Why A Seminar On Golwalkar’s Views On Nationalism Is Justified 

The Indian Council of Philosophical Research has called for papers on the topic “The Concepts of Nation and Nationalism in the thoughts of M.S. Golwalkar to understand Guruji Golwalkar’s ‘much misunderstood and maligned’ concept of nationalism ‘in a holistic way’. If you ask why such a project is needed, then look no further than this recent article.

Titled “Decoding RSS ideologue M S Golwalkar’s nationalism”, the article makes much out of Golwalkar’s stringent condemnation of territorial nationalism and his criticism of caste system as being always negative. Before moving forward, it is important to remember that Golwalkar, though venerated in Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), is not considered infallible even by the most ardent swayamsevak. On the contrary, they all know that his ideas evolved over a period of time with changing circumstances.

Condemnation Of Territorial Nationalism

Golwalkar was indeed against territorial nationalism. So was Dr B R Ambedkar, the architect of India’s Constitution. Even before Pakistan came into being, Ambedkar had started calling Muslim population in Western Punjab as ‘Pakistan’. Even Jawaharlal Nehru, although averse to the name Hindu, put forward a cultural nationalism rather than territorial nationalism. Consider these words from The Discovery of India:

Note that Nehru stresses the Indian identity, not based on territory but on the cultural and historical processes. Even though he avoids the word ‘Hindu’, he highlights the word ‘Hindustani’, which the Congressmen were using more and more at that time, as historically and culturally incorrect. Note also that Nehru was a staunch believer in the Aryan invasion theory and hence he included ‘Aryans’ also as part of the absorbed and assimilated entities.

However, he emphasises the Indianness as something that is clearly cultural, historical and philosophical rather than territorial. Had our budding columnist taken the care to go further into Bunch of Thoughts (a book by Golwalkar), he would have found that Golwalkar himself praising Nehru for his idea of assimilating Christians and Muslims into the national organism. He refers to Nehru as having said that like Shakas and Huns, Christians and Muslims should be absorbed into Hindu society. Of course for Golwalkar, the term Hindu and Indian were synonymous, while Nehru would have used the term ‘Indian’ or ‘Hindi’ society.

Golwalkar had explained clearly to what kind of nation building he was opposed to:

Golwalkar was unhappy when a section of politicians, in the name of secularism, supported Muslims who refused to sing Vande Mataram.

But Golwalkar was happy and even proud that Muslims could occupy high positions in India. He said that it is on the “strength of this national tradition that a Muslim can and does adorn the highest position of Presidentship, become the Chief Justice of Supreme Court and hold important portfolios in the Central Cabinet and Internal and External Services”. He was not asking India to imitate Pakistan, citing the plight of Hindus there.

Golwalkar also said that there are Christians and Muslims, who are “well-meaning and patriotic at heart” and who respect the national ethos of India and who know their “individual religions do not mitigate against the national ethos”. To a question by some foreign Hindus as to whether they could include Muslims and Christians in their organisation, Golwalkar answered in the affirmative. Their religion is not at all a problem. They should “respect and accept their Hindu heritage and history”.

So, if one is to take a ‘holistic view’ then despite his harsh-worded criticism of ‘territorial nationalism’, the concept of nationalism Golwalkar advocated was completely inclusive. It asserted Hindu identity in the widest and all-inclusive meaning of the term. His vision did not require the exclusion of Muslims and Christians. On the contrary, he wanted Hindu unity and assimilation of Christians and Muslims into the national organism. This conception, as Nehru himself pointed out, has a historical, cultural, philosophical continuity, which is more primary than the mere geographical territory.

Caste And Social Inequalities

With regard to caste, again we see Golwalkar’s views evolving and changing. Our columnist simply highlights the sections where Golwalkar said that caste stopped conversions in mediaeval times and his critique of the argument that India fell before invaders because of caste. He gives arguments like Jaichand, who betrayed Prithviraj Chauhan, was from his own caste etc. However, he also criticises caste. That part has been left out. Golwalkar said caste has “degenerated beyond all recognition”. He said that caste system has “perversity aggravated over the centuries” and that the present polity has further intensified the rigidity and perversity of castes. It is not only polity, but also the religious mindset, and leaders too should be criticised for the present perversions of caste, according to him.

So, at the root of the malady of 'untouchability', he said, is the 'religious perversion', the belief that it is part of dharma. Despite various religious leaders trying to remove it, “the blot still remains”.

He narrated an atrocity and condemned it:

What about the destruction of the caste system itself?

He did not hold the caste system as sacrosanct to the Hindu society. He said very clearly that caste system would whither away:

Later, he stated:

In 1969, in Kerala, when asked if people who feel discriminated against could be given the sacred thread, he answers in the affirmative:

That said, not all views of Golwalkar had been accepted by his successors. For example, he had said that the caste-based reservations should be discontinued after a stipulated period of time. But Deoras, his successor, declared that they should continue until the communities themselves feel that they do not need them. Hence, if our columnist had taken a ‘holistic’ look, he would have found that while Golwalkar was sceptical of making caste the reason for Hindu defeats, he himself had criticised general so-called upper caste Hindu attitude towards scheduled communities. Not only caste, even in the social interactions within the household, Hindu affluent classes need to show sensitivity and humaneness he said. Consider this passage from the Bunch of Thoughts:

While Golwalkar had been very critical of expansionist tendencies and was totally against conversions, he did not demonise the missionaries. He gave due credit to whatever humanitarian work they were doing then. His condemnation of their conversions does not come in the way of appreciating whatever genuine services they rendered to humanity, even if their aim was conversion. He asked Hindus to imbibe the quality of service from them and work with our own brethren:

So his social vision is again not an elite casteist one as our columnist tries to portray. We see in Golwalkar a person with genuine concern for the marginalised and the downtrodden. There is not only a consistency, but an ever-growing, all-inclusive love in his vision. Take, for example, this personal letter he wrote to a then budding RSS worker in 1970. He writes:

Holy Cow!

What is a progressive columnist if he does not mention beef? It is well known that Golwalkar took forward the cow protection campaign as a mass movement in India. No less than Varghese Kurien, father of the White Revolution in India, who was totally opposed to cow slaughter ban, regarded Golwalkar as a great patriot after interacting with him. Kurien was able to see Golwalkar holistically despite the fact that they sat on a panel with totally opposing views. Kurien wrote:

Golwalkar also said that Hindus should not indulge in cow protection merely because Muslims kill the cow, and he characterised such an attitude as ‘negative’ and ‘reactionary’. Regarding beef consuming tribes, Golwalkar, who was touring the North East, explained in an interaction with RSS workers that it was wrong to blame them for that. Stopping of beef “should be voluntary and on their own”. Any work among tribal communities should be done from “an equal plane and not from a high pedestal”. He further criticised certain attitude of Indian government officials to impose their dress and tribal hair styles on the Nagas.

In the history of Indian socio-political thought there are two personalities, who have been depicted by a dominant group of Left academicians and a section of dominant establishment media as having an agenda. One is Dr Ambedkar. His quotes condemning Hinduism and criticising Hindu caste system have been repeated countless times and he had been portrayed as anti-Hindu. Another one is Golwalkar. His quotes have been selectively taken and portrayed as him being the stereotyped hate-peddler, venomous anti-Muslim pro-Brahminical Indian version of Nazi. Sadly, to maintain these stereotypes, the views of Golwalkar and Ambedkar themselves are either misrepresented, or hidden.

So which one of the representations is truer? Criticisms of Dr Ambedkar’s views on Hinduism and Hindus can be attributed to him for being a nationalist. He bitterly opposed caste-ridden Hinduism because he wanted Hindu unity. He converted to Buddhism and wrote in the Constitution that legally a Buddhist is a Hindu. So include all his criticism of Hindus, still his love for Hindus and his uncompromising patriotism, still stands. But it can never be the other way round.

The same is true in the case of Golwalkar. Most academics and media have picked no more than a few quotes from his book ‘We...’ or as our budding comrade columnist from Kerala does highly selective half sentences. A true student of Golwalkar should not refrain from studying all these aspects – his intemperate words and reactions, and as he grew, his all embracing vision and in all these an uncompromising love for his motherland.