Essays on Hindutva by A. Marx. (Book in Tamil. Adayalam Publishers).
(Page Last Updated :17 Dec 2002.)
Following is (my poor, unauthorized) translation from the book. A. Marx is one among the thespians in Tamil Nad. He is not known among the common media much. If you can read the book I bet you get lot more to think about. The following excerpt is one of the chapters that unfolds the Hindutva mystery. It is in a QA format. I'll try to add more as I do translate them.
Q: Muslims are after all invaders. Why are you justifying invaders?
History books taught us that 'Muslims are invaders'. If we think back the history we can realize that most of the known dominant races now in India were once entered as foreigners in to this country. In Vedas (1500-500 BC) there were descriptions about 'Thasus', a native race in those times. These native people were enslaved by the invaded 'Aaryan language speaking' people.
These 'Aaryan language speaking' people, called Aarayans, came via Iran to India as cowherding people; fought those native farmers; made them slaves; called them 'Shudras'-the untouchables.
Rajaputs are immigrants who came along with Turkish people to India. 'Chauhan', 'Solanki' and 'Parek' all were immigrants to the Indian landscape. Now why do you justify Muslims alone as Invaders.
In our school text books it was written and taught to us as 'Aaryan Entry' but 'Muslim Invasion'; Is it not sowing communalism in small kids' minds? Christians and Muslims living here were born here and lived here for generations. Because they converted to other religions how does it make them 'invaders'-'foreigners'. Our aim is not justify any religion. Politically motivated religious fanatism spread among the people here, caused thousands of lives. Youngsters, common people and even educated people are deviated from the real problems and falling prey to the communalistic views. These fables spread by journalists, academicians and communalists play a majore role in them. It is our duty to analyse and find the truth. To find the truth based on historical evidences, researches and statistics is our motive here. If anything said here are contradicted with proper evidences, we do will accept them.
Q: We have proofs that Muslims invaded and destroyed the Hindu temples?
Kajini Muhammed attacked Somnath Temple for 17 times and looted all the wealth; This is what the text books explain about. It is true.
In old India temples were not merely serving as a place of worship. They were also serving as the Forts and Treasuries of the Kings. Why do you think there exists a very deep Alligator stream around the Fort walls (Tamil: 'Agalzi') of the Tanjavur temple? All wars of the old kings were for looting the wealth, includig Kajini's. No Muslim King deliberately demolished the temples in their ruling territory or under the Hindu Kings who were under their rule. Muslim Kings demolished the Forts and Temples of the kings who conspired/fought against them. Otherwise there existed religious freedom. In Aourangaseb's period the Tamil Saint 'Kumaraguruparar' went to Kasi and served the Hindu religion for thirty years and established 'Kumaraswamy Mut' there.
The other side. Many of the existing Hindu temples were all built over after demolishing the Buddhist/Samana temples, including the Tanjavur (Pragatheeswarar) temple. Rajaraja Cholzan demolished the buddhist temples in Anuradhapuram, Polarunavai completely in his SriLankan war and named those places as 'JanaNathaMangalam'. In 1193-1210 A.D. a 'Bhamara' King called 'Subhedha Verman' attacked Gujarath and looted the Samana temples there. In the rule of Kashmiri Hindu king Harshawardhan, there was an officer for destroying temples ('Dhevothpatha Nayak'); This info can be found in the book 'Raja Tharangini' by Kalhanan. Don't try to relate temple demolitions to any particular religious people's act.
Q: But Muslims converted other people forcefully! We studied in our text books (school) that there was a tax called 'Jisya' levied on Hindus?
Again text books! Alright. Whatever the religion they belong to, Kings were always people's enemies; They always exploited the poor people by telling something. It is true that Muslim kings levied 'Jisya' tax on Hindus. The reason told for the 'Jisya' tax was to handle the expenses to maintain the Hindu temples. Don't think Muslim people were spared without tax. The tax on Muslims was 'Sakkath'. Women, children and Brahmins were exempted from the 'Jisya' tax. There is another travellers script note about a similar 'Jisya' levied on 'Jews' by the Hindu kings in 14th century.
Dont think that Hindus converted to Islam because of 'Jisya' (you can't escape because you will then get Sakkath). Hindus were never forcefully converted. This does not mean that there were no conversions at all. There were conversions to the Islam for the below reasons.
1. The low-caste people who suffered by the caste system were dejected about their living; They got attracted by the Suffist slogans 'All are brothers'.
2. Politically; To please the Moghul kings and to get positions in the Kingdom and for other similar political benefits some people converted to Islam. Sometimes some Zamindhars of doubtful nature might have converted. But in any case common people were never converted forcefully. That is the point.
Q: Allaudin Kilji restricted Hindu Zamindhars?
He also restricted Muslim 'Ikthars'. You are blaming him as a religious fanatic. An Islamic historian of his times 'Jiyabharuni' blames him that as a Muslim king or as a born Muslim, Kilji did not do not a single useful thing to his religion. For political reasons kings like Aourangeseb did forceful conversions on some zamindhars; We should not interpret them politically, as the mass of people were converted forcefully. Such conversions could be seen in par with the old kings' tactics to make marriage bonds with the other local kings, to avoid war, politically. My point is not to justify these tactics. Somewhere in the past some fanatic king did some fanatic act that is bad; Magnifying those acts into the current situation ignoring the whole environment, saddling it on this generation people and by that creating a blood thirst vengence on them should not happen.
Q: Hindu Kings might have been tyrants. But they did not force conversions not on even a single person?
We have to understand the basics of religions.
One: Islam, Christianity are Missionary Religions. In Hinduism the general concept is that our present life is destined by our deeds or misdeeds in our previous births ('Karma'). So Hindu reiligion faces a problem while attempting to convert a person; which caste in the caste hierarchy he/she has to be put in?
Two: The name 'Hindu' religion is itself is given recently to the combination of religions like vedic, 'vaideeha', 'sanadhana', 'varanaasiarama'. This statement is widely accepted by all Hindu spoke persons including Vivekanandha, Sangarachariar and the like. In our whole history Hindu Kings with the influence of Brahmins, brought a lots of independant races under their rule and the caste system hierarchy, by branding some caste name on them. By this, those free people of independant race were exploited and made as slaves of the King's society.
Three: Except conversion, Hindu religion is in par with any other religions, in demeaning other religions and in executing blood thirsty killing of other religious people. You all know, that our religious literatures appraising the act of Pandian King, who killed eight thousand Jainas by inserting a sharp rod inside the anus (called 'Kalzuviletrudhal'). In his poem 'Devaaram', 'Thirunaavukkarasar' scolded Jainas(Jains) like 'people who have bad breaths ("OOthai Vaayagal");who do not take bath("Paasippal Maasu meyyar"); roaming monkeys ("Mandhi poal thiriyum Andhahargal"). 'Thondaradi Podi Aalwar' requested to God to cut the heads of Jains and Sakkias ('Koodu mel thalaiyai aange aruppadhai karumang kandaai Aarangama nagarulane'. On top of all, 'Sambandhar' prayed God to give him the heart of raping Sakkain women. There are evidences too for all these things been executed with the help of cholza, pandia kingdoms.
Four: Though hindu religion is not a missionary religion, lot of other race people were brought in to the religion and kept in the caste hierarchy. Don't forget about the big movements conducted by Hidutva activists, to bring back the tribals into the Hindu religion; these tribes actually converted to christianity and Islam to go against the caste deprivation they suffered in Hindu religion. It was pointed out by magazines like Frontline, Outlook(Jan 99) that these big movements by Hindutva activists were acting in the background on the attacks of christians (1998-99) recently. We should not forget missions like 'Hare Rama Hare Krishna' converting foreigners in foreign countries and Hindutva activists in here having close relationships with them.
Q: In the later periods of Naayakkar, Maraatti Kings there was right to maintain Islamic temples. Even many Muslims served as 'Chenapathies'!
True it is. As we already mentioned all similar acts were for political reasons (in both hindu and muslim religions). Even in Islamic kings period Hindu temples were maintained; that's why old temples are still existing in all over the country. We should not forget this. High caste hindus such as Rajputs, Brahmins served Muslim kings as higher officials. You would have known about the officer 'Raja Maan Singh' who served the king Akbar.
In the period of 'Muhammed Bin Thuklak', there was a Hindu land lord 'Bharaan' who complained to Thuklak that another local islamic leader 'Alisha Naadhu' was torturing people under his rule. Thuklak confiscated the area from 'Naadhu' and gave it to 'Bharaan'. Naadhu's brothers agitated against Thuklak for this.
When there rose an issue between Hindu saints and Muslims regarding the Hanuman-Kaarthik temple in Ayodhya, the then Delhi King 'Wajith Alisha' acted in favour of Hindus. In the military action conducted by 'Alisha' on this issue, more than three hundred Muslims were killed.
Q: Let the old issues be it. Come to the recent History. Is it not Muslim-League who caused the India-Pakistan seperation?
What is 'Nation'? How 'Nationalism' is been built among the people; Was it there a country called 'India' before the entry of Brittish?;Any part of the people, if they like to go apart and live freely then let them doing so would be the correct sense? This argument should be started with all the above questions and discussed in detail. Because of time constraints we will come straightly to the point you asked for.
In the intial periods of our freedom movements both Hindus and Muslims fought together against the Brittish. Particularly in 1857, in First Freedom War, the part of Muslim Kings was an important one. But when the Hindu leaders of the intial stage tried to build an all Indian Nationalism against the Brittish Rule they upheld the 'Indian Ancientness' against the 'Modern degradations' of the Brittish. They put forward the 'Indian Ancientness' as the 'Hindu Ancientness' itself. They started movements like 'Aarya Samaaj', 'Varnaashirama Sabha', ' Hindhu Maha Sabha' to enlive this concept of 'Hindu Ancientness'. The current 'Hindutva' and 'Hindu Raashtiram' concepts were put forward in this 'Hindu Maha Sabha' only;This is a truth that they themselves do accept. Lead by leaders like 'Saavarkkar' and 'Bhai Paramanandhar', these movements acted as the ideological force among the Hindus, before the entry of Gandhiji.
'Bhai Paramanandhar', one of 'Hindu Maha Sabha' leader, was one among the people, who first declared that the India should be parted in to two countries on the basis of religion. He told that current Pakistan territory should be combined with the Afghanistan area above the 'Sindhu' and a big Muslim kingdom should be founded. "Hindus living there should come here. Hindus living here should go there". He told that he got this idea around 1905 itself. In 1937, in Ahmedabad Hindu Maha Sabha conference, the then leader Saavakar declared " We cannot consider India as a single country. There are two important countries within India. One is the nation of Hindus; Another is the nation of Muslims".
Please note the following. Do you know when did Muslim leak put forward the demand that 'Muslims need a seperate nation' ? It was in 1940 only, in Lahore conference. It is the truth that Hindu Maha Sabha put forward this demand before that.
Q: How come Hindus told to divide a country in which they are the majority? Could not believe this. What is the benefit they get by this?
I don't come to say that Hindus told this. The Hindu Maha Sabha leaders told this. For an ordinary man, he has no Hindu feelings at all. If at all he had some feelings of some group then he might have got mostly the caste feeling. When upper-caste Hindu forces wanted to get back the power from the Brittish and keep it with them they had to integerate the otherwise divided people by the caste system, and integerate them in the name of 'Hindus'. To integerate Hindus and get the strength of the low-caste people who were against them on the caste-system it was necessary for the upper-caste ruling Hindus to show them an 'Islamic opponent'.
You have to understand another thing in this historically. With the Brittish came the Election Politics and Census (1911). In this Census, statistics were collected seperately in detail about Muslims, Christians, Caste-Hindus, Scheduled caste etc. In this situation (high) Caste-Hindus felt that if Pakistan too combined with India then the population of Scheduled caste and Muslims together will exceed the Hindus count thereby affecting the Caste-Hindus to gain power in Election Politics. To circumvent this they followed two stategies. One: Spreading the view to consider even scheduled caste people as Hindus. In a special meeting governed for this on February 1934, in Allahabad, this idea was discussed. Aaarya Samajis and the rest of the Hindu leaders opposed for considering Scheduled caste people as Hindus. Though for political gains leaders stressed on this idea. Finally Hindu Maha Sabha passed a resolution that we should not deny the scheduled-caste people's rights to draw water from the common well. It also added that "but They should not wear sacred thread (Yankyopaveedham-i.e.'Poonool')". Two: High caste ruling Hindus calculated that if we seperate Islamic majority places in to a seperate country then in the remaining place we can construct 'Hindu Raaj' and can rule. Truth is like this; but you are blaming just Muslim League alone for the divide.
Q: You mean Muslims have no part at all in the divide?
Domineering upper-caste Hindu forces thought they can capture the power and rule if there is a seperate country for Hindus. Similarly Islamic upper class and Muslim League leaders thought of ruling a seperate Muslim country. Not all Muslim leaders or religious leaders gathered momentum by patronizing these views.
For e.g. Hyder Ali, Tippu Sultan were fought fiercely against the British. In folk songs about the 1857 freedom movements, 'Moulvees' like Ahmadullah, Inayath Ali were sung in par with Hindu warriors like Nana Saheb and Jansi Rani. In 1885 when congress founded, upper caste Muslims like 'Sir Saiyed' told Muslims to not to take part in congress; Instead to get reservations by playing subservient. At the same time Muslim leaders lik 'Moulana Rasheed Ali Kangohi' called on Muslims to "Join in congress and fight against the British together with Hindu brothers". Such different attitudes existed among the Muslims forces those continued till the divide. Political forces like 'Jinna' supported the divide(against congress). Religious forces like 'Moulana Abul Kalam Azad' supported congress.
Islam is not against 'United Nationalism'. On the religous basis 'Ulamaas' added strength to unity. Muhammed Nabih himself stressed to have 'United Nationalism' with other neighbour religions when he went to Madhina. 'Moulana Hussain Ahmed Madhani', a Jamad leader, said, "Nation (Quam) is a concept related to land barriers. 'Ummah' or 'Millad' is a concept related to religion. We should not confuse both of them. Two relisions living together inside a same boundary was never against Islamic conccepts".
Q: You told Muslim upper class people like 'Sir Saiyed' supported British, against congress? Is it not treason?
I'm not saying what Sir Saiyed did is right. But we should know lot of groups did act like this at that time in order to get their rights against Hindu domineering forces who were oppressing them so far. Not only Sir Saiyed; but Justice party, Thanthai Periyar and Dr. Ambetkar were too in the list.
My point is this. One: Domineering forces, whatever they may be, either Hindu forces or Muslim forces, they act on behalf of their own self benefit only. Two: Muslim religious leaders and Muslim people were not seperatists. Phrases like 'All Muslims are single opinonated; single acted; All Muslims vote single mindedly' are one among the fables against Muslims. Among Muslims there were lot of different views. Political leaders and religious leaders were not in sync all the time.
Q: You told that Indian History itself written with Hindu communalistic biased view. History is just a compilation of the past events. How come this could be biased?
History is in a kind of 'story telling'. Two persons accounting an incdent they saw, individually, would end up in two different versions. History is also like that. Though the incidents are same, when some events among them are chosen according to the person's personal liking and disliking, and compiled with some political motive, then two different histories about the same incident are emerging.
It was Whites like 'James Mill' who wrote the Indian History in the earlier stages. 'Divide and Rule' is the British political agenda. So when they classified the Indian history they divided it like 'Hindu India', 'Muslim India' and the 'British India'. This gives an implied meaning that in the beginning it was 'Hindu India'; later turned 'Muslim India' after the Muslim invasion; then it turned out to be the modern 'British India'. But modern historians say that it is wrong to classify Indian History on religious basis. It will be appropriate to put like 'Old India', Medieval India' and 'Modern India'. Jawaharlal Nehru too categorized like this.
When Indian Nationalists started writing 'Indian History' they uphled our heritage, against the white's 'Indian History'. To bind an emotional bondage in our nationalism, domineering upper-caste Hindus put forward 'Hindu India' as our goal. This act led to all various 'Historical lies' about Muslims. It still continues in fields like education, jouranalism and mass media where upper-caste is domineering. Because of these powerful mediums these lies were sowed among the common mass deeply. Lot of socialist thinkers, historians and leftist thinkers doing their best to skin out such 'historical lies'. In 'Babri Masjid' issue when Hindutva religious fanatics tried to twist the history these people strived hard to bring out the truth.
Q: One final question.. Tell us about this Kashmir issue. Why this much rights given to just a union territory, Kashmir? The demand of parties like RSS, to remove the section 370 is perfectly right. Isn't it?
We have to look Kashmir issue historically. I'll tell this story.
Dokra kings, ruling Kashmir after 1846, were British puppets. These kings were Hindus. But 77% of Kashmir valley population are Muslims. Kashmiri people rose against the tyranny of Dokra Kings in 1931. As a result the then government deputed a committee for political reforms. On this background 'National Conference' party headed by 'Sheik Abdhullah' was inaugurated. This party put forward the 'New Kashmir' demand including many othere democratic demands in 1944. In 1945 the movement to dethrne 'Dokra Kings' was initiated. Raja Harisingh suppressed the movement by iron hands. In this situation on 1947 Aug 15 India got the change of rule. This change of rule accompanied the division of country based on religion. The Indian government announced on Oct 5, 1947 that there would be an opinion poll to find out the peopl's opinion in territories like Jodhpur, Jinahad, Hyderabad and Kashmir. Based on the opinion polls integeration of these terriotories to India would be decided.
Raja Harisingh still was not having taken a decision on integerating Kashmir to India. In this situation, on 1947 Oct 26 North-West border races of Kashmir invaded into Kashmir with the support of pakistan. Unable to resist their attack Raja Harisingh sought Indian Government's help. Indian government sent troops to Kashmir with a condition (pact)demanding the accession of Kashmir to India and confiscated Kashmir. Due to the people's agitation against the accession pact, Harisingh fled Kashmir.
Jawaharlal Nehru promised to conduct opinion polls after bringing law and order into control. But he never kept his promise. On this basis there developed a chance of a war between India and Pakistan.
India brought this issue(Jan 1, 1948) to the United Nations' Security Council. United Nations deputed a council (Jan 20, 1948) to investigate the Kashmir issue. Based on the council's reports United Nations passed the 'Kashmir Resolution'(Aug 13, 1948). The resolution stressed on 1. Cease fire 2. Revoking the troops and 3. Opinion polls.
While UN taking actions India formed a 'Political Committee'. Indian government promised "This effort is to involve the Jammu-Kashmir people into the political law making. Otherwise if the people want to go seperately then it will be according to their will. This political committee will not be an obstacle"(Nov 21, 1949). Section-370 was formed and Kashmir was joined with India. Kashmir people were given independant rule except in external affairs, defense and communication.
I just want to remind you about what N.Gopala Samy Iyyengar told about Section-370 at that time, in political committee. He said "War still continues in Kashmir. Some places are at enemies hands; United Nations too intervened. Indian government gave some assurance to the Kashmiri people. In this situation it is unavoidable to give some special rights to Kashmiri people through Section-370".
This is the story of Section-370. How can we blame the government for section-370. Instead it will be the right thing to demand the same rights given to the Kashmiri people to be given to all National races of the Indian continent. That would be the correct social reaction.
Q: Are the promises given by the Indian government to the Kashmiri people were kept?
No. Not at all. Kashmir people were cheated.
Nov 5, 1951; Political standing committe convened.
Nov 5, 1952. Political law accepted.
Aug 9, 1953. Sheik Abdullah was arrested on the charges of indulging on seperatist activities. He was imprisoned for 23 years.
Feb 1954 : After many important people were arrested, then union resolution was passed.
March 27, 1957. Nehru declared that opinion polls could not be conducted.
Q: But still Section-370 exists? How.
Just for the name sake. Now all the rights under that section were abolished. Since 1954 this was done in steps. Slowly the Central government strengthened its powers on Kashmir.
1965. Constitutional law is been corrected to remove the condition that requires a person to be a resident in Kashmir for 25 years to become the Chief Minister of Kashmir.
1984. Section 248 was corrected. By this correction Indian Parliament took the right to insticate laws related to Kashmir on movements and agitations. Following this came two rules put by Indian government on Kashmiri people. 1. 'Jammu-Kashmir Riot Act'(July 90). 2. Correction on 'Riot inducting Act' (1991). Through these acts Indian government axalted severe restrictions on Kashmiri peoples lives and rights. Kashmiri people were forced to live in 'curfew's in the name of 'Eradication of Terrorism'.
Q: Kashmir Muslims can buy land anywhere in India. But Indians cannot buy land in Kashmir. RSS activists are asking whether this is right? What would you say?
This rule is applicable not only to Muslims in Jamm-Kashmir but to all people, including Hindus living there. This rule was brought by Dokra Kings. Think it in our Tamil Nadu scenario. By the money exploited from the Tamil people, North Indian Parsi-Pania-Setes buy lands and properties. How come this could be right? 'Whoever can buy land anywhere he wants' works in favour of the North Indian dominating class. Instead 'In each and every state, only the native people can buy properties' - would be the right demand.