannot exalt merit, character and efficiency in the
services or insist on probity in public leadership, and at the same time do
what is commonly called fight over community".

There were quite a few well-intentioned Christians and their goodness was
duly reciprocated by the Hindus. Christianity in India was mixed up with the
British rule and to some extent with the rule of the Portguese. The Indian
Christians were uneasily aware that their bonafides were under a cloud and
one of the foremost leaders of the Christian community, H.C. Mookerjee,
confessed "We have to demonstrate by every word we utter and by every
act we perform that the professing of a different religious faith has not
tended in the least to make us less Indian in our outlook than our non-
Christian brethren, that we are prepared to play our part and to shoulder
our share of the responsibility in every kind of work undertaken for the
benefit of our country as a whole".

Jesus Christ and the Church

I revere Christ. One of the reasons why I do so is that I am a Hindu. There

is much to admire in Christianity - the life-story of Jesus Christ, sayings of
the prophets, educative parables and the ideals presented therein. The
precious teachings in the 'Sermon on the Mount' certainly leave a, deep
impression upon the mind. But despite all this, one is unable to identify
oneself with the orthodox Christianity and the Church. So in India when
Christianity challenges Hinduism the Hindus draw a sharp distinction
between Christian sectarianism and dogmatism and the spirit and
teachings of Christ. It is a line that separates Christ from Christians. The
Holy Bible and Jesus Christ are held in high reverence by the Hindus but
the activities carried on by the Churches in His name are looked upon with
suspicion.

The church has discovered that Hinduism is full of faults. The fiction of a
degenerated India and debased Hinduism seems to be the lifeblood of
missionaries and they have no intention of parting with it. Missionaries
boast of giving pagan India the first printing press. India is thankful. But
how can a Hindu forget that the very first pamphlet Carey's Printing Press
at Serampore published contained nothing but insulting and filthy attacks
on Hindu Culture. During his talk at Detroit, Vivekananda had drawn this
line distinctly. He had said When you come to us as missionaries, you
ought to throw over all idea of nationality. Jesus did not go about among
English officials attending champagne suppers. He did not care to get his
wife into high European society. If your missionary does not follow Christ,
what right has he to call himself a Christian. We want missionaries of
Christ. Let such COME to India by the hundreds and thousands. Bring
Christ's life to us and let it permeate every village and corner of India.

The ability to obtain converts by paying money during famine hardly

qualifies anybody to be a disciple of Christ. Christ crucified has become a
silent spectator to the foulest exploitation of His name by his doubtful
disciples.

Politics of Conversion

Indeed in the whole of the Christian-Hindu strained relationship there has

been no greater cause of friction than the Christian campaign of
conversion. When the one who is in an advantageous position seeks to
force his conception of God and the Universe on the other who is in a
vulnerable position, when the one strikes at that which is deepest and most
precious in the heart of the others he invites resistance.

The Christians of India are converts or descendents of converts whose

conversion had been' secured during some period of history by force or
fraud; conversion by persuasion is a rarity. Voluntary change of faith
prompted by spiritual motives, nobody objects to. The Rev. Tilak, Pandita
Ramabai are of such type. Change of faith did not diminish their love of
India's cultural heritage. But how are whole villages converted en mass in
no time? Are mass conversions prompted by any spiritual motive?
Voluntary change of faith is preceded by great psychological revolution;
nobody abandoned Hinduism that way. Most of the converts have been
victims of threats, allurements financial stringency, ignorance, deception
and persecution. The less said the better about the role of the sword in
securing recruits for the gospel. It is an ugly past. The Hindus who had
gladly given asylum to the Jewish wanderers, the exiled Parsis and
persecuted Christians found themselves victims of proselytisation by
Christians.
For quite a long time there had been a continuous decline of Hindus in
number; when under the British religion became the basis of
representation, the missionary movement acquired momentum. Even a
small increase in Christian population and a decrease among the Hindus
would bring in its train a chain of troubles, political and social. What ails
India's north-east is this factor. It is the political consequence of the
supposed religious conversions.

There is something unhealthy in the whole missionary idea. To go to a

people like the Hindus, a race of high culture and a long tradition with
philosophical, ethical and religious systems ante-dating Christianity and to
go avowedly to save its people from damnation is certainly something
grotesque! Humanitarian and philanthrophic works are only excuses to
enable themselves to go near their victims to tear out the ancient religion
from the simple and trusting hearts. Gandhiji wrote "Conversion now-a-
days has become a matter of business, like any other. I remember having
read a missionary report saying how much it cost per her head to convert
and then presenting a budget for the next harvest". He further maintained
"If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising.
For Hindu households, the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption
of the family, coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language,
food and drink". What Gandhiji wanted to stop, viz. Conversion has been
held by the Christian missionary as his basic religious right. The best of
them, Mother Teresa, justified it very recently in an interview by saying that,
'Conversion is a change of mind by love' Remove the tapestry of the
language, it is aggression an the Hindu society. Therefore, a Hindu cannot
condone conversion and he must not.

A large part of Asia has gone Islamic and another large chunk communist.
Their doors are closed for Christian missionaries to storm in. So, India has
emerged as a fertile grazing ground. Christianity is, now working overtime
trying to convert our people, particularly the tribals. The rich white
missionary agencies are making use of the country's poverty and social ills
to further their ends. They offer temptations, a cardinal sin, in order to effect
conversions The Baptist missionary in North-Eastern belt, for example,
reward with cheap polyester trousers to those tribals who change their
religion; with motor bicycles if they also help their brothers to be converted.
In Madhya Pradesh as the Neogy Report showed, the missionaries give
small loans of say five or ten dollars to the tribals on interest, loans which
they know could not be easily paid back but the payment of which can be
waived off if the debtors accepted Christianity.

On more sophisticated levels, they run schools arid dispensaries, asylums

and orphanages and engage in so- called social work. Since the basic
motive is proselytisation or creating congenial climate for poselytizers,
these services are tainted and poisoned. Social work has now become big
business. It is not disinterested philanthropy. To a superficial observer the
Christianity centres appear not only quite harmless, but as the very
embodiment of sympathy and love for humanity. Words like service, human
salvation flow endlessly from their speeches. The ultimate objective is to
de-Hinduise. The people of our country, simple and innocent as they are,
are taken in by all these things. The sweetest of tongues is accompanied
by the sharpest of teeth. Is it not arrogance going in the garb of humility? It
reminds me of the story of Pootana, an evil woman who made a show of
motherly affection and wanted to breast- feed infant Krishna. But it was not
milk but poison.

Christianity and National Unity

One wonders why Christian proselytisation should lead to an excess of

love-bond with a Western country. For some time it was even justified as
a . n attempt to stem the tide of communism. The converts were given not
only a psychological affinity with the people of the Western' countries but
were weaned away from the national society. The language, the script, the
dress, other modes of life, the feasts and the festivals, names and
nomenclatures all undergo a change. it is this aspect of Christianity that
has today come into conflict with nationalism and has created a strong
suspicion in the minds of the national societies. That explains why
conversion of a man to Christianity is not just a change in the form of
worship but a change in the priority of loyalties. That again explains why
Christians are looked upon. by many as a potential fifth column.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar was a bitter critic of the traditional Hindu society and
announced that he would change his religion. But he rejected Islam and
Christianity as alternatives though there were tempting offers and
invitations. Why did he reject them? He said : "If my people become
Muslims they become denationalised and if they become Christians British
rule will be strengthened". One wonders why an increase in the number of
Christians strengthen the British rule? In the words of Lord Halifax, the
Secretary of State, "Every additional Christian is an additional bond of
Union with this Country and an additional source of strength to the empire".

The creation of Nagaland is a glaring example in point. That open rebellion

going an in the Naga Hills is all engineered by the Christian missionaries
was acepted even by Nehru. The Nagas used foreign arms against Indian
army. They were American arms. Our Planes were shot down. The rebel
leader of this gangsterism fled the country and he was given asylum by a
noted Christian Missionary - Michael Scott Who abetted him in making
various statements damaging our reputation. International pressure, to
which our Delhi rulers were unduly sensitive, was built up by the Christians.
They started peace talks and the peace mission included this gentleman
Michael Scott. The dream is to convert Nagaland into an independent State
ridden and dominated by the Christian fanatics. Today, when a Christian
Naga comes to Shillong he says, I am going to India as if he is a non-
Indian.

The troubles that the Indians experienced during the agitation for a
separate Jharkahnd in Bihar, the desecration of ancient Hindu temples in
Kerala including Shobarimalai, the trouble engineered at the Vivekanand
Rock Memorial premises at Kanyakumari, the recent troubles at Nilakkal in
Kerala and the pitched battles which the rebel Mizos are fighting with Indian
army are all the gifts of Christians. Christianity in India today is losing its
identity as a religion and acquiring the identity of an imperialist ideology.
Their religious functionaries are more than priests. In the words of an
African nationalist : "When they (Christian Missionaries) came, we had the
land and they had the Bible, and today we have the Bible and they have
our land".
 

Foreign Missionaries Please Go Home

India is infested with a large number of these uninvited guests, the Michael
Scotts and the Father Ferars. One need hardly emphasise public attitude
towards them. They have come to India to save the heathens from
damnation. We are to believe that they have come on a mission of mercy.

Let a missionary try to convert a single Muslim in any Islamic country, he is

sure to be lynched and murdered immediately by the Muslim mobs even
before the state apparatus could confiscate visas and issue orders of
expulsion. Can he recruit a convert in any communist country without being
caught as an imperialist agent and sent to a labour camp? Are not certain
missionaries languishing in prisons in certain South East Asian countries
on the charge of subversion? Even Buddhist Burma has barred his entry.
One would shudder to think how the Boxers dealt with the missionaries in
China. I do not want India to be marred with any such ugly event. Every
child knows what reception awaits Christian Missionaries in Bangla Desh
and Pakistan. It is desirable that they should not take India for granted. It is
time that they should return home. GO they should while the going is good.
I want every foreign missionary to reach his home back safely with sweet
memories of India. Mahatma Gandhi was categorical - "If you feel that India
has a message to give to the world, that India's religions too are true and
you come as fellow- helpers and fellow-seekers there is a place for you
here. But if you come as preachers of the true gospel to a people who are
wandering in darkness, so far as I am concerned, you can have no place".
Therefore, Indian Christianity requires to be immediately de-
internationalised.

Christ and his teachings are quite safe and secure in the hands of Indian
Christians. They have produced bishops, archbishops and even cardinals.
They have even produced abundant literature on Christianity in the
vernaculars. The Western Christian countries that have themselves
rejected Christianity are keeping it for export to India. The foreign
ecclesiastical know how is not at all needed. Therefore, the foreign
missionaries must return home, the earlier the better. A foreigner can come
to India as a student, a merchant, a visitor, a sportsman or in any capacity
except as a ruler or a missionary. In either case he comes to impose. It is
this imposition that the Hindus resist. I need not remind you how the Hindus
reacted to the activities of Father Ferar. It is not a simple outburst but a
writing on the wall.

Harijan Christians

Representatives of four Christian Organisations called on the Prime

Minister recently, stressing that the benefits available to Hindu Harijans be
extended to the Christian Harijans also. Christianity was offered as a way
out to the Hindu Harijans but once they are christianised, the old basis is
re-borrowed. It is a confession that the Hindu Harijans converted to
Christianity are not benefited and their economic condition is not improved
and the change of religion is not a change for the better. The number of
former converts returning to the Hindu fold is also increasing. You cannot
give equality you promise at the time of enticement. But you want to have
the best of both worlds.

In June 1981 about 200 Hindus and 50 Christians of Kurayoor Village, only
40 KM from Madurai embraced Islam. The reason is Harijan Hindus and
Harijan Christians buffer from the same disabilities. Christianity has failed
to overcome the so called evils of casteism. There are clear distinct groups
within with absolutely no social exchange and the backward class converts
are still regarded as low-caste Christians by others.

In a reply to a question Are not Christians entitled to combat untouchability

Mahatma Gandhi said, "Not only are the Christians entitled, but it is their
duty to combat untouchability in their own midst. But if the question is that
Christians should combat untouchability in Hinduism my answer is that they
simply cannot do it because untouchability of Hinduism should not be
untouchability of Christians. The anti-untouchability movement means
weaning Hindus from their error. This cannot be effectively done by non-
Hindus, even as Hindus cannot bring about religious reform among
Christians and Mussalmans. If the question means that Christian should
combat untouchability among Hindus by converting untouchables to
Christianity they do not advance the cause in any shape or form; the cause
being reform among caste Hindus. If the latter repented their sin the
Harijans would be delivered from the yoke of untouchability in a moment.
Conversion can never do it. It can only add to the prevailing bitterness and
introduce a disturbing factor in a situation which is already bad".

Christianity - A Vote Bank

In order to accommodate diverse religious groups in a happy national life

secularism was propounded. It suited the Indian temperament as well. It
was a misfortune that the concept of secularism which is enshrined in the
Constitution of India and which has become the most sacred slogan for all
our political parties should be distorted, misinterpreted, and misused to the
maximum to block out the least little expression of Hindu ethos and of
Hindu Culture in the State apparatus and the public life of India. Secularism
became an umbrella under which many politicians patronised religious
minorities so that they could reach the citadels of Power. Religious
minorities became Vote-banks.

Thus, certain political parties have come to develop a vested interest in

according a special treatment nay, a preferential treatment to the religious
minorities and have formed their -minority cells for the purpose. The
Government has its Minority Commission. Since they are familiar with the
political behaviour of the religious groups each wants to have a slice in the
Christian cake.

Return of the Converts

For long the Hindus had' developed a suicidal habit of declaring these
converts, as Outcastes and the Hindu house had only exits and no
entrance. They did not take back converts willing to return to the ancestral
faith. But of late, Hindus have become alive to the dangers inherent in this
one-way traffic and decided to throw open the gates of Hinduism to the lost
tribes. If Christianity claims conversion as its basic right, it must give the
same right to the Hindus so that they could claim their lost brethren back.
As Dr. Rajendra Prasad wrote in his India Divided "If the Hindus, on their
side also start converting non Hindus to their faith, it is no business of the
non-Hindus, specially if they are themselves engaged in the work of
conversion, to object. The Hindus must have the same right of propagating
their faith as others have. But men are not always guided by logic or by a
sense of justice and fairness". To a Hindu moreover it is not conversion but
a recall or return to Home.

The Christians are exploiting this terrible weakness of the parties and
politicians. The way they conducted their agitation against the Freedom of
Religion Bill, the recent agitation against certain Text Books versions in
Maharashtra, the incidents in the Kanyakumari district and the Nilakkal
troubles in Kerala that are now going on are all examples of the political
pressure which Christians can build up on the basis of their voting strength.
The above incidents are convincing proof of the militant communal role
which the Indian Christianity has, of late, opted for.

Christianity and Secularism

In order to promote a happy coexistence of diverse religions, secularism

was propounded. The Christian Church will not hesitate to approve the
secularist ideals. The gullible Hindu dances in delight at the response
evoked by his theories of Secularism and Sarva Dharma Sama Bhav. But
you cannot hoodwink all. I remember an incident associated with the life of
Mao Tse- Tung. An American Journalist met Mao during one of his Long
March hide-outs and said : "In America many people believe that you are
only an agrarian reformer not a Communist, what have you to say?". Mao
smiled and said : 'I do not care what belief certain sons of bitches are
having about me as long as the belief helps my revolution'.

A Christian missionary talks in the loudest language about secularism

because it helps his conversion and denationalisation activities. Ask him
whether he is ready to accord equal respect to other religions and display
his belief in Serva Dharma Sama Bhav he throws his hands up and says
'my religious faith does not permit it'. According to him all others are
heathens to be saved from damnation by making them believe in the 'One
Word of that One Son of that One God'. This is the nonsense of his
secularism. Mother Teresa was asked in the same interview what side she
would take if confronted with the old dilemma of Church versus Galileo, she
unhesitantingly said : Church. In vain did Europe fight for centuries to free
Reason from blind faith. Almost all the good and great among the holy
Christians, otherwise admirable are, when it come to the question of
Church all closed minds.

What is the way out?

The R.S.S. Way

According to the late Golwalkar, Chief of R.S.S. and the present Chief
Deoras, religion need not be a compelling factor in determining the
nationhood of a people. Religious Unity was long considered to be a potent
unifying force in Europe and all means were employed by many states to
secure such unity among their inhabitants. To the R.S.S. it was not an
indispensable factor in its concept of the nation. It was more a matter of
conscience and must cease to colour the loyalities and outlook of the
people about social and political matters. A common way of life rather than
a common form of worship had been the most conspicuous feature of the
Hindu national existence. The Hindu concept of unity or integration is
harmony, certainly not uniformity. A man can be Hindu by nationality and at
the same time be a Sanatani or an Arya Samaji, a Muslim or a Christian, a
Sikh or a Buddhist.

In Golwalkar's Hinduism there is room enough for Jesus, as there is for

Mohammed, Zoroaster and Moses. He would have been shocked if
anybody had suggested anything less than equal rights to Muslims or
Christians. He considered it as un-Hindu to discriminate between any two
persons just on the basis of religious faith. He put it thus :

"The non-Hindu who lives here has a Rashtra Dharma (National

responsibility) a Samaja - Dharma (Duty to Society), a Kula-Dharma (Duty
to ancestors) and only in his Vyakti-Dharma (Personal faith) can he choose
any path which satisfies his spiritual urge. If even after fulfilling all those
various duties in social life, anybody says that he has studied the Quran
Sharif or the Bible and that way of worship strikes a sympathetic chord in
his heart and that he can pray better through that path of devotion, we have
absolutely no objection".

To a question - do you not approve religious toleration in respect of Islam &

Christianity? Golwalkar and Deoras have repeatedly replied that they not
only tolerated them but respected them. The R.S.S. wants India to be a
land of many religious faiths as in the past, all equally honoured and
respected, but of one National outlook.

Few Questions and Answers

Question 1

Q. 1 : You have 'taken it for granted that the Indian Christians are originally
Hindus'. But the original people of India are Dravidians, the Hindus have
come to India originally as Aryans. Is not Hinduism also a foreign religion to
India? and Hindus foreigners?

Ans. : There is, of course, a story of Aryan migration in history. Scholars

have spent much of their time and energy examining the theory that the
Aryans migrated to India from somewhere, some three or four thousand
years ago.
Personally I hold that if there was any migration it was from India to
outside, not from outside to India. I reject the hypothesis which maintains
that Hindus are foreigners and India was a no man's land inhabited by only
aboriginals. Following this theory all foreigners can be put on par with the
Hindus. So the theory is repeated ad nauseam. Admitting, for argument
sake (only for argument sake) that Hindus came from outside, the fact
remains that Hinduism has grown -With the history of this country and has
become an inseparable part of this country. Hindus have throughout
history, fought for this country, defended this country and died for this
country. Here they grew as a people, a great race, propounded various
religious beliefs and a philosophical system, evolving a high culture, and
have beautified this country. The identification is total. We just want you to
recognise this total identification. Without India Hindus have no other place
to call their own and if there are no Hindus there is nobody to fight and die
for this country as the motherland.

After independence the Government has been distributing the Tamrapatras

to the freedom fighters. Whenever it has been possible for them to confer
Tamrapatras on a Muslim gentleman or a Christian they would always be
enthusiastic because they are searching for such gentlemen desperately.
Please look at the list of the recipients and count how many Christians
have secured it. Well the less said the better.

Nor do I hold Indian Christians foreigners. What is the meaning of the term
Indian Christian? Analyse, the phrase. It is a Hindu who has (or whose
forefathers had) embraced Christianity. Here the word Indian means Hindu,
that is, you are basically a Hindu. Similarly, who is an Indian Mussalman? It
is a Hindu who has (or whose ancestors have) embraced Islam. Here again
Indian connotes Hindu. Have you ever come across the expression Indian
Hindu? Never, for the simple reason that the world believes that Indian
means Hindu. If so, can a Hindu be a foreigner in India?

Question 2
 

Q. 2 : I admire the discipline of the R.S.S. But I have a bit of a problem. The
way a person thinks depends very much on the way he is brought up and
the early teaching he had. The R.S.S. catches hold of young people and
tries to brainwash them. They are taught to hate other religions, the
Muslims, Christians and others. They cannot think straight, their mind is
jaundiced and conditioned by this hatred.

Ans. : Today's topic of talk is 'Relevance of Christianity in India', Let me

remind you. Now about the R.S.S. preaching hatred, Guruji Golwalkar, the
former Chief of the R.S.S., and the present Chief Deoras have spoken for
nearly fifty years now and abundant R.S.S. literature has piled up. I
challenge anyone of you to point out a single derogatory word or
expression towards Jesus Christ, Biblical teachings, Prophets of the Bible,
Mohammed Paigambar or Koran, or pilgrimage to the Holy Land Jerusalem
or Mecca or about anything which is exclusively religious. R.S.S. has
nothing against the above; it just cannot even afford to be so for the simple
reason that within the Hindu-fold numerous religions flourish. Religion is not
the concern of the R.S.S. at all.

The attitude of R.S.S. towards any individual or any group of individuals is

determined not on the basis of religious beliefs but by a different criterion, a
different touchstone. What is that criterion? It is : 'what is your attitude
towards this country, towards the people of this country, towards the
integrity, independence and glory of this country, towards the welfare and
domestic happiness of the millions and millions people of this country? It is
on this basis that the attitude of the R.S.S. towards you is determined. If
you love this country as your motherland, our countrymen as your brothers
and do not entertain any ambition to inject any friction in their happy life by
imposing your will upon them automatically you become our brother,
because you consider honestly our mother as yours. But if you hold India
as a pasture to impose your will, our attitude towards you changes. That is
the R.S.S. criterion.

Question 3

 
Q. 3 I am grateful to you because you have spoken with great frankness.
You have confirmed some of my own observations. The first step that the
Christian Church should make is an act of confession of its guilts. I myself
come from Goa and I know the history of the Portuguese. I know the
wounded feelings of my Hindu brethren of Goa. You have made clear
certain things I have been thinking myself. I know a considerable section of
humanity is hurt by the policies of the Church. The Church must, therefore,
make a confession. I do not want o back into history which is not bright but
I want to ask : Do you see any ray of hope from the Christian quarters in
India, as regards a dialogue or any relationship with the Hindu fraternity for
a bright. future, or do you think the future is as black as the past?

Ans. I am very happy to hear the thoughtful words of this friend from Goa.
We are not so mean minded as to want that anybody should come and
plead guilty or confess guilt. Just call this mother country as your
motherland and deeply love her as such, then all our problems with
Christians are solved. It is just a question of changing your psychology. Our
people have built temples, do not desecrate them, they have their
scriptures, do not ridicule them. They have points of honour, respect them.
There are heroes who have enriched, the heritage of this country, own
them.

Though an Arya Samajist does not believe in image- worship, never does
he desecrate it. That makes him a blood-brother with the rest. Never try to
impose your idea of God on the others.

There is one small section of Christians who call themselves nationalist

church. They are the first bold section of Indian Christians who have freed
themselves from the Church orthodoxy and have organised themselves on
nationalist lines. It is a small number. It will take time. I wish it should grow
and I hope it will grow. I want to believe that the Indian Christian is basically
Indian, a man of this soil and a man who has eaten this salt. He might have
changed his form of worship but he has not changed his ancestors.. He
cannot change his blood. Love of the country cannot so easily be erased.
The call of the race spirit, and patriotism will surely one day undo excess of
other things.
 

Question 4

Q. 4. Happy to hear your formulation. People who believe in the Vedas and
people who do not, worshippers of idols and non-worshippers are all
Hindus. A beautiful formulation indeed. But one question occurs to me,
would I be wrong if I consider you a Christian? Because the way you
described the aspirations of the people in India, the way you identified
yourself with the history of India, I thought you are, fully a, Christian. I hope
you do not object to this ....

Ans.: I do not know what precisely the question means. To be a Christian is

to adhere to a particular religious practice. I have been telling you Hindu is
not the name of any one particular religious belief. Hindu is the name of a
nationality. You are speaking of adherence to a specific religious faith. I am
speaking in terms of society, nation and people, not in terms God, mode of
worship, or scripture. I emphasise the content of the word Hindu more than
the word. The content of it concerned with the country, the nation, its
happiness and its future, not with the Church, the cathedral, the Priest, the
Bible or the Sermon. I have nothing to do with it.

Question 5

Q.5. : I am happy I am an Indian, am a Christian and I love my country.

Can you clarify how the love of the country is affected because of my
Christian religion?

Ans. : To make my position clear I shall repeat what has been already said.
If a person loves our country as he says (and I believe in it) and is ready to
subordinate all other considerations of his life to the supreme interests of
this nation, I pray 'May such people multiply'. But what about the activities
of the Church? The conversions? (particularly Harijan conversions) the
Nagaland problem? Phizo and Michael scots? Mizoram rebels who are
fighting against Indian soldiers? if none of these can be traced to Christian
preaching no problem need arise. But is it a fact? if it does, then you must
disown them. I have not come across any such disowning of them by any
Christian quarter. If I do not know it I am open to correction. I would
withdraw it.

I spoke on certain premises, I explained them,. and they can be further

explained if time permits. If my premises are wrong then nobody will be
more happy than myself to be corrected.

Question 6

Q. 6. After much thinking I have always felt I am a Hindu Christian.

Whatever the past, today I want to identify myself with all that is Hindu. I
am speaking only for myself. Secondly as a Hindu Christian I want to know
whether I will - be admitted into the R.S.S. I am a nationalist but can the
R.S.S. admit me? But I have one condition 'as a Christian priest I must be
allowed to have my Christian faith and share it with others'.

Ans. : Allow me to deal with the second part of the question first and the
first part of the question next. There are already a few R.S.S. members
who are Church- goers. They are taking part in the national and social work
as envisaged by the R.S.S., they are Christian Hindus i.e. Hindu followers
of Jesus Christ. They read the Bible, celebrate Christmas, attend Church
on Sundays and receive Sermons. Births or marriages in their household
are blessed and solemnised by Christian priests. They are as good
Christians as any one of you. But they participate in R.S.S. programmes,
and have subordinated all other considerations of life to the supreme
interest of the nation like any other Hindu of the R.S.S. If this gentleman
wants to add to that number the R.S.S. says Welcome.
As was mentioned there is a past. Since the ghost of the past always
haunts our mind let us seek a process of reconciliation. To begin with do
you think this past is a story you should be proud of? Remember the
inquisitions, the persecutions fraudulent conversions and accompanying
cruelty. It is a sad story and a bad story. Then what should be done? Is it
wise to inject the explosive past into the present which can only damage
the future? The answer is not to ignore, turn a blind eye or to justify the
unhappy events of the past. There is a happy way out which I would like to
illustrate with an example.

It is an example from the history of England. There was a queen called

Mary Tudor. She was a Catholic. Her father and brother who ruled earlier
were both opposed to the Pope of Rome and the Catholic Church. So when
Mary Tudor a devoted Catholic Christian ascended the throne, she was
anxious to undo what her predecessors had done and restore Papal
supremacy and the predominance of the Catholic faith in England. She lost
the sense of proportion and overdid the job. She introduced the Stake i.e.
burning religious heretics alive. Hitherto burning people alive in the name of
religion was confined to Spain. She imported the ugly practice into England
and thought she was serving Roman Catholic interests. It is a dark chapter
in the history of the English people.

Today there are many Roman Catholics living in England but none of them
own or condone what Mary did in the name of their religion. No
psychological affinity with the event or its author is there. Or else a
harmonious British national life would not have been possible at all. SO
they disown it. Once they disown it they need not be ashamed of it.

Why do you people own those unchristian things perpetrated in the name
of Christianity? Disown that ugly past. Or else how can you acquire that
psychological affinity with the Hindu? There is much in Indian history for
you to own, cherish and be proud of. It is your heritage, a heritage enriched
by your forefathers whose blood flows and stirs in your nerves and veins.
Own it.

Question 7

 
Q. 7 : As a man of the R.S.S. you must be knowing the number of
Christians who have migrated away from India. What is the number in
comparison with the Muslims and Hindus who have left this country?

Ans.: Situated as I am, I do not have the figures with me. I beg to be
excused for my inability to provide the figures. It is an area where I do not
want to indulge in any guess work.

Question 8

Q. 8 : I should be grateful to you for the spirit of patriotism which you have
infused into our minds and also for the other side of the Church history you
have explained to us. But your explanation of Hindu, I as a man coming
from Tamilnadu cannot agree. E.V.Ramaswami Naicker, himself a Hindu,
went on to declare that there is no Hinduism in India at all, there is only
Indianism. The Brahmins have given this title Hinduism to Indianism and in
the name of Hinduism you have exploited the Indians. That is how he put it.
And this propaganda proved so effective that the Brahmin tradition
maintained its hold on Tamilnadu till now. It is clear in view of its hold on
the Congress party in Tamilnadu. In the name of Hinduism, Hindus are
exploiting a vast number of Indians, Harijans and the lower class. There is
no Hinduism in India but only Indianism.

You spoke of Hindus being very tolerant. From my experiences cannot

agree with this. In the district of Kanyakumari you can see what the Hindus
particularly the R.S.S. have written on the walls and the posters. They have
abused not only the priests and others but even our deep Faith, Christ and
Our Lady.

Only five months back Hindus attacked the Churches with no provocation
caused by the Christians. People were shot dead. I am coming from a
family where there are R.S.S. members. There were Marriages and other
celebrations together till last year. How could enemity be created in such
families if there was tolerance? Muslims and Hindus were working together
in the district. How could this hatred be created if at all Hindus were that
tolerant. I have tasted it myself. I want to know your reactions.

Ans. : One of the favourite illusions, which gives some comfort to some, is
to hold that there is no Hinduism in India etc. because Periyar Ramaswami
Naicker said this and that. Coming from the south as I do, I am familiar with
these men and their preachings.

To begin with, the Hindu Society is having its own problems, its evils like
Untouchability and others. They are certainly stigmas on the Hindu society.
Hindu reformers and organisations are doing their best to wipe them out. It
is our concern. Take untouchability. It dwells in the heart of the caste
Hindus. If that is plucked out, the problem will be solved but not by
converting the downtrodden. Nobody is justifying these ills and evils. Birth
of the R.S.S. itself was due to the social ills that have gripped the Hindu
people. On that count no certificate need be given to the Hindu society. But
it is our society and they are all our people.

Secondly Brahmin domination and Brahminism exploiting others. Had it

been in my hands I would have awarded a big Prize for this wonderful
discovery. What is the percentage of Brahmins in India? Look at any Indian
village and see who the Brahmins are? A school teacher and a Post-
master. Do they pose such a great threat or a danger to the other people of
this country? Within the Hindu society there are E.V. Ramaswami Naicker
and others who can abuse Rama and Krishna. It is only reflective of the
catholicity of the Hindu tradition. But do you want to live under illusions?

Go to a village in the Tamilnadu. Ramayana in Tamil by Kamban is recited

and heard with the same devotion and rapt attention as it :s recited in other
languages and heard in other provinces. The ordinary villager in Tamilnadu
also rejoices or weeps as the stories of Rama and Krishna are narrated. I
am citing only one example of a common emotion being evoked. That is
the basis of a people and a nation not what Ramaswami Naicker says on a
platform although Periyar E.V.R. Naicker, was in his own way, devoted to
the reform of the Hindu society.
As for the troubles in Tamilnadu, as long as the Hindus are silent, quiet and
easy-going, they are good boys. The moment they resist and retaliate (a
time comes when they must retaliate) they become demons and devils.
The treatment that has been given to the Vivekananda Rock Memorial at
Kanyakumari by the Christians is the first phase, the reaction followed
afterwards. What has been done in Nilakkal by the Christians is resisted by
Hindus afterwards.

R.S.S. does not justify anybody who has uttered a single word of hatred
towards another just because he is a Christian. It disowns such literature
and its authors. But I do not want you to believe that the Christians in the
Kanyakumari district are innocent lambs. Certainly they are not.

Question 9

Q. 9: I want one clarification. You said 'Don't vote according to the dictates
of bishops or priests.' Vote by yourselves. There is no proof that any Bishop
or any priest has asked us to vote one way or the other. They are meant for
our spiritual growth.

Ans. : I shall be very happy if that is really the state of affairs. I wish that
such a situation should prevail. The political behaviour should be based on
political considerations.

A religious group behaving in a particular political pattern is unhealthy; in

fact that is the story of partition. If you are all assured that there is no
direction so suggested, no whispering from your spiritual sources as to for
whom to vote and for whom not to vote I will be the first person to rejoice
over it.

 
Question 10

Q. 10 : I am a Naga Christian. I agree with you that when a Naga goes to

Shillong, he says that he is going to India. Nagas do speak that way. But I
do not agree with you when you attribute it to Christianity. The reason is
different.

When I first came over here and went out to Ramawadi nearby in Pune
along with my friend we were stopped on our way and we were accused as
Chinese spies. The Nagas are still migrating away. We find that the culture
and the race features are entirely different from the people here. And I am
also inclined to compare the ignorance of the Nagas with the literate
Indians.

Ans. : As a R.S.S. man I hold every Naga as my brother as he is a son of

this soil. I referred to the Christian religious activities which led to the Naga
rebellion. Well, to make the long story brief, it is a statement made by
Pandit Nehru on the floor of the Parliament. If you hold that I am wrong, I
am ready to share the ignorance with Jawaharlal Nehru.

Question 11

Q.11 : I come from Kerala and my parents consider that they are Christians
since long. We are fully identified with the Hindu traditions of our state. You
described how to love our mother country. We have done a lot of harm to
our people and also a lot of good to our country. We are proud of Indian
heritage as you are. Any claim of monopoly of patriotism is arrogance.
Have you the right prescription of how to love our mother country? We are
as much Indians by heritage by contribution and by history. It hurts to hear
that you alone have the right formula to solve the problems of our
motherland.

Ans. : I have already spoken on this aspect once. No responsible

R.S.S.man harbours an iota of dislike against anyone because of
Christianity or any other religion. I have taken the generality of Christians in
India have traced a brief history of it and I have referred to certain
grievances of the Hindus and on that basis I maintain that a good patriot
should not do so. If this particular gentleman, coming from a particular part
of Kerala, sharing the common heritage has not indulged in such base
things, I hold that he is as good a patriot as any other patriotic Hindu.

Modernisation Without Westernisation: Dattopant

Thengadi
Based on a speech delivered by Shri Dattopant Thengadi, an eminent
thinker and prominent labour leader, at a seminar organised by Bharat
Vikas Parishad, New Delhi, on August 13, 1983.

We in this country have instinctively realised that 'the cultural wealth to

which we are natural heirs belongs to the whole humanity, that it is India's
obligation to offer to others the benefits of her unique culture and to accept
from others their best'. We always welcomed healthy trends in other
cultures. We have been constantly engaged in a rich give and take with
other peoples. We have been always "interpreting one civilisation to the
other" and trying to find out what is common between them. In their sub-
conscious minds Hindus have always felt that human misery anywhere
constitutes a threat to human happiness everywhere.

 
Indians: Temperamentally Internationalists

We have never been isolationists. From times immemorial we have been

maintaining intimate contacts with different people and trying to build
bridges of understanding and friendship with them. Even in the recent past
Bharat has sent abroad its saints, scholars, soldiers, scientists,
technocrats, artists, artisans, professionals, traders, industrialists, and
labourers who have been working conscientiously with the same end in
view, as our unofficial cultural ambassadors.

Temperamentally, we are internationalists. For us, there is no

incompatibility between nationalism and internationalism. In the onward
march of human consciousness, nationalism is a bridge between tribalism
and humanism which , in its turn, is a long step ahead in the direction of
universalism.

Not Foreign Nationalism

But this universalism, or, to be of the earth, earthy, internatinonalism, from

intellectual sub-servience to foreign countries and cultures, from national
self-oblivion and mental slavery.

Presumption of Intellectuals

We are all aware how our intellectuals are enamoured of westernism. For
them, everything western is standard, everything Hindu sub-standard. For
them, Shakespeare is not a Kalidas of Great Britain, nor Napoleon a
Samudragupta of Europe, but Sardar Patel is Bismarck of India. "Geeta"
must be a great book, because Emerson said so. The Shakta and Tantra
cults may not be so contemptible, because Sir John Woodroffe is
championing their cause. How can Narendra and Ravindra receive due
recognition from us until their merit is first recognised by some western
authorities? White-man's lordship over others must be construed as a
conclusive proof of his cultural Superiority. Who is singing glory of the
golden period of Hindu history under the Guptas, or under the Shailendra
empire in South-East Asia which stood as a powerful bulwark against
Chinese expansion for seven centuries?

These are all idle gossips, cock-and-bull stories. It was the Europeans and
not the Hindus who reached American shores first. All talk about the
advance of Hindu sciences in the must be non-sensical; how can sciences
flourish on the eastern side of Ural? History was standing still till the
inauguration of European Renaissance. Sanskrit is a dead language, Latin
the source of all knowledge. The Western Theories regarding Aryan race, -
the original inhabitants of India, and chronological order of Indian history,
may be purely hypothetical; but none can challenge their veracity, since
they are proclaimed by western scholars.

How can you even compare Kautilya with Machiavelli and Hindu law-givers
with the constitutional pundits of the West? It is fantastic to claim that the
insight furnished by Patanjali is superior to the combined wisdom of Freud,
Jung and Adler. It is inconceivable that as a social philosopher Samartha
Ramdas was far ahead of his European contemporaries, such as, Hobbes,
Locke, Descartes, Liebnitz and Spinoza. For all maladies, remedies can be
provided only by the west. For solution of our socio-economic or political
problems, our intellectuals rush to seek help from western theories. They
have nothing to learn from their own culture; they can no longer depend
upon the brilliance of their own intellect. No theory can be correct unless it
is certified to be so by some western authority. If they get disillusioned by
one western theory they will, instead of using their own intellect, rush in
search of some other western theory which they can catch hold of.

They may accept that Marx as well as Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Ricardo and
Malthus have become outdated. They may be sceptic about the relevance
of Alfred Marshall, Wickell, Gunnar Myrdal and Keynes to the present day
conditions. But they will stubbornly refuse to conduct independent thinking
in the light of their own national requirement. Instead, they will feel homely
with the five stages of Economic Growth enunciated by Prof. Rostow and
get busy in discussing whether we have reached his third take-off stage so
as to pass over to his fourth "drive to maturity" leading to the stage of High
Mass Consumption.
This tendency is the natural consequence of their presumption that
Westernisation is Modernisation.

The Propriety

The time is now ripe to question the validity of this presumption.

Hence the propriety of this seminar on 'Modernisation without

Westernisation'.

"The Letter Killeth..."

But before we proceed to the subject of the discussion, it is essential to

define clearly the meaning of the terms modernisation and westernisation.

"If you want to talk with me", said Voltaire, "define your terms". For any
meaningful dialogue, this is essential, particularly when the topic under
discussion is technical and the people are in the habit of using words in a
rather loose sense. For correct thinking it is necessary to free oneself from
tyranny of popular words which are often used in a loose manner. The
havoc played by wrong translation of the term religion into Indian
languages as Dharma is a glaring example of this fact. Communism is
translated as Samya Vada, though there is no commune in Samya-vada
and so samya in Communism. The translations of the terms Astic and
Nastick and theist and atheist are also in the same category; these Sanskrit
terms denote believer or non-believer in the Shrutis and Smritis, they are
not connected with belief or non-belief in God.

The erroneous translation of the words maya and mithya as illusion is yet
another familiar example of this type. In course of time we are bound to
realise that the transaction of Hindutwa as Hinduism would render great
disservice to the cause of Hindutwa the correct English equivalent of which
is Hinduness. Recently, two entirely different connotations were given in a
public debate on Punjab for the Urdu word Qaum. The word secular as
being used in India today is yet another instance. Secular means
"something concerned with the affairs of this world, worldly, not sacred, not
monastic, not ecclesiastical, temporal, profane, lay". The encyclopedia of
Social Sciences states : "Secularism in the philosophical sphere may be
interpreted as revolt against theological and eventually against
metaphysical absolutes and universals. In the political sphere, it came to
mean that a temporar ruler was entitled to exercise power in his own right".

In other words it conveys a principle enunciated by Jesus : 'Give to God

what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's'. Thus, what Pandit Nehru
wanted to convey through the use of the term secular was something
different from what is generally understood by that term all over the world.
The nearest equivalent of the Nehruian concept of secular state would
probably be non-denominational state, though I am mensioning this word
for want of any other more exact term. "The Letter Killeth", remarked Jesus,
and any public debate on technical subject is bound to result in confusion
worst confounded, if the main terms used therein are not precisely defined.

Modernisation

Can we define 'Modernisation' ?

'Modern' means of the present and recent times or characteristic of present

or recent time.

Conventionally, the term 'Modernism' denotes modern views or methods;

tendency in matters of religious beliefs to subordinated tradition to harmony
with modern thought, modern term or expression. In other words, it denotes
modern usage, expression or trait; modern spirit or character; a tendency to
adjust Christian dogma to the results of science and criticism; To
modernise is to adapt to the present time, conditions, needs, language, or
spelling; to adopt modern ways.

Obviously, this connotation is the natural consequence of the peculiar

historical background of Europe. It becomes irrelevant in case of a country
which had no Church, no organised priest-hood, no religious persecution,
and no conflict between religions and sciences.

To non-European countries, therefore, 'Modernisation' should simply mean

'equipment to solve the problems and meet the challenges of modern
times, with a view to ensure all-round progress in future'.

Westernisation Defined

And now, what is 'Westernisation'? Broadly, it means 'making oriental

people or country to adopt ideas, ideals, institutions, systems, structures,
living standards and values of life, of the West'.

Western Or Eastern

But it is not so easy to identify what exactly is 'Western'. So far as the ever-
expanding frontiers of human knowledge are concerned, it is noteworthy
that 'truth' has no caste, no community, no party, no class, no nation. It is
invariably universal, though the first persons to come across or realise such
truth may be belonging to some nation or class or region. For example, can
any one specify whether the following items are Western or Eastern ?

1. The well-known theorem of Pythagorus who was described by King

Clement of Alexandria as "the pupil of a Brahmin".

2. The atomic theory of the West which was anticipated thousands of

years ago by parmanuvad of Kanaad.

3. Dialecticism of Hegel and Marx, which was first envisaged and

systematised by Kapil Muni.
 

4. The fact that it is the Earth which moves round the Sun, and not the
Sun around the Earth, which was proved by Copernicus, and more
than one thousand years before Copernicus, by Arya Bhatta.

5. 'Materialism of Democratus' - of which the first ever Sutra was written

by Bruhaspathi centuries back ( 'prasatho sat` ajaayat' ) (out of non-
existence emerged existence).

6. Scientific concepts of Space and Time explained by Einstein and

enunciated first by Vendanta Philosophers.

7. The scientific definition of Matter given for the first time to modern
science by Heisenberg and to Hindus by Patanjali.

8. The Relativity of Time and Space, the unity of the universe, a Space-
Time Continuum, etc. established in ancient times by Vedantic
thinkers and proved this century by Einstein.

9. The process of scientific philosophical thinking initiated by

Parmeshthi Prajapitha of 'naasdeeya suktha' and climaxed by
Einstein.

As H.G. Chernyshevsky observed, "the principles explained and proved by

the present day sciences were already found and taken to be true by the
Greek philosophers, and much earlier - by the Indian thinkers".

 
All Knowledge Universal

To sum up:

All knowledge is universal; it is neither western nor eastern.

The same holds good about all sciences and technology. True the advance
of the West in this direction commenced after the European Renaissance,
and during this entire intervening period we could not register normal rate
of progress for the simple reason that we were throughout engaged in the
life-and-death struggle on a national plane; but it is an indisputable fact that
Hindu Sciences and Hindu Arts had migrated to Greece, via Arabia and
Persia, before the European Renaissance, which was preceded by the
Dark Age of Europe. Newton once remarked, "If I have been able to see
further than other, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

What is true of an individual, can be equally true of a nation. Today we

aspire to stand on the shoulders of the western giants; but the west could
raise these giants because, during Renaissance, entire intelligentsia of
Europe stood on the shoulders of Hindu giants. It is therefore, unrealistic to
describe any knowledge as western or eastern; it is all universal.