03-08-2008, 09:04 PM
Husky said in another thread:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Savarkar tried to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean he wanted Hindus out of the way. It simply means, rather than being the whole, Hinduism should become a small but significant part of the whole; that's all. It's not annihilation but assimilation.
Why is this necessary? Because Hinduism is so vast it's subject to numerous interpretations, and therefore confusing. Gandhi's interpretation restricts Hinduism to ahimsa and satya, whereas Mr. X may have his own interpretation. All this leads to chaos, as we've seen times without number. Gandhi's Hinduism became the official political ideology of the Hindu people, and we all know the good it's done for us. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's therefore imperative that we 'fit' Hinduism into the framework of Hindutva, doing which these interpretations will cease to have an effect on the national and racial consciousness.
Moreover, what matters at this stage is NOT religion but a solid political ideology. The secularists, Muslims, Christians, and commies all have an ideology, which is why they succeed. What's the ideology of the Hindus? Not many Hindus can answer that. In fact, even those claiming to be political Hindus have differing views on this matter. That's why it's very important to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. Anyone can be Hindu, even the most anti-national traitor like Lallo. <b>But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, because at the end of the day, religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.</b>
It's in this connection that the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva must be understood. Not in terms of division, but as a convenient method to find out who subscribes to our ideology. There are many Hindus, even sanyasins, who don't believe in Hindutva, like the swaminarayan sect. They actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat. OTOH, there are non-Hindus and even atheists who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.
In conclusion, these are the following points:
#1 We distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean we're dividing the Hindu society. We distinguish in order to understand the political situation better, NOT because we want to divide. A complex whole is often divided into many parts in order to facilitate understanding. This is the scientific approach.
#2 This distinction <b>helps in weeding out worthless people</b> who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.
#3 With this distinction, one can do away with the confusion that arises from the multiple interpretations of Hinduism. Hinduism will continue to be a part of Hindutva, but without exerting a powerful influence on politics. Hindutva will handle the political situation of the Hindus, while Hinduism will be restricted to religion, spirituality and the like. So Hindutva and Hinduism will co-exist, neither is a threat to the other, neither will disappear. This is a sensible approach, because any ideology subject to multiple interpretations is quite suicidal in the political arena. It leads to total chaos. In politics, there has to be a clear-cut agenda, solid principles and foundation, and a clear political vision. Hinduism with its innumerable schools of thought can never fit the bill, whereas Hindutva can.
These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And when sureshmoorthy says "us Hindus", who/what does he mean? Well, he makes it clear here - where he differentiates between Hinduism and Hindutva, and likes to (ideally) get rid of the 'religion' in Hinduism and make it a "non-religious, political, nationalism" (because Hindus are actually in the way of his vision, you see):<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Even Savarkar tried to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean he wanted Hindus out of the way. It simply means, rather than being the whole, Hinduism should become a small but significant part of the whole; that's all. It's not annihilation but assimilation.
Why is this necessary? Because Hinduism is so vast it's subject to numerous interpretations, and therefore confusing. Gandhi's interpretation restricts Hinduism to ahimsa and satya, whereas Mr. X may have his own interpretation. All this leads to chaos, as we've seen times without number. Gandhi's Hinduism became the official political ideology of the Hindu people, and we all know the good it's done for us. <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> It's therefore imperative that we 'fit' Hinduism into the framework of Hindutva, doing which these interpretations will cease to have an effect on the national and racial consciousness.Moreover, what matters at this stage is NOT religion but a solid political ideology. The secularists, Muslims, Christians, and commies all have an ideology, which is why they succeed. What's the ideology of the Hindus? Not many Hindus can answer that. In fact, even those claiming to be political Hindus have differing views on this matter. That's why it's very important to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. Anyone can be Hindu, even the most anti-national traitor like Lallo. <b>But only nationalists can be Hindutvadis. So our job is to strengthen Hindutva rather than Hinduism, because at the end of the day, religious, temple-going Hindus are of no use to the Hindu society, if their political views conflict with the interests of the Hindu people.</b>
It's in this connection that the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva must be understood. Not in terms of division, but as a convenient method to find out who subscribes to our ideology. There are many Hindus, even sanyasins, who don't believe in Hindutva, like the swaminarayan sect. They actively campaigned against Modi in Gujarat. OTOH, there are non-Hindus and even atheists who believe in Hindutva. Who's our friend here, the religious Hindu or the non-religious Hindutvadi? It's a no-brainer.
In conclusion, these are the following points:
#1 We distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. That doesn't mean we're dividing the Hindu society. We distinguish in order to understand the political situation better, NOT because we want to divide. A complex whole is often divided into many parts in order to facilitate understanding. This is the scientific approach.
#2 This distinction <b>helps in weeding out worthless people</b> who, though calling themselves Hindus, are more dangerous than the enemy. Swami Agniwesh is one such instance, and there are many more. All the political parties, media, various activists, rights groups etc. are Hindus, but are more anti-Hindu than the enemy.
#3 With this distinction, one can do away with the confusion that arises from the multiple interpretations of Hinduism. Hinduism will continue to be a part of Hindutva, but without exerting a powerful influence on politics. Hindutva will handle the political situation of the Hindus, while Hinduism will be restricted to religion, spirituality and the like. So Hindutva and Hinduism will co-exist, neither is a threat to the other, neither will disappear. This is a sensible approach, because any ideology subject to multiple interpretations is quite suicidal in the political arena. It leads to total chaos. In politics, there has to be a clear-cut agenda, solid principles and foundation, and a clear political vision. Hinduism with its innumerable schools of thought can never fit the bill, whereas Hindutva can.
These are the reasons why any practical man will try to distinguish between Hinduism and Hindutva. <b>It's not to divide the Hindu society any further, but to make the goal and the path clear.</b>